Alexander, Hellenistic women and Olympias

[ancientlibrary]

I'm starting a new thread for "lasting contributions," which is falling off and has become very long and complex, but still very fruitful. Maybe putting it up here will draw some others in too.The thread has morphed into a tennis match about Alexander and women, specifically whether Alexander's career improved the status of women. We've also been arguing about the use and value of historical comparisons and sculptural evidence, how royal doings relate to non-royal ones, the ancient depiction of Olympias, etc.The thread itself is here:
http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage ... ID=21243My most recent post, on royal women is at:
http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage ... 0Amyntoros (Linda DeSantis) replied here and here:
http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage ... geID=21373
http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage ... geID=21374

[ancientlibrary]

Writing my reply on Olympias I had occasion to read the Pothos article on her. The article seems signed by Michael Dimitri, but underneath it says "Written by thomaswp." Who wrote it?

[jan]

O.K. Tim, I should have probably used mothboard for the post that won't get posted. I can always tell when someone on this editorial board doesn't like whatever it is that I have said, as suddenly I have to log in again.The most lasting contribution that Alexander made to be succinct is that of building the foundation for cities that are thriving today.My comments on the women, especially Roxanne, have not met up with editorial approval. But I opt for his love for her as he overruled his men's objections to his marrying her. They wanted a Macedonian bride, but Alexander's own will won out. It was love, not pragmatism.

[amyntoros]

I believe I read here a while ago that Thomas searched the web for articles on Alexander when he first started Pothos, so that may be why the article on Olympias is credited to Michael Dimitri. And apart from the fact that the article is extremely short, I know of no source evidence whatsoever for the following statement:"While Philip was away at war for as much as three years at a time, it was Olympias who was left behind in Pella to administer Macedonia."Isn't this the same Michael Dimitri who wrote the book Daughter of Neoptolomus? He has written several books and on his own website he describes himself as a historian, however, the above book on Olympias is a novel! There's a review (not by Jeanne) of the book on Jeanne's website at:
http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~jreameszimmer ... htmlHere's a quote from the review: "Olympias is in effect co-ruler with Philip of his empire and desperately needed by her confused, adoring son who seems to have a hard time thinking himself out of a paper bag without Mom's help."-á

Mmmm, isn't it time for someone to update the Pothos page on Olympias? :-)Amyntoros

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I might be wrong, but I can't recall that there is any documented disapproval from Alexander's officers/friends etc. for the marriage to Roxane. That's not to say that there wasn't any, of course, but we should be sure of what's documented or not.If anyone recalls the sources better and can point to there being dissent, please say so! :-)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Jan (again)I would be very surprised if a moderator deleted any of your posts because he or she didn't like what you'd written. As Tim says in the other thread, it should only be deleted if it infringes one of the rules, and it isn't a rule that you should hold the same opinions as any of the moderators. To call it an 'editorial board' is making it seem much grander than it is (he says, with apologies to the moderators!). :-)ATBMarcus

[jan]

Hi Marcus, It is the cookies I bet because I didn't write a thing after reading your last post and boom, I was given the login again page. So it wasn't somethiing that I said after all, just a computer glitch. It's o.k. I was emoting about Alexander's relationship to Roxanne I suppose, but you have said something that I did not know. I read Arthur Weigall first as you know and I always remember specifically his point about the Macedonian soldiers not wanting Alexander to marry Roxanne. I will have to check it out again now that you have mentioned exact sources for that information. Arthur Weigall also pointed out the fact that he didn't think that Alexander would ever have been a good husband, and that always amused me too. I always check author's biases and background whenever I read a book on ATG. But Weigall is still one of the best for fairness to his subject.And in my musings, I picked up a book called Cheops and considered what a story about Alexander would be like from the point of the view of the priests at Siwa. Can you imagine what they must have thought watching Alexander and his caravan arrive in Siwa? Also check out http://www.michtoy.com for a good figure of Alexander. On Alexander-Macedon, Douglas Henderson left a couple of links, but the Michtoy link did not work for me until I used just its baselink, and that worked. There is a figurine of ATG for sale, catalog #75017, priced at $46.95 for toy lovers. This is a great site, and has great figurines on it, a lot on the Persians and one of King Darius in his chariot.The Russian miniatures are choice. Be sure to browse the entire historical and miniature pages. They are all well worth it. Toys of Achilles and Hercules, hoplites, etc. Have fun.Jan

[ancientlibrary]

Yes, it's terrible. I couldn't imagine Thomas had written it. Check out the Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman BiographyGǪ article. I have it Wikipied in my now-closed Classics Wiki

[marcus]

Hi Jan,Be warned, however, that I might be wrong, and there might be references in the sources to the Macdonians' dislike of the marriage.The other difficulty is that it is very probable that they disapproved, even if the sources don't explicitly mention it. You weren't necessarily wrong in your statement, it's just a question of our knowing 100% for sure. It's one of those things where, because we know they weren't particularly keen on the adoption of Persian dress, etc., the balance of probability is that they disapproved of the wedding.However, we also need to remember that some of the soldiers, at least, were content to accept Roxane's son as their king. It was more because he was Alexander's son, presumably, but it does mean that they were at least resigned to the fact that she was a 'legitimate' wife.ATBMarcus

[amyntoros]

According to Curtius, there were objections to Alexander and Roxane's marriage. :-)Curtius 8.4.30 His friends were ashamed that he had chosen his father-in-law at a dinner-party and from subject peoples but, with the suspension of free speech following Clitus' murder, they signified their approval with their facial expressions, the feature of a man most prone to servility.And then there's Ptolemy's comments after Alexander's death which indicate a strong distate for the relationship:Curtius 10.6.13 13,14] Then Ptolemy spoke. 'Yes, a son of Roxane or Barsine really is a fitting ruler for the Macedonian people! Even to utter his name will be offensive for Europe, since he will be mostly captive. [14] Is that what defeating the Persians will have meant for us - being slaves to their descendants?GǪ'The objections are because she was a "captive" more than anything else, but we know that Philip married into conquered peoples all the time and the army isn't on record as having complained. I suspect it is Curtius' own hatred of Barbarians (and specifically the Persians) rising to the fore here. On the other hand, I do agree with you that the Macedonians had a strong dislike for the Persians, as demonstrated by their disproval of Alexander's adoption of Persian ways, and his merging of the armies. With such evident xenophobia in the histories, including the fact that all but one of the marriages at Susa were disolved after Alexander's death, I can't really find fault with Weigall and others taking the stance that the army strongly disapproved of his marriage to Roxane. Still, during the wars of the Successors, anyone with the remotest family relationship to Alexander rose in importance, and eventually Persian blood wasn't significant any more - only Alexander's bloodline mattered. And with the further passage of time, Roxane herself was romanticized in memory. As for the reality of her situation after Alexander's death, I really do feel quite sorry for her! :-)All the best,Amyntoros

[abm]

I don't have the time to engage in the debate fully, but i'd like to react on some points.I do think Tim's modern parallells were good, interesting and to the point, since indeed hellenistic royal women also were primarily important as members of a dynasty and not so much in their own right. There is a recent book on women in the hellenistic period by Anne Bielman, Femmes en public dans le monde hellenistique, Paris: Sedes 2002. I haven't read it yet, but on the point of royal women I had a quick look on her article 'R+¬gner au f+¬minin: R+¬flexions sur les reines attalides et s+¬leucides', in Pallas 62 (2003), 41-61. She concludes: "Female royalty (royaut+¬) clearly did exsist in hellenistic Greece, but it only exsisted in reference to male kingship of which it was, in a way, an incarnation (avatar)".Concerning Olympias I didn't have the time to check the sources, but I read the introduction and conclusion of E.D. Carney, 'Olympias and the Image of the Virago', Phoenix 47 (1993), 29-55. These two quotes clearly show that Olympias negative image comes from the ancient sources. p. 29: "Surviving sources on Olympias (...) display a level of hostility toward her perhaps equaled only by the source tradition about Cleopatra VII and Clodia". p. 55: "It is time to recognize the witchy, bitchy caricature of Olympias we have inherited from antiquity as the antique it is and put it where it belongs - in the attic. We know that she was as ruthless as many of the Successors, it is possible she was nastier, but it is more likely that she evoked more fear and horror because she was woman." There is a similar article on Eurydike by K. Mortensen, in Ancient History Bulletin 1992.As for the cities named after women, I've checked E.D. Carney, 'Eponymous Women: Royal Women and City Names', Ancient History Bulletin 2 (1988), 134-142. Carney says (p. 141): "Neither calling a woman basilissa nor naming a city after her conveyed power (although sometimes they indicated that she already possessed some), but both are examples of the emergence of royal women in the late fourth century into some sort of public role, rather than the nearly exclusively private one they had exercised prior to Philip." This public role implied promoting dynastic legitimacy as mother, wife, daughter etc., but not as the women they were in their own right. Thus Carney concludes (p. 142): "It made these women public figures, but did not give them more power".

[abm]

Of course we can learn much about any society from the art of its period, but I don't think Tim denied this. The point is rather that a higher frequence of female statues is in itself not enough to conclude anything about the status of women.In general, I think that if Alexander really did improve the status of women, it was very indirect. Since his reign, the polis lost much of its political signifance (but this certainly does not mean the "death" of the polis as has often been asserted!) and the world was now ruled by dynasties; women could a play role as a member of the dynasty, but large effective power remained an exception. Following the example of the royal women, some women from the polis elite could play a similar role in the euergetism of their family, but this was a limited role of a very limited group of women. The contacts between the different cultures (not the mix of different cultures!), sometimes improved the status of a particular woman. Thus we sometimes see women with greek names (but it is not even sure that this means they really were Greek!!) in Egypt acting without a guardian (kyrios), which was impossible in traditional Greek polis law. Similarly, we see a jewish divorce in Egypt by mutual agreement, while normally jews simply repudiated their wife, who had nothing to say about it. These examples, however, remain exceptions. And the change of women's status was thus most likely very limited.regards,abm

[abm]

Hi Amyntoros,Curtius attitude toward barbarians might well play a role here, but as you said, it doesn't have to,cp. J. Roisman, 'Honor in AlexanderGÇÖs campaignGÇÖ, in J. Roisman (ed.), BrillGÇÖs Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden GÇô Boston 2003, p. 293: GÇ£We cannot ascertain the authenticity of words put by later historians into the mouth of Alexander or others, but it can be safely assumed that the resentment toward what was seen as blurring the lines between conquered and conqueror was authentic and that it was used in peopleGÇÖs rhetoric against the king or anyone elseGÇ¥ (concerning Ptolemy's speech you quoted); andK. Geus, Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (M++nchener Beitr+ñge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 92), M++nchen 2002, p. 85: "The question which place the barbarians ought to hold in Alexander's world empire, occupied people's minds in the age of the Diadochoi and the Epigonoi" ( GÇ£Die Frage, welche Stellung die Barbaren im Weltreich Alexanders einnehmen sollten, bewegte zur Zeit der Diadochen und Epigonen die Gem++terGÇ¥).regards,abm

[abm]

"the fact that all but one of the marriages at Susa were disolved after Alexander's death"We only know that Seleukos did not disolve his marriage and that Krateros did, but we know nothing of all the others. Thus, this is not a fact, but a modern assumption, and not a very strong one.regards,abm

[marcus]

Aha! Thanks for putting me right on the source evidence. It's great when you don't have to go checking the sources for yourself, because you'll make a statement and someone else will confirm or deny it for you. :-)As I indicated, I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for Weigall, or anyone else, to have made such a statement; it was just that I didn't think anything was specifically stated in the sources ... which it was, even if only in one.I'm less inclined to take the comments post-death as providing good evidence, as everyone was jockeying for power and would/could have used whatever arguments would get them the furthest. But that still doesn't negate the fact that, on balance and with the QC reference (even though it only mentioned Al's companions?), the marriage wasn't the most popular ...ATBMarcus