pothos.org

Hello,Marriage in ATG's day seems primarily to have been a political move to gain some kind of advantage later but I can't seem to see any type of political advantage to be gained in Alexander's association with Barsine, did they not have a child, "Hercules"?Why would Parmenion have encouraged Alexander's association with Barsine, a much older woman?Whilst on the subject of Memnon, is it likely to assume that, in spite of his initial reluctance to fight a battle at Granikus(he wanted to burn everything between him and Alexander)- he would have been nevertheless present at the battle and have fought there?Spithridates certainly was...(and nearly polished off Alexander)Best regards,
Dean.

There was a political benefit, perhaps two.In the first place, if Alexander wanted to rule the east, he had to behave like an oriental. This meant that he had to present himself with a Persian wife. Barsine, a widow, was the perfect match, because she happened to speak Greek and had spend some time at the Macedonian court.Another benefit was that she was the daughter of Artabazus (an important courtier of Darius) and a the sister of the Persian admiral Pharnabazus. Alexander gave a signal to these two men: if they surrendered, they would not be punished but keep their position. It did not work, both officers remained loyal to their king until Darius' death.There's a third element to this story. Alexander KEPT Barsine as his mistress at least two, perhaps three years after the death of Darius. He may simply have loved her. There is no evidence for this idea, but I like it.Jona

Hello,I must admit that I find the whole thing extremely poetic. I mean Alexander marries the wife of his deceased enemy- and gives him a successor.From one viewpoint- Barsine was an excellent choice- she was bilingual and Alexander was looking to step into Darius' shoes.From another viewpoint, Alexander was conquering Asia through a series of campaigns etc and I don't see why he would have "needed" Barsine really. Although Alexander did try to take on Persian customs and having a Persian wife once the conquest was over would help him I suppose make the populace see him in a better light.Maybe Alexander did feel genuine affection for the woman, on the other hand she was the mother of his son- so this may have been another reason maybe why their relationship continued after Darius's death.Best regards,
Dean.

Hi Dean,
there is also the argument, which makes good sense, that Barsine never had a child to Alexander. A placement of Heracles during the war of the successors makes him several years older than he should've been?Tarn makes the observation many years ago. Not sure what the return response was though!cheers!

As there was no actual ceremony of marriage with Barsine, many consider her a mistress rather than a wife. Because of the way all of Alexander's affairs are written, I am inclined to believe that officially, Roxanne is his first wife. But I also believe that Barsine is his mistress, mother of his son, Heracles, and that the wife of King Darius, who was supposed to have been pregnant at the time of her death, is also the mother of a possible second child fathered by Alexander. It is often said that Alexander did not force Roxanne, but that he decided to marry her. From that I believe that he had had sexual intimacies with both Barsine and King Darius's wife, and then finally married Roxanne, who is his first official wife. I believe that Alexander did father King Darius's wife to have an heir to the throne and would have legitimized him after his birth had he lived. I believe that contrary to other's opinions that Alexander was always thinking of successors to his rule. No better successor than the wife of King Darius, despite the eunuch's famous overpleading his innocence to King Darius. Smart eunuch! Why antagonize the King?

We have no evidence of Alexander having an affair with Darius' wife. While some of the vulgate speculate that she died while pregnant (more likely from female problems) no one suggests that Alexander was the reason. That would have been a crime against the Persian kingship so he would not have done so as Darius was still alive, particularly in light of his plans to assume the Kingship. Roxane would qualify as his first wife, but the marriage to Statiera/Parysatis were the important ones.Barsine was never more than a mistress to whom he gave a son almost as apologia for not marrying her, right around the same time he married Roxane. He would have gained nothing by marrying her. At the time Alexander no doubt had intentions of marrying one of Darius' daughters as his first wife thus assuring himself of legitimate heirs to his merged Kingdoms. Roxane was a political expediency he had not anticipated.Now as to whether Alexander actually loved any of his wives or his mistress...

"That would have been a crime against the Persian kingship"Yes, but the opposite is also true: a new oriental ruler who wished to show he was in charge of the kingdom, always entered what western scholars call the harem. For example, Darius the Great married several wives of Cambyses; and the Bible tells how a son of king David revolted, and his first act was to sleep with one of his father's concubines. If Alexander wanted to show the eastern world that he was the new king, and that Darius was yesterday's man, he had to have intercourse with Darius's wife.Yet, you are right that we don't have certainty about all this.Jona

I think that Barsine may have been more than a mistress, she was a "woman of the household" or second-class wife, and possibly played a part in running Alexander's Persian household. As such, she would have been an element in normalising Alexander's status as far as the Persians were concerned; as Jona & Nick have pointed out, women played an important part in the Persian court and Alexander would have needed to continue some aspect of this. Barsine would have been a good choice as she was bilingual and knew something of Macedonian society. This would explain why Parmenio was involved - it wasn't just a matter of emotion but also of political expediency. Susan

"If Alexander wanted to show the eastern world that he was the new king, and that Darius' was yesterday's man, he had to have intercourse with Darius's wife." - JonaYes, but this was very early in the campaigns - can we accept that Alexander had already immersed himself so deeply into Persian culture, had this understanding, and acted upon it? Adultery, for that is what it would have been, was considered a serious crime in the Greek/Macedonian world - probably one of the closest things they had to a "sin."Plutarch has a tale concerning Alexander:"A girl was brought to him late in the evening with the intent that she should spend the night with him, and he asked her, GÇ£Why at this time?GÇ¥ She replied, GÇ£I had to wait to get my husband to go to bedGÇ¥; whereupon Alexander bitterly rebuked his servants, since, owing to them, he had so narrowly escaped becoming an adulterer."I know you might say that Plutarch was a moralist and not a historian. But I'm discussing Alexander's morals here, and I'm also not quite prepared to dismiss *everything* Plutarch wrote that isn't confirmed elsewhere. That would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater!Best regards,Linda Ann

Hello all...
Whatever Parmenion's motives were for suggesting Barsine (if he did) as a mistress, it's hard to imagine that he cared about "normalizing" Alexander to the Persians, particularly at the time this is supposed to have happened. More probably, if this happened at all, his motives lay elsewhere. And, as always, we can only guess at what those might have been.
Regards
Halil

Hello Linda,
I am quite in agreement with you. Neither am I ready to ignore Plutarch's work. In my opinion Plutarch has his place in our study.True, the man was using Alexander as a model which he hoped to use to make a moral point but there are details to be found that Plutarch would not have made up to define more fully some virtue he considered important.Best regards,
Dean.

Is it possible that Barsine was Alexander's responsibility, as her husband was dead? And he also was entitled to all his vanquished enemy's chattels, which is why Parmenion, maybe more used to Philip's way of war, suggested it. However, Alexander Linda Ann, where is that Plutarch story from? I thought I knew all the "romantic" ones.. Maybe he just didn't fancy her... :)RegardsLinda

It's from Plutarch's Moralia, Volume III, the chapter on Sayings of Kings and Commanders - Susan now has the sayings of Alexander and Philip up on her website, and someone else just posted this particular one in a new thread, along with another one also from the "Sayings.". There may be other similar stories elsewhere in the various volumes - I'm working my way through transcribing them all right now. :-)Best Regards,Linda Ann

Hi Dean,We know that Memnon was at the Granicus, although he (obviously) managed to escape with his life.What I can't recall is whether he stayed on the hill with the Greek mercenaries, or whether he joined the Persian cavalry lines on the bank of the river.All the bestMarcus

Hi Smitty,The problem with everything that Tarn said about Alexander's affairs was that Tarn inflicted his morality on Alexander, and therefore argued away anything that didn't fit. That's why he argued away the existence of Bagoas, because his upstanding, early 20th century style of Alexander couldn't have any sort of same-sex attachment; and it's why he argued away Barsine's child - a child out of wedlock didn't fit in to Tarn's morality.All the bestMarcus