pothos.org

I guess I gotta apologise for my sometimes dismisal of the sources and the things that are written. Maybe I sound arogant but I think its sometimes beneficial to think outside the box and to theorise in our own thoughts. Irrespective of the doubts and caution I have with some of it, I will not detract from my overall view about Alexander and the Mnans greatness.

Maybe to disect and even come with theories different dont detract from his greatness in fact they add. Some would argue to quit in India as I think he did would make him less great. However I think it makes a man much greater to make wise desisions.

Napoleon made stupid desisions like marching to Russia and others have made similar errors. With the sceptics and the Alexander retractors I feel as a whole he made all the right desisions with a few blips.

Kenny

kennyxx wrote:I guess I gotta apologise for my sometimes dismisal of the sources and the things that are written. Maybe I sound arogant but I think its sometimes beneficial to think outside the box and to theorise in our own thoughts.

I don't think anyone would criticise you for exercising caution with the sources, Kenny - after all, most of the academic work that's done on Alexander, and always has been done, has arisen from investigation of the sources, not least because they do contain contradictions, inconsistencies, doubtful numbers, etc.

I think you're being a bit harsh to talk about dismissing the sources, because at the end of the day they are all we have. Question them by all means, and criticise them; but I don't think you ever mean that you consider them at all worthless.

ATB

Hello,

Napoleon made stupid desisions like marching to Russia and others have made similar errors.

I was reading yesterday, how Peter Green mentions in his book that the march through the Gedrosian was compared to Napoleon's retreat out of Moscow.

But just to mention, the sources that we have are in the end all we have to learn of Alexander's life so I think that a dismissal of those would be like a Christian saying that he dismissed the bible. What else have we got to go on? Although I think that questioning the sources is important.

Surely they have their flaws and numerous differences which is why I think that this subject is such fun. It is like sifting for gold - while reading you never know when you are going to get a nice big nugget sat there looking at you.

Well, that is my tuppence anyhow.
Best regards,
Dean

I remember a discussion we had about the sources.Actually more than once.What applies to all of the sources in history apply to Alexander's sources also.We have to be aware of who writes and when.

I always thought of Kurtius as not a credible historian.At least with Alexander.Because he was a Roman living in Rome, and not just a Roman but a senator also.And by default, a Roman living in Rome who happens to be a senator means corruption.Not always of course but in most of the cases.And anyway the Roman culture was somewhat different than the Greek one and the Romans usually "Romanized" whatever they were up to.history,culture e.t.c.For example many of the roman statues that depict Greeks have Roman characteristics.Even the statue of Alexander that is supposed to be a replica of that of Lyssipus,has a Roman flavor.In the forehead,in the nose e.t.c.

The Roman writers that have written about Greeks with their own culture in mind, have led people to think that the Greeks made orgies in their symposiums,or that they drunk large amounts of wine.And that was not the case.The typical Greek symposium had nothing to do with the later Roman symposiums.They used to eat not too much, and they didnt drink that much wine, in order to be able to discuss with clear mind afterwards."Plato's symposium" is not a typical example of a Greek symposium.

So Kurtius wrote having his own backround in mind "Romanizing" his work, although that may have not been whart he intented to do.Thus not being the best source about Alexander.We dont dismiss him of course but we read him havingin mind all that.


The Greek sources are better because their backrounds are closer to what they write about.Plutarch was a priest in Delfoi and, and also lived in Athens and was a honorary citizen of Athens.So he knows some things a lot better.Arrian lived in Greece too.Diodorus lived in Sicily but he had also tight bonds with Greece and hadnt been "Romanized" as he was part of the Greek colonies in Sicily.

Also another thing that we must have in mind is what sources did the later biographers such as Arrian and Kurtius used.Andof course what were their intentions.Arrian's intention wasnot to critisize Alexander's perosnality or campaign but to write history.And in some parts hedid say his oppinion, as in Parmenion's assasination.Plutarch's intention was not to write history but to critisize Alexander's personality and ethos.Diodorus wrote history also without commenting too much.And Kurtius wrote like he was writting in a gossip column of a modern magazine.

But since we dont have the original sources and many more others we just read what we have and get a picture.

As we say in all stories, consider the source. I like it that you feel that way Kenny as I honestly believe that in order to be fair about the stories we have to read everything there is to read and then weigh them against one another. Unfortunately, as someone mentioned, studying Alexander through the sources is like studying Jesus through the New Testament, and all of those stories, while similar, also have many conflicts and are often misquoted as well. Christians seem to take one piece of advice and use it as the end all, and I notice that followers of Alexander do the same thing. Whichever source serves their own agenda best is the one that they seem to cling to and one has to keep that in mind when reading them.

And academia is always separate and apart from the average, ordinary person's vocabulary and jargon. One reason I suppose that readers may like Steven Pressfield's versions of Alexander's marches is that he speaks in a tongue that makes a bit of sense; whereas, academia is always stylized and formalized for college credits and regurgitations.

Satisfying the needs of a professor is different from satisfying the needs of a reader.

Like you, I am fascinated by the stories that authors write about historical figures. One of the better fiction writers of history is Colin Falconer, an Englishman who now lives in Australia. He has written a book on the Central American Indians also. He is quite interesting writer in his ability to keep one interested in his storytelling device.

So if you are a college student, your interest in Alexander will be simply faithfully parroting back to a professor all that Arrian or Curtius or Diodorus has written, and then if the professor will permit it, that same student may be able to inject new life and inspiration into the story if he has perceived something that others have not yet discovered.

One of the better books that I have read this summer is Nicholas Saunders book on the search for the tomb of Alexander. I learned that not only Caligula, Caracalla, and Julian the Apostate all were heavily influenced by the stories of Alexander but are also probably responsible for his being blotted out from time to time due to their extreme savagery.

It is always fascinating to read how many people seem to think that they are Alexander reborn.

I belileve that anyone who believes that Alexander lives deep within themselves would be always fighting a gigantic force of some kind, something which I am understanding all the time now that I have uncovered this thought process. It is worth contemplating that if any had believed such as Caligula or Caracalla had believed that that person could go mad himself. They certainly did.

Here's to you! I loved the topic!