Alexander and Hero Cults

[Abi]

Hello everyone...
I'm wondering if anyone could help me. I'm studying for a research Masters in Classical and Archaeological Studies and I'm writing my thesis on Alexander the Great and what he did to deserve the title of 'Great'. At the moment i'm looking at ancient Greek Hero Cults and trying to prove a theory that Alexander may have used and exploited Hero Cults for his own benefit. There's evidence to suggest in the fourth century BC that individuals could give themselves heroic status (yet this was supposed to be a rare occurance!). Does anyone know of any primary sources (or even secondary would be helpful!) where hero cults and Alexander are mentioned in the same sentence?
Thanks for your help!
Abi.

[dean]

Hello,I suppose that primary sources, when we are talking about Alexander are a bit too much to ask for.
What does spring to mind after reading your post is of course what I assume you already know- about how Alexander asked in Siwah, after Hephaestion's death for him to become a god and was given the reply that he could be a hero.
Also what springs to mind is Alexander's becoming pharoah in egypt- this may have given him the idea of becoming something more than a mere mortal- apart of course from his belief that he was of divine lineage- as much from his mother as from his father.
Maybe this is something that we have Olympias to blame for as she did go a bit overboard with the miraculous birth theories- these stories must have got around quite a bit for them to survive centuries later when Arrian and Plutarch were scribbling away their histories and lives.
Best regards,
Dean.
P.s. Best of luck with your research.

[dean]

Hello,I suppose that primary sources, when we are talking about Alexander are a bit too much to ask for.
What does spring to mind after reading your post is of course what I assume you already know- about how Alexander asked in Siwah, after Hephaestion's death for him to become a god and was given the reply that he could be a hero.
Also what springs to mind is Alexander's becoming pharoah in egypt- this may have given him the idea of becoming something more than a mere mortal- apart of course from his belief that he was of divine lineage- as much from his mother as from his father.
Maybe this is something that we have Olympias to blame for as she did go a bit overboard with the miraculous birth theories- these stories must have got around quite a bit for them to survive centuries later when Arrian and Plutarch were scribbling away their histories and lives.
Best regards,
Dean.
P.s. Best of luck with your research.

[marcus]

Although the word cult is, I think, not actually used, there is a good indication that Alexander identified himself with Achilles, particularly when he visited Troy in 334 BC. Arrian I.11.7 - 12.5
Plutarch, Alexander, 15.4-5Also, before he crossed the Hellespont, Alexander made a point of visiting the tomb of Protesilaus (Arrian I.11.5).All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Although the word cult is, I think, not actually used, there is a good indication that Alexander identified himself with Achilles, particularly when he visited Troy in 334 BC. Arrian I.11.7 - 12.5
Plutarch, Alexander, 15.4-5Also, before he crossed the Hellespont, Alexander made a point of visiting the tomb of Protesilaus (Arrian I.11.5).All the bestMarcus

[Nicator]

Hello,I think Alexander worked to prove himself the hero that he obviously was, and that was an image he carefully cultivated all the way through to his death. As an interesting related issue, Alexander tried to have Hephaestion declared a god by the Siwa Priests after Hep's death. This was denied, but they allowed Hephaestion to be honored with a hero cult instead. Alexander wanted his companion to join him in the afterlife as a god (perhaps). This makes it somewhat clear that Alexander had surpassed or transcended the realm of the Hero, and ascended into the realm of the gods...at least in his own mind. I believe Arrian talks about this, maybe Diodorus as well (who provides an excellent description of Hep's funerary monument). Arrian also mentions Alexander's disdain for the lyre played by Paris while visiting
Troy, claiming he'd rather have the armor? of great heroes (Achilles) than the feminine instrument used to play adulterous ditties. I'm a bit rusty on this section, so please forgive the vagueness. Then there was the breathtakingly poetic statement which defines the hero "It is a lovely thing to live with courage, and to die leaving behind everlasting renown". It is perhaps this statement which defines not just the heroic ideal, but Alexander himself. As far as his greatness is concerned, it's easy to come down on Alexander sometimes. But reading about his iron will to win and his ability to bend his body to that will can inspire even the hardiest cynic. later Nicator

[Nicator]

Hello,I think Alexander worked to prove himself the hero that he obviously was, and that was an image he carefully cultivated all the way through to his death. As an interesting related issue, Alexander tried to have Hephaestion declared a god by the Siwa Priests after Hep's death. This was denied, but they allowed Hephaestion to be honored with a hero cult instead. Alexander wanted his companion to join him in the afterlife as a god (perhaps). This makes it somewhat clear that Alexander had surpassed or transcended the realm of the Hero, and ascended into the realm of the gods...at least in his own mind. I believe Arrian talks about this, maybe Diodorus as well (who provides an excellent description of Hep's funerary monument). Arrian also mentions Alexander's disdain for the lyre played by Paris while visiting
Troy, claiming he'd rather have the armor? of great heroes (Achilles) than the feminine instrument used to play adulterous ditties. I'm a bit rusty on this section, so please forgive the vagueness. Then there was the breathtakingly poetic statement which defines the hero "It is a lovely thing to live with courage, and to die leaving behind everlasting renown". It is perhaps this statement which defines not just the heroic ideal, but Alexander himself. As far as his greatness is concerned, it's easy to come down on Alexander sometimes. But reading about his iron will to win and his ability to bend his body to that will can inspire even the hardiest cynic. later Nicator

[Paralus]

G'day Abi.You do pick good subjects donGÇÖt you? GÇ£Primary sourcesGÇ¥ are bound to be difficult going. These can only be deduced by the writings GÇô or re-writings GÇô of our secondary sources and the tone that they take. As you would well know, all our primary sources are lost to us (aside from those portions reproduced by Arian, Plutarch, Curtius and that GÇ£Christian monkGÇ¥ prototype Diodorus Siculus) and so we need to re-construct as best one can. Hence professors of GÇ£classicsGÇ¥. You could do a lot worse that GreenGÇÖs GÇ£Alexander to ActiumGÇ¥ (in my irrelevant view, a tour de force) which deals well with ruler cults and their antecedents. Extremely well annotated and sourced for further reference.My view? Alexander well exploited the GÇ£ruler cultGÇ¥ that his father began (Olympian statues, etc), extending it GÇô once he realised just how accepting the GÇ£EastGÇ¥ was of such things GÇô when he felt secure enough to more than simply slight aristocratic Macedonian opinion.Those bastards that started the fires on the docks of Alexandria which then spread to the GÇ£libraryGÇ¥ need to be exhumed hung, drawn and quartered! The quote from Sean ConneryGÇÖs monk in Umberto EcoGÇÖs GÇ£The Name of The RoseGÇ¥ comes to mind:GÇ£The books Adso!, The books! Save the books Adso!GÇ¥ If only. Now we attempt to reconstruct from fragments.I still blame those uncultured swine, the Roman barbaroi.Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Abi.You do pick good subjects donGÇÖt you? GÇ£Primary sourcesGÇ¥ are bound to be difficult going. These can only be deduced by the writings GÇô or re-writings GÇô of our secondary sources and the tone that they take. As you would well know, all our primary sources are lost to us (aside from those portions reproduced by Arian, Plutarch, Curtius and that GÇ£Christian monkGÇ¥ prototype Diodorus Siculus) and so we need to re-construct as best one can. Hence professors of GÇ£classicsGÇ¥. You could do a lot worse that GreenGÇÖs GÇ£Alexander to ActiumGÇ¥ (in my irrelevant view, a tour de force) which deals well with ruler cults and their antecedents. Extremely well annotated and sourced for further reference.My view? Alexander well exploited the GÇ£ruler cultGÇ¥ that his father began (Olympian statues, etc), extending it GÇô once he realised just how accepting the GÇ£EastGÇ¥ was of such things GÇô when he felt secure enough to more than simply slight aristocratic Macedonian opinion.Those bastards that started the fires on the docks of Alexandria which then spread to the GÇ£libraryGÇ¥ need to be exhumed hung, drawn and quartered! The quote from Sean ConneryGÇÖs monk in Umberto EcoGÇÖs GÇ£The Name of The RoseGÇ¥ comes to mind:GÇ£The books Adso!, The books! Save the books Adso!GÇ¥ If only. Now we attempt to reconstruct from fragments.I still blame those uncultured swine, the Roman barbaroi.Paralus.

[Athanasios]

Hi there Abigail,You may like to consider that it was Cyrus, king of Persia, that conquered neighbouring territories to form the first World empire. Given that each people had its own king, the long lineage of Persian Kings became known [in Persian] as the King of Kings, i.e. Great King. Some of these kings were remained, others replaced. Subsequently, when Alexander conquered Persia and thus inherited their Empire, he became to be known as Alexander the Great. Mind you, not a title that readily rolled of the Greeks' tongue, but one that perhaps got accepted post his death.For reference: read T. Holland 'The Persian Fire'I hope this helps.Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Hi there Abigail,You may like to consider that it was Cyrus, king of Persia, that conquered neighbouring territories to form the first World empire. Given that each people had its own king, the long lineage of Persian Kings became known [in Persian] as the King of Kings, i.e. Great King. Some of these kings were remained, others replaced. Subsequently, when Alexander conquered Persia and thus inherited their Empire, he became to be known as Alexander the Great. Mind you, not a title that readily rolled of the Greeks' tongue, but one that perhaps got accepted post his death.For reference: read T. Holland 'The Persian Fire'I hope this helps.Regards,
Atha

[marcus]

The soubriquet "The Great" is first attested in Roman sources - off the top of my head I can't remember where (Plautus, perhaps?); but certainly not in Alexander's lifetime, as you say, and in fact not by any of the Successors. I suppose that, for them, merely to say "Alexander" was enough!ATBMarcus

[marcus]

The soubriquet "The Great" is first attested in Roman sources - off the top of my head I can't remember where (Plautus, perhaps?); but certainly not in Alexander's lifetime, as you say, and in fact not by any of the Successors. I suppose that, for them, merely to say "Alexander" was enough!ATBMarcus