Re: Testing St Mark

[calesstheness]

If and when, and if it be so that it is his body, the dilemma is where to leave him? Does Venice have the right to host alone his remains in the light that it was originally claimed in error or it's possession involved some element of subterfuge and deception?
Should he be sent back to Alexandria on the acceptance that it is his only resting place? Or to Macedonia being the customary ancestral burial grounds for member of his clan and kins?
Why not further his conquest by bringing him over to America, and affording him a chance to see a bigger world more than what he thought existed? After all this is a large territory that he surely would be interested in coming to...
Why not gold anodize his remains, put it on a box, and shoot it out in space with the next Voyager mission or run, and simply call that mission, "Babylon and Beyond"...
Or for the sake of fairness to all nations desiring to have the honor and fair share of hosting the remains of his body, why not put him inside a communication/internet/mapping satellite orbiting the planet, with a trajectory that will possibly criscross most land regions, so we can all have a share of his presence, and he in turn can feel the pulse of this place that he left behind, even in just murky blips of data sent by this forum and others, and let it's natural trajectory decay decides where it finally drops and where he rests?
What made us think he wants to be buried just in the land, and not in space? And if we shoot him out into an unknown space quadrant, perhaps some day, (if and) when our descendants reaches that region
wouldn't it be a great surprise to find the unhabitants speaking Greek or Macedonian?
Happy New Year to everyone!... And may 2005 finds us more certain of where his body truly lies.....

[xxx]

Burial need not indicate 'under the ground.' Undisturbed perhaps would be a better term. These bones have been dug up three times at least already. It seems fairly obvious to me that this tale of Alexander wanting to be interred in Egypt comes straight from Ptolemy. How else could he justify what he did? (The swiping of St. Mark's remains has a similar justification). As for the offer of the Regency, ah well, Kings could tweak the truth no matter what Arrian believed :-)I find it logical that Alexander would wish the same funerary rites as his significant other.Regards,Tre

[Taphoi]

It is difficult for Alexander's request to be taken to Egypt to have been in Ptolemy's book, because Arrian doesn't mention it and he specifically notes that Ptolemy supplied no more details of Alexander's death than he himself gives (7.26.3). If this is Ptolemy's propaganda, why wasn't it in his own book and why did nobody ever contradict or question the story at the time? Best wishes, Andrew

[Halil]

Not following your reasoning here. Are you saying that if Ptolemy had said in his history that Alexander wanted to be buried in Egypt then it would have been a lie, but the fact that he did not, makes it the truth? Arrian states that he chose to end his history with Alexander's death since that is the point which both Aristobulus and Ptolemy end their histories. In other words, Ptolemy said nothing about what happened *after* Alexander's death. Arrian decides to include a few stories to show that he is aware of them but states also that he does not give them any credence. Unfortunately, none of them make any reference to Alexander's wishes as to where he should be buried. It is entirely possible that Alexander said nothing about this since he probably could not have imagined anyone doing anything other than what was normally the burial rights of the King. Perhaps Ptolemy wrote no more because beyond this point, he would have had to have started bending the truth to justify his own actions.As to no one contradicting the story of Alexander's desire to be buried in Egypt, we don't know that they didn't. Several key witnesses died very early on in the proceedings, certainly before they could write their account of what went on. It's likely that a great deal more went on behind closed doors than ever made it into anyone's history, true or false, all of which is probably lost to us forever.Best regardsHalil

[xxx]

Greetings Andrew:Arrian would not have addressed such an issue in his book on Alexander - it would have been in his other missing work.As for Ptolemy, it is doubtful the piece on Alexander is the only thing he wrote, or that he did not influence what others wrote. Ptolemy had his own flatters that portrayed him as heroic, which Arrian addresses. Events often backwrite their own histories, and this one is too good to be believed...Regards,Tre

[Taphoi]

Hi Halil,
I am saying that, if Ptolemy invented the story that Alexander wished his body to be taken to Egypt, then he would have had to repeat that story in his book or he would have undermined his own credibility. On the other hand, if the story were true or invented by someone else, then Ptolemy need not have mentioned it. Arrian implies he did not mention it, therefore Ptolemy did not invent the story. It is difficult to see why anyone else would have had a motive to invent the story. Furthermore, the story reaches us through different primary sources. Justin and Curtius are probably using Cleitarchus, but the Will of Alexander in the Romance seems to have been written by a Rhodian within a couple of decades of Alexander's death. This makes it difficult for the story to be an invention. It is also surprising that nobody contradicted such a hugely important point, because we do know that more minor inaccuracies in other people's accounts were contradicted by the ancient sources: for example, Ptolemy wrote that he was not present at the Mallian siege, though other writers had said he saved Alexander's life there. There is nothing surprising in Alexander having wished to be taken to Ammon, because it is certain that he deferred to the Egyptian god in other matters, such as the heroic or divine status of the dead Hephaistion. I show in my book that our sources imply that the wish of Alexander to be taken to Egypt was initially agreed by the Macedonian Assembly at Babylon shortly after his death. That is probably why the matter was uncontroversial for our ancient sources. Unfortunately, some modern writers have seemingly been unaware of some of the evidence and have applied cold principles of power politics to a situation that was in real life governed by tsunamis of emotion.Hi Tre,
I hope you will forgive me for saying that the idea that the conclusion implied by all the evidence is "too good to be true" is not really a very academically sound principle on which to interpret history. Though everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. Best wishes, Andrew

[xxx]

Logic is never academically unsound - more of it should be applied to Alexander study. Drop that and the next thing you know I'm going to have to believe in Amazons, talking snakes, Alexander thinking he was a god and Ian Worthington One has to be very careful in interpreting source material and I don't come to my conclusions unsoundly despite our disagreement. One has to wonder why that body was going to Macedon if everyone agreed that Alexander wanted to go to Ammon. Tusnami of emotions? No, cold hard politics. Whereas I would like to say they missed their King and wanted to honor his memory and his wishes, actions did prove the rather the opposite, or would you say this is academically unsound too?Regards,Tre

[Halil]

Hello AndrewI'm repeating parts of your response so that I can stay focused... I am saying that, if Ptolemy invented the story that Alexander wished his body to be taken to Egypt, then he would have had to repeat that story in his book or he would have undermined his own credibility. Not at all. If the story had become so accepted by the time Ptolemy wrote (which presumably it had) then also he would have had no need to mention it. He would only have needed to repeat the story if it were being contested at that time, but as you say, it had become uncontroversial. If the story were a lie of his own that he had become uncomfortable about, or, as you say, if invented by someone else, then again, he had no need to mention it. Arrian implies he did not mention it, therefore Ptolemy did not invent the story. Ptolemy may or may not have invented the story, but that can't be deduced from the fact that Arrian doesn't say that he did, or from the fact that he doesn't mention it himself. It is difficult to see why anyone else would have had a motive to invent the story. Not at all. I'm sure you yourself could give me a whole list of amazing things that have come to be believed as true (and which people will fight you to the death over) which have no basis in fact at all. Why do people invent stories (or lie)? It suits their purpose at the time and their purposes don't have to be great ones or political ones, just expedient for them at the time they are uttered. Furthermore, the story reaches us through different primary sources. Justin and Curtius are probably using Cleitarchus, but the Will of Alexander in the Romance seems to have been written by a Rhodian within a couple of decades of Alexander's death. "written by a Rhodian" maybe, since it is so favourable to Rhodes, but not by Alexander since we know that portions of it were known by Curtius to be falsely reported. Even if Justin and Curtius are using the same source, this still does not prove that the story is necessarily true. The Alexander Romance has many tantalizing scraps scattered through it. But it also has so many contradictions and obvious untruths that it cannot be trusted even where its words seem to offer to substantiate what we would like to believe. It is also surprising that nobody contradicted such a hugely important point, because we do know that more minor inaccuracies in other people's accounts were contradicted by the ancient so

[Halil]

It is also surprising that nobody contradicted such a hugely important point, because we do know that more minor inaccuracies in other people's accounts were contradicted by the ancient sources: for example, Ptolemy wrote that he was not present at the Mallian siege, though other writers had said he saved Alexander's life there.This may seem a minor inaccuracy today, but I can see how, to Ptolemy, it was a major inaccuracy and in contradicting it, was a way of showing how his own history was more accurate than theirs which is why it has been carried down to us. As for no one contradicting the story that Alexander wished to be buried in Egypt, as I said, some key people did not live long enough to write their accounts of those events. It is to be regretted that we cannot hear what they might have had to say on the subject. Notwithstanding any of this, all we can do is look at what we have and build on it. Sometimes our structures will hold and some will crumble with the discovery of new evidence. I still look forward to reading your theories. Whatever comes from them, I'm sure we can all agree that Alexander never asked to be buried in Venice.Best regardsHalil

[abm]

apperently everyone is ignoring two important articles which are very relevant to the question of Alexander's wishes concerning his burial:A.B. BOSWORTH, GÇÿPtolemy and the Will of AlexanderGÇÖ, in A.B. BOSWORTH & E.J. BAYNHAM (edd.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, pp. 207-241. Bosworth shows irrefutably that the will in the Romance is Ptolemaic propaganda.D. KIENAST, GÇÿAlexander, Zeus und AmmonGÇÖ, in W. WILL & J. HEINRICHS (edd.), Zu Alexander d.Gr. Festschrift G. Wirth zum 60. Geburtstag am 9.12.86, vol. I, Amsterdam 1987, pp. 309-333. Kienast convincingly argues that Ptolemy had no reason whatsoever to invent the story of Alexander wishing to be buried at Siwa.regards,
abm

[Taphoi]

No need to believe in Amazons - that was strongly disputed and contradicted by the ancient sources! Best wishes, Andrew

[Taphoi]

Hi Alexander,
I have not and do not dispute that the Will of Alexander is propaganda, but I would tend to stick with the standard interpretation that it is Rhodian propaganda and not the work of Ptolemy himself. (It is possible that the author was the mysterious Olcias, as Bosworth suggests.) Of course the Rhodians were allies of Ptolemy, so the provisions of the "Will" are often favourable to Ptolemy, but none of this means that facts mentioned in the Will are necessarily all untrue. In fact many of the facts in the Will are demonstrably founded in truth, such as the appointment of Arrhidaeus as king and the provision that Roxane's child should become king, if he were to be a boy. Also the golden sarcophagus of Alexander did truly exist and the list of appointments to satrapies is fairly accurate. Best wishes, Andrew

[abm]

Hi Andrew,I actually meant that if Bosworth's view on the will is correct, we have an other argument that Ptolemy would not have invented the story of Alexander's wish to buried at Siwa, since the Will states he wanted to buried in Egypt (not Siwa). Ptolemy had no reason to invent the Siwa story, since he didn't bury Alexander there either.kind regards,
abm

[abm]

Hi Andrew,I actually meant that if Bosworth's view on the will is correct, we have an other argument that Ptolemy would not have invented the story of Alexander's wish to buried at Siwa, since the Will states he wanted to buried in Egypt (not Siwa). Ptolemy had no reason to invent the Siwa story, since he didn't bury Alexander there either.kind regards,
abm

[xxx]

He would not have been able to bury him at Siwa - it would have required a sizeable guard in a remote area - he would not have been able to spare the manpower since Alexander could easily be filched. So he was interred at Memphis intead where he maintained an army.