a son of Alexander in 326

[abm]

Hi Marcus and others,A while ago we discussed the possibilty of Alexander having a child by Rhoxane in 326 B.C., which is only mentioned by the Metz Epitome (70). I couldnGÇÖt convince you back then that there is no reason to doubt this, and IGÇÖve seen in the WCD (http://www.ancientlibrary.com/WCD/Main_Page) that you remain quite sceptical about this. IGÇÖve checked BosworthGÇÖs argument again and I wonder whether this might convince you:GÇ£(GǪ) t [= the Metz epitome] states that Alexander lost a son borne by Rhoxane while his river fleet was being built on the Hydaspes. This is not attested elsewhere, but is plausible enough. The incident is placed late in 326 B.C., about eighteen months after the marriage, and it comes at a juncture where the rest of the source tradition is very thin. Alexander was stationary around the Hydaspes between September and November, but Arrian has no record of anything between AlexanderGÇÖs arrival at the Hydaspes and the departure of the fleet. In contrast the Vulgate account, common to Curtius, Diodorus, and the Epitome, has a series of events; the arrival of reinforcements from the west, the building of the fleet (with rough agreement on numbers), and the reconciliation of the Indian kings, Porus and Taxiles. The details are consistent, but not every episode is recorded in every source; Diodorus, for instance has nothing about the reconciliation. Now, the Metz Epitome places the death of AlexanderGÇÖs son between the completion of the fleet and the reconciliation, and it seems that it was part of the so-called vulgate, an authentic detail passed over by Diodorus and Curtius. There is no obvious reason for the invention of a fictitious son of Alexander at this stage, and the death of a child in infancy or at birth may have seemed too unimportant to warrant notice in Curtius and Diodorus, in an age of high infant moratlity.GÇ¥ (A.B. BOSWORTH, GÇÿIntroductionGÇÖ, in A.B. BOSWORTH & E. J. BAYNHAM (edd.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, pp. 11-12.)regards,abm

[marcus]

Hi Alexander,I certainly don't intend to sound sceptical, as such. However, where the Metz Epitome is the single reference we have for the child, I would be very nervous about suggesting it as being anything other than a possibility. I might be tempted to upgrade it to a probability :-)As far as the Wiki piece, if you want to be more polemic about it I wouldn't argue ... I just don't like to state it as a fact myself when there is so little evidence.That's not to say that I don't totally get what Bosworth says - and I was reading that passage when the question was first discussed - but Bosworth's Bosworth, and is perhaps in a better position to state 'certainties' ...ATBMarcus

[abm]

Hi Marcus,as you probably already know form the WCD page, I don't think this is really polemical, but rather good method. We don't have much sources on Antiquity, so I think the principle of "testis unus testis nullus" doesn't really for this period. I think we should asses all data from the sources and can only dismiss them when we have arguments for that (other than it's the only testimony for this). In this instance, I can see no such argument and as there is no reason for anyone to invent this and it is not unlikely in itself, I think we should accept it. Of course, this might not be a 100%-certainty, but I would give it a 99%.regards,abm

[amyntoros]

Alexander, before I consider contributing to this thread, would you please tell me (and anyone else who doesn't know Latin) what "testis unus testis nulls" means?:-)Amyntoros

[abm]

"testis unus testis nullus" means "one witness = no witness".

[marcus]

Hi Alexander,I certainly agree that "1 witness - 1 witness" is more OK in ancient cases than in others. I do certainly see no reason why the Epitome mention *shouldn't* be true - Bosworth's argument is perfectly reasonable. I suppose I'm a bit of a wimp when it comes to supporting something like that (even though I've been known to polemicise like billyo in other cases). Perhaps I'm schitzophrenic? :-)ATBMarcus

[xxx]

I see this from a different perspective. A son of Alexander was certainly important enough to have been mentioned by a source other than the Metz Epitome. I don't buy the argument that a dead son was not important enough to be mentioned elsewhere. For the same reasons 'the many sons of Philip' as attested to by Justin is rather suspicious don't you think? Or should I buy that because it is in print too?

[beausefaless]

Greetings abm,Michael Woods speaks of the same reasoning and further believes Alexander went on a radical rampage of all dissidents after the child's death. This theory will be in my script. Makes for good provocative action don't you think?Take care, Andrew

[Linda]

i agree that it is a good plot device, but if it were true, then surely some other author woudl have mentioned it? eg, Alexander's rampage against the Cossaeans was put down to catharsis after Hephaestion's death. Surely the death of a son would be mentioned in the same light?

[ancientlibrary]

Quis solum unum testem habet?.On more serious matters, I would like to
publically bewail my manifold sins and admit
I've never read the Metz Epitome. (Hey, I read the
Fragmentum Sabbaiticum; cut me some slack.)
I imagine I should read Baynam's article on it.
But where's the text of it printed? Does anyone
have it digitally? Could be fun to get it up on the
web before Baynam and Yardley's edition...Tim

[ancientlibrary]

(1) Does anyone have the sentence at stake?
Could it be a miscarriage? .(2) Given that a high percentage of children died
in Antiquity, can anyone name other such
children who were mentioned as significant. I
don't know, but I regard it as possible the event
didn't seem as significant as we might find it.
.(3) Or, look at it another way, is Roxane's
pregnancy with Alexander IV mentioned
separate from and before Alexander died?

[marcus]

It's OK, Tim, I've never read it, either. Never been able to find a copy. So all I've ever read is fragments, in books such as Heckel's and Yardley's source books.Perhaps I should collect all the fragments together and see how much of it I actually have. It will be in many different translations, of course ... but you never know, we might actually have read it all! :-)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

True, Tre ... hence my unwillingness to get off the fence!ATBMarcus

[amyntoros]

From Heckel and Yardley's ATG: Historical Sources in Translation, P204; Metz Epitome 70:"There he found the ships which Porus and Taxiles had built, 800 biremes and 300 store ships, and he put on board crews and provisions. In the meantime Alexander's son by Roxane died."And the Metz Epitome 28-31 (same source) says that mass marriages took place after the wedding to *Roxane*. Alexander gave a speech about the worthiness of intermarriage and, "After these words of exhortation from Alexander, each of his friends took away a girl as his bride, to the great delight of Oxyartes and the other barbarians."Not very believable in my book (and certainly not mentioned elsewhere), which is why I also have some doubts about the child. Best regards,Amyntoros

[abm]

"I regard it as possible the event didn't seem as significant as we might find it."exactly, although I don't know of any other instances to prove this. Rhoxane's pregnancy in 323 is only mentioned after Alexander's death, but of course, since Alexander died, it's not an exact parallel to the son in 326.regards,abm