heirs

[lucian]

I'm sure everyone has wondered why Alexander didn't bother to sire an heir. I use the word "bother" because it's not like he didn't have the time, although he used that as an excuse.Apparently he said, that he didn't have the time to sit and wait for a child. Sit and wait for a child???? did Philip really do this? I think not. A child is not a big deal to a king, until he is old enough to know who daddy is - and that is supposing that it's a male child. And did Alexander really think that one wife would be enough? He could have taken both, he could have taken five, he could have taken the sister of one of his best buddies.Was he really not interested in women as some people might think? No, because he had female loversDid he not want to repeat the tragedy of his father's life, in having a bunch of women, and being "controled by lust"?? Possibly.Did he think that by taking a wife from either Parmenio, or Antipater's line might leave a civil war, and bitter, jealous affairs behind? Quite Possible.Did he not want Olympias to have a hand in his child's life? He could have worst grandmothers, Alexander's ambition is due much to Olympias' rearing, as to Philip's fathering.In the end, I believe this is the reasons - I don't believe Alexander wanted to rule, I think he wanted to conquer. Because to rule is to sit idle, and he didn't do much when it came to changing things, he just conquered and much of it he left the same. Basically, he took the crown by saying "Nothing has changed but the name of the king" and he left it, with the same saying, but in another part of the world.
Nor do I think that the fusion of worlds was in his mind from the beginning, I think that idea came to him once he began to respect the other cultures he saw, and figured that unless his people married them, there would never be peace. Lastly, my final idea is that Alexander did not, under any circumstance want his achievement defeated. If he beat Philip, what's to keep his son from wiping his father's legacy??? In the end, I think it might have been fear that kept him without an heir, until he could not shut his people's mouths anylonger, and went with Roxanne.

[jan]

Pesonally, I think he thought he had a lot of time to produce an heir as Phillip was in his late 40's or early 50's when he was killed. I believe he was young, driven, and needed time on his side to achieve his immediate goals. He did have a son Hercules by Barsine, thus, proving he could reproduce whenever he wanted. He just needed the right marriage, and probably, the daughters of King Darius were who he had in mind all along. Think about it. I personally believe that he tried to produce an heir through King Darius's wife, as it is stated that she was pregnant when she died. That would have been a great heir to the throne, wouldn't it? And who else by Sisygambis could have arranged it?

[amyntoros]

Barsine notwithstanding, and whatever anyone believes about StateiraGÇÖs GÇ£pregnancyGÇ¥, neither of these women could have had anything to do with AlexanderGÇÖs decision not to marry and father a child before he left on campaign. Even his best seers did not have that kind of GÇ£you will meet a beautiful womanGÇ¥ precognition! Alexander couldnGÇÖt have known in advance that either or both women were going to fall under his protection. Also, I truly doubt that Alexander had the intention of fathering a bastard with Stateira while she was still married to Darius. A son born from such an adulterous relationship would never have been accepted as heir by the Macedonians. If Alexander ever entertained such a thought, he would have planned to wait until Darius died and then married Stateira.I agree with some of Lucian's thoughts. ItGÇÖs been said often that Alexander's decision not to marry before he left was because he did not want a son to be raised by Olympias. I think a more likely reason was that he would not be around to develop a relationship with a growing son GÇô as a child he had experienced a fatherGÇÖs long absences himself while Philip was away on many campaigns. However, in AlexanderGÇÖs case, he probably knew he would not be around at all. Failure was never in his vocabulary, and IGÇÖm suggesting that he knew before he ever left MacedoniaGÇÖs shores that he would not be returning for many years, if ever. The lure of the east and the desire for further conquests had to have been present from the beginning GÇô a pothos that existed even before he engaged the Persians in battle for the first time.Best regards,Amyntoros

[lucian]

This will be long...I've looked at Curtius and Arrian, neither mentions that Stateira was pregnant. So I guess that might have come from Plutarch, Diodorus, or Justin. Whether or not she was pregnant might not be as important as the fact that she was still married, and not a widow. Barsine was a widow, she was fair game for Alexander. I recall an incident where Alexander was given a girl, and she arrived late, because she had to put her husband to bed. Alexander let her go, and gave her a sum of money, so she wouldn't have to repeat her actions. If the story is true, why would Alexander sleep with a royal married woman, if he didn't with a common girl? If Stateira was pregnant, whose to say that it wasn't Darius' pup? I'm saying this, because it's what the Macedonians would think. They didn't like the idea of any half persian/macedonian heir at all, let alone one that COULD have been completely Darius'. In addition, marrying the wife does not entitle him to the crown, marrying a daughter - does. A daughter gives him the title of son to Darius. Darius had no other male heir of good age, so naturally Alexander would take on, given that Alexander puts on a lot of threat. Alas, Alexander chose war, and probably because Sisygambis didn't offer a grandaughter to him, instead Darius offered a daughter, which makes it a bribe, rather than an "affectionate" offer. Besides, Curtius might have been right, his Alexander declined the offer because technically what was offered was already his by right of conquest. But he did take on wives after the conquest began. My question was why not before it began? Why not even before he was king? Surely most of his contemporaries already had children? Philip's reign was stable (given the circumstances) Alexander could have enjoyed a fairly unthreatened marriage and fatherhood while his father reigned. Why didn't he? On a comparison, one feature that made Vespasian such a lucky fellow in the wars of succession in Rome, was the fact that he had two adult sons. Sons strengthen the line, that's a fact going all the way back to Egypt. In my opinion, the only person who was succesful in completely ditching this law, was Elizabeth I. Why on earth Alexander, being careful in his attempt to be the best at everything, botched this up? Such a fundamental rule. Philip was in turmoil in his twenties, he had been a hostage, he took over a country worth crap, he had assassinations to plot, he HAD to wait. Alexander

[lucian]

Alexander did not, at least not when he was home. This is not the movie Gladiator, in which there was only ONE woman in the whole entire damm movie, I'm SURE that Alexander was surrounded by potential wives. There has got to be another reason.To say that Alexander planned a marriage in Persia, is jumping the gun. The boy didn't even know if he would survive his father, let alone wed in Darius' palace. Maybe his answer had a truth to it, not that he didn't have time, but that he didn't have time to think about it. Still, doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't marry before. On another note, someone mentioned that Sisygambis might have aproved of the Stateira/Alexander union, or something like that (if I butchered the statement, let me know) But my question is why? Unless Alexander somehow, even tenderly threatened their position with something, Sisygambis would know that wars have uncertain outcomes. The mother, and her family were lucky as hell that Alexander was in a good mood, because she was safe with both him and her son. She would have botched that up, if for whatever reason Darius won the next battle, and Alexander fell dead. In my opinion, Alexander liked her for the same reasons I do...the woman was smart, and knew how to play even a bad occasion to her advantage.

[marcus]

Hi Lucian,A couple of things - I'm not sure whether we can put any faith in the story of the 'common' woman who had to put her husband to bed. I can't remember where the story is told, but it would be very hard to prove that it's true.As for whether Stateira was pregnant with Darius' child - it's all in the timing, if she was indeed pregnant. There are discrepancies in the sources as to when she actually died, but it is possible that she died after the return from Egypt - more than a year after her capture. Obviously, if she were pregnant, then it couldn't have been Darius'.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

"A son born from such an adulterous relationship would never have been accepted as heir by the Macedonians."Nor by the Persians, I suspect! :-)ATBMarcus

[xxx]

I think you might be confusing Statiera Darius' wife, with Statiera, Darius' daughter at times.Why didn't Alexander marry in Macedon? It's quite simple. Not only would he have offended either Antipater or Parmenion depending on what family he chose to marry into, but he was not going to leave a hostage for his good behavior in Macedon.Alexander was taken by surprise that Hephaistion died before him. Once that happened, he had to change plans and get serious about having heirs because his plan for what would happen if he died were blown out the window. He simply didn't live long enough afterward to come up with a better plan. Nor did he get to choose - Macedonian Kings never did because they had to die for anything to happen. What he failed to take into account is his primary friends behaved as long as he was alive as they were loyal to him, but only to him and not each other. But he was always a bit naive when it came to such things as he tried to believe the best in his men and ignore the worst.His marriage to Roxane was political. If you watch the timing of Alexander's offspring you will see a pattern emerge of 'apologia' for taking another wife by giving the previous a child (this would include Barsine). And of course trying not to be like Philip most certainly was one of the controls on his behavior.

[marcus]

Hi Tre,I like your comment about the 'apologia' - I hadn't looked at it that way before. *If* Roxane did indeed have a child who died in 327/6, that would rather flummox the theory ... unless one then chose to believe the Cleophis story ... :-)ATBMarcus

[xxx]

Alexander planned his children like he planned everything else in his life. Control Freak thy name is Alexander :-)And wise that he was, he kept the women away from each other...unfortunately, he couldn't keep the diadochi away too...

[amyntoros]

The tale of the married woman is in PlutarchGÇÖs Moralia 179 E. And, Lucian, staying on the subject of Stateira for a moment: the report of her dying of a miscarriage is in both Plutarch and Justin. Neither of them imply that Alexander was in any way involved with her being pregnant. One might expect that of Plutarch, but surely Justin would have had a field day if there was any evidence to the contrary?On the other hand, if you put all the sources on Alexander and Stateira together - not just the reports of her death - you can see that there is an extremely disproportionate emphasis on how Alexander either saw her only once, or never saw her at all. I've always held the opinion that either the date was wrong for her death, or that she didn't really die of a miscarriage, but when I gathered everything together I couldn't avoid the impression that Alexander "doth protest too much" about never having had anything to do with Stateira. Now I'm not sure what to think! :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[abm]

i see no reason to disbelieve that Roxane did indeed have a child who died in 327/6.regards,abm

[marcus]

Hi Alexander,If I recall correctly, only Justin mentions the child. That doesn't mean that (s)he didn't exist - a dead child in a time of high infant mortality was hardly newsworthy, especially to readers 2-3 hundred years later. So I agree with you - there's no reason to disbelieve the veracity of the story; although it's fair to say that the reasons for disbelieving it are, in fact, just as good! :-)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

LOL!:-)Marcus

[marcus]

As always, you come to my rescue with the sources. I don't have the patience to look for them, wanting to reply to messages as soon as I see them.That's what I call teamwork! :-)ATBMarcus