pothos.org

Just finished watching the new Rome series. And something became clear about Ancient Western Societies. Cremation was the norm and all the dead were basically cremated. We know macedonians and greeks. Philip we assume was cremated. Hepheastion was hugely Cremated.

So why was Alexanders a break from the Norm why was he mummified and preserved.Was it to do with his diety with Egyptian Culture. Did the generals want the ultimate trophy. Did Alexander request it. If he did then he had cut off from Greek religion.What i gather isgrreks got cremated and paid the ferry man etc.

I dont know a lot about funerals etc. basically i ask was Alexanders mummification different to other Greek and macedonians.If so why?

Not all the ancient Greeks practiced cremation - sometimes the bodies were buried intact - but I do believe that cremation was the common practice of the Macedonians. I’ve always thought it strange myself that those who professed to love Alexander appear to have gone against his religious beliefs, although I don’t think Alexander was mummified as we think of it – not wrapped in bandages anyway – but his body was certainly embalmed to preserve it until it was to be cremated and entombed in Macedonia (the original intention). It could be that Macedonian religious beliefs were not contradicted by the act of embalming and that the only reason they usually cremated and buried their soldiers “on the spot” was because they had no knowledge of how to preserve the bodies for burial elsewhere – until the death of Alexander, that is, when accomplished embalmers were available. However, Alexander may not have been the first Macedonian treated this way. The other day I was reading a copy of Richard Stoneman’s Alexander the Great where on page 102 he says about Hephaistion’s body:

The body was embalmed and sent ahead to Babylon where the following spring it was to be buried on a magnificent pyre that cost 10,000 talents to prepare.

I thought this a curious statement because I know it doesn’t say anywhere in the sources that Hephaistion’s body was embalmed, but I think Stoneman might be correct in this. Although Hephaistion died in Ecbatana, Arrian [7.14.8] says that Alexander ordered a pyre to be made ready in Babylon, and Diodorus [17.114.1] says that it was after the various embassies at Babylon that Alexander “threw himself into preparations for the burial of Hephaistion.” Now our Pothos timeline, presumably correct, puts the death of Hephaistion in October of 324 BC and his funeral in May of 323. Given a period of seven months or so between death and funeral I would think that Hephaistion’s body HAD to have been embalmed while awaiting cremation; otherwise they would have had a gross, rotting corpse! So if Hephaistion’s body was embalmed under the auspices of Alexander, the Diadochi might have thought nothing of doing the same with his own body; thus any significant offense against Macedonian religious beliefs would have been Ptolemy’s alone - not so much in stealing the body, but in never cremating it.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote: I’ve always thought it strange myself that those who professed to love Alexander appear to have gone against his religious beliefs...

Poker Amyntoros, poker. Diadoch poker to be rather more precise.

A good part of entrenching oneself as the successor is in the treatment of the remains of the predecessor. Hence Alexander's pious and respectful burying of his murdered father. Cassander too with Philip IV.

Perdiccas will have been advertising his pretensions with the mortuary and funerary arrangements for Alexander. The problem with Alexander though is that he irrevocably changed the idea of kingship. He became a symbol or talisman of that Kingly authority. Whatever his original intentions, Ptolemy was in no way going to be dealt out of the funeral play and accordingly kidnapped the expired Argaed whilst on his meanderings to Macedon.

He may well have intended to perform the burial himself but soon found that the mortified monarch was far more useful as a somewhat permanent - if unburnt - symbol of power and legitimacy. Eumenes, deprived of the deceased king’s earthly remains, instead invoked, by use of the “Alexander tent” and the departed King’s throne, that same propagandistic imprimatur of legitimacy.

This, of course, when he wasn’t forging a letter by Orontes that Cassander was dead, Olympias regent and that Polyperchon was on his way with a “royal army” to help deal with the empire-dreaming Antigonus who, without either a kingly corpse, tent or throne, went on to "win" in any case.

Is there a moral in that?

Paralus wrote:Whatever his original intentions, Ptolemy was in no way going to be dealt out of the funeral play and accordingly kidnapped the expired Argaed whilst on his meanderings to Macedon. He may well have intended to perform the burial himself but soon found that the mortified monarch was far more useful as a somewhat permanent - if unburnt - symbol of power and legitimacy.

Lucian - Dialogues of the Dead 13 wrote:Alexander (dead): I've been lying in Babylon for three days now, but my guardsman Ptolemy promises that, whenever he gets a respite from present disturbances, he'll take me away to Egypt and bury me there, so that I may become one of the gods of the Egyptians.

Holkias - Liber de Morte 119 wrote:Alexander (Will): Ptolemy is to take charge of conveying my corpse to Egypt.

Curtius 10.4.4 wrote:(Alexander) added instructions that they should order his body to be taken to Ammon.

Justin 12.15.7 & 13.4.6 wrote:At last he ordered his body to be buried in the temple of Ammon... Arridaeus was commissioned to convey the body of Alexander to the temple of Ammon.

Diodorus 18.3.5 wrote:The transportation of the body of the deceased king and the preparation of the vehicle that was to carry the body to Ammon they assigned to Arrhidaeus.

It seems that the ancient sources are crystal clear that Alexander himself ordered that his body should be taken to Egypt and that Ptolemy promised his putative half-brother and the saver of his life that he would carry out those orders. To my knowledge, no ancient source contradicts this perfectly human explanation of the events or offers another, except that Aelian VH 12.64 refers to a prophecy by Aristander that the nation that possessed the corpse would remain fortunate and unconquered. But the diversion of the corpse nearly cost Ptolemy his life. The modern fiction that he stole the body to enhance his prestige fails to explain why the mere possession of a corpse should be worth picking a quarrel with the commander of the most powerful army that had ever existed.

In Egypt pharaohs were mummified and entombed. When in Rome...

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:In Egypt pharaohs were mummified and entombed. When in Rome...

Except this decision regarding Alexander was still Ptolemy Soter's. Although Alexander openly accepted gods of other pantheons, he hadn't embraced the Egyptian religion to the exclusion of his own beliefs for he continued to have his own soldiers cremated - including Hephiastion whom he obviously expected to see in the afterlife. I'm not convinced that "take me to Ammon" can be translated also as "don't ever cremate me."

Paralus' statements are valid, IMO. The Macedonians did not plan to take Alexander’s body to Siwah, contrary to any instructions he might have given - Diodorus 18.26.1 says that Arrhidaeus had been placed in charge of bringing home the body of Alexander. And after Ptolemy took the body he built a mausoleum for it where, if not on open display, the corpse was obviously available for viewing if one was of high enough rank. Ancient Egyptian beliefs meant that great pains were taken to protect the dead pharaohs and to make sure that their bodies were hidden from view and were never disturbed, quite the opposite of what Ptolemy did with Alexander’s body. Not exactly a case of “when in Rome.” And to my knowledge, prior to this period, no Greek mausoleums were built wherein the body was accessible to viewing. Because of this I tend to agree with Paralus that Alexander’s body was a “symbol of power and legitimacy” to the Macedonians - including Ptolemy - and that Ptolemy’s abduction of the corpse was more for that reason than an attempt to honor Alexander’s wishes.

Whatever happened to the tombs and remains of all the Ptolemies, by the way?

Best regards,

Taphoi wrote: It seems that the ancient sources are crystal clear that Alexander himself ordered that his body should be taken to Egypt and that Ptolemy promised his putative half-brother and the saver of his life that he would carry out those orders.

The body was destined to be buried at Ammon, yet this did not happen. Assuming Ptolemy, (Alexander's half-brother? - I guess that's another story) was merely following through with Alexander's wishes, seems to be wrong then. It would appear Ptolemy had no intention of fulfilling Alexander's desire to be buried at Ammon, so we must look for another reason why Ptolemy had taken the body.

On the matter of embalming, Alexander, as the last Achaemenid king, may have simply been following previous Persian royal ritual. The sources make no reference to Alexander adopting Egyptian custom - however they do make much of him Medizing. It may have been politically expedient to allow Alexander's body to be embalmed by the Persian's, following the tradition of (at least some) other Achaemenid kings.


cheers!

I agree that those who loved Alexander would have had him cremated so none of this controversy would exist, but unfortunately, Hephaestion appears to be the only one who would have honored Alexander's wishes. I read that it was a power play because they each realized whoever had his body had a powerful tool by which that person could rule the world. So in fact, there is an argument that Ptolemy actually stole the body so that he would have the power. Many do not seem to believe that the body was really that of Alexander anyway, so that thought alone gives all kinds of conspiracy theories to concoct stories. It is all mystery which naturally keeps the story alive. ?

I would have to agree. with posts that Alexanders corpse was ambushed by Ptolemy as some kin ship of Power. And as stated the body was laid out in token gesture as a legitimate power tool.

if we look at Ptolemic Histories and in particular Cleopatra. She helt the corpse as some kind of beacon To Would be co lovers to carry on Alexanders mantle in the name of Egypt and particullayy the Ptolemic dynasty.

Im pretty sure Alexander wished to be disposed of as heaphastion. He wished Hepheastion could be named as a god, But still cremated him in Macedonian Tradition.

I doubt any of Alexanders wishes were adhered to, particullaly as i believe those maggots killed him any way so why would they care less about his after death wishes.

Kenny

amyntoros wrote:The Macedonians did not plan to take Alexander’s body to Siwah, contrary to any instructions he might have given - Diodorus 18.26.1 says that Arrhidaeus had been placed in charge of bringing home the body of Alexander. And after Ptolemy took the body he built a mausoleum for it where, if not on open display, the corpse was obviously available for viewing if one was of high enough rank. Ancient Egyptian beliefs meant that great pains were taken to protect the dead pharaohs and to make sure that their bodies were hidden from view and were never disturbed, quite the opposite of what Ptolemy did with Alexander’s body. Not exactly a case of “when in Rome.” And to my knowledge, prior to this period, no Greek mausoleums were built wherein the body was accessible to viewing. Because of this I tend to agree with Paralus that Alexander’s body was a “symbol of power and legitimacy” to the Macedonians - including Ptolemy - and that Ptolemy’s abduction of the corpse was more for that reason than an attempt to honor Alexander’s wishes.
Whatever happened to the tombs and remains of all the Ptolemies, by the way?

Diodorus 18.3.5 and Justin 13.4.6 suggest that the Macedonians initially agreed to Alexander's request to be taken to Ammon. Perdiccas subsequently changed his mind and decided to have the body sent to Aegae as we learn from Pausanias 1.6.3. I don't think the Loeb translation of Diodorus is all that brilliant at 18.26.1: the word is katakomiden, which actually means to bring down (especially to the sea-shore) or export rather than to bring home. Aelian 12.64 may imply that Perdiccas arranged Aristander's prophecy in order to persuade the Assembly to change the destination of the corpse. Hence the need for Ptolemy's hijack. In Egyptian belief the Pharaoh required his corpse in order to enjoy the afterlife, so burning a Pharaoh's mummy would have been sacrilege - hardly a good move if you desired local support. There is no source evidence for your statements that Alexander's body was on on public display until the late 4th century AD. Prior to that, it was kept in an underground funeral chamber within a stone sarcophagus and a gold (later glass) coffin. We hear nothing of the fate of the Ptolemies' remains subsequent to the visit of Augustus in 30BC. Ammon does not necessarily mean Ammonion (the temple of Ammon, which was the Greek name for Siwa). It could mean the god Ammon himself, who was of course to be found in Egypt. It seems that Justin was interpolating the word temple, since Curtius and Diodorus suggest that Cleitarchus wrote only Ammon. However, ancient as well as modern scholars have assumed that it was Siwa that was meant and this is quite possible. Diodorus 18.28.3 states that Ptolemy decided (after all?) not to send the body to Ammon. Lucian is probably following other primary sources in saying Egypt rather than Ammon - Holkias is himself a species of primary source. Stealing a royal corpse would have been a criminal act rather than a source of prestige as far a most Macedonians were concerned. Why did the Grand Army consent to attacking Ptolemy if he had become so powerful and legitimate through his possession of Alexander's corpse as you suppose?

Best wishes,

Andrew

PS. Ptolemy probably did not build a Mausoleum - it looks as though he took over a tomb intended for Nectanebo II at Saqqara. It was his son Philadelphus who moved the corpse to Alexandria.

Taphoi wrote:The modern fiction that he stole the body to enhance his prestige fails to explain why the mere possession of a corpse should be worth picking a quarrel with the commander of the most powerful army that had ever existed.

One would, on face value, assume that the carting of the dead Alexander’s body to and fro took place in a vacuum of other events.

Regardless of the historicity of Alexander’s last plans and wishes or the veracity of source translations, it was Macedonian custom that when one assumed the kingship one buried his predecessor. It was, seemingly, a sort of formal announcement of the successor’s legitimacy. Hence Alexander’s actions on his father’s murder and those, later, of Cassander.

At the time of the abduction of the kingly corpse Perdiccas was well down the road of the intrigues that would see his senior officers, Antigenes and Seleucus among them, remove him from the Diadoch chess board. He intended, ostensibly at Olympias’ invitation, to marry Alexander’s sister Cleopatra – succinctly now, if not before, making his intentions clear.

Pausanias (1.6.3) describes the king’s funeral cortege being sidetracked, whilst on its way to Aegae, to Egypt. Ptolemy then apparently buried it “with Macedonian rites” in Memphis. Presumably, if he did, he did not cremate it and exhumed it later. If, indeed, it was on its way to Aegae this would fit with Perdiccas’ grandiose intentions of a dynastic marriage to Cleopatra thus securing another piece of that coin of the Diadoch realm: legitimacy.

Ptolemy, it would seem, had other ideas and “nicked” the necropolis bound Alexander. Having enlarged his satrapy by adding Cyrenaica to his dominions, Ptolemy then announced his support of the Craterus-Antipater-Antigonus coalition currently assembling to cross into Asia. Eumenes, deputed to stop this, failed by virtue of his being otherwise occupied offering up presents and inducements to Cleopatra on Perdiccas’ behalf. The desertion to the coalition of Neoptolemus and his forces will have in no way helped matters here.

“Modern fiction” or not, Ptolemy wound up with the expired king and he apparently did so by taking it and ignoring the dead king’s "last wishes". This, plus throwing his support behind the coming invasion of the anti-Perdiccan coalition, “picked a quarrel” with the remnants of the royal army. One that Perdiccas was unable to win

Paralus wrote:It was Macedonian custom that when one assumed the kingship one buried his predecessor. It was, seemingly, a sort of formal announcement of the successor’s legitimacy. Hence Alexander’s actions on his father’s murder and those, later, of Cassander.

Yet Ptolemy, when offered the Regency of the Empire by the Grand Army following Perdiccas' assassination, politely refused and preferred to remain as Governor of Egypt (Diodorus 18.36.6). He did not declare himself Pharaoh for another 15 years and then only in response to similar declarations by Antigonus and Demetrius. Alexander's request, if expressed as a wish to be taken to Ammon, was ambiguous. Access to Egyptian priests and their death magic and the apotheosis and worship of the dead pharaoh were available at Memphis/Saqqara, so Ptolemy could reasonably have considered that the thrust of Alexander's last wish had been fulfilled without the risk of storing the corpse at an isolated and vulnerable location.

The whole prestige thing not only lacks any basis in the evidence, but actively contradicts the evidence that stealing the corpse was dangerous and illegal and that Ptolemy had no desire for kingly prestige at the time anyway.

The forestalling Perdiccas theory is quite a different point of view and I have more sympathy with it. Nevertheless, Perdiccas' ambitions to achieve the throne could only be opposed by armed force in the end. Stealing Alexander's corpse was an insult to him, which was very likely to bring the Grand Army down upon the perpetrator as indeed happened. If Ptolemy had only wished to be politically clever and strategically astute, surely he would have allowed Perdiccas to fight it out with Antipater and Craterus in Greece and Asia Minor?

Best wishes,

Andrew

iF Alexanders wish was to be burried in line with Egyptian traditions etc. Then we must assume he took his divine beliefs much more serious than tose who argue it only a propoganda tool.

And it would beliitle how much he thought of hepheastion. Alexander tried as he did do have Hepheastion proclaimes at Siwah as a god.Despite all this hepheastion got the Greko Macedonian send off.

If Alexander did choose an Egyptian way then it puts into question the closenessand Intimacy of himself and hepheastion. We are led to believe they were sole mates lovers etc. If so then why would Alexander choose another Egyptian after life to that of hepheastion.

I believe glory conquest and achievement were more imporatnt to Alexander than anything. He took his divinity seriously and probably chose his own glory godship whatever you call it to the greko After life.

But I agree with Paralus the parties after used the corpse to there own ends to substantiate there own goals. we gotta thank them any way. Thankful cassander never got his grubby hands on it. He would have bonfired it. Thanks to this act of Body snatching there is a slight chance we could see it again, As Tapoi is so brilliantly trying to solve.

Divinity was not available to Hephaistion in Egypt, as Alexander's enquiry to the Oracle at Siwa had confirmed (Arrian, Anabasis 7.14.7), but Pharaohs were automatically deified: in fact they were incarnations of Horus and sons of Ammon-Re. In the case of Hephaistion's funeral arrangements the overriding imperative for Alexander was to complete the parallel with the Achilles-Patroclus partnership by recreating yet outdoing the funeral of Patroclus in the Iliad.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:Yet Ptolemy, when offered the Regency of the Empire by the Grand Army following Perdiccas' assassination, politely refused and preferred to remain as Governor of Egypt (Diodorus 18.36.6). The whole prestige thing not only lacks any basis in the evidence, but actively contradicts the evidence that stealing the corpse was dangerous and illegal and that Ptolemy had no desire for kingly prestige at the time anyway.

Yes the image of Ptolemy as a player of limited ambitions and custodian of the legacy of Alexander is enduring, much like the wistful lad in Stone’s film longing for a long retirement in Egypt. Personally, I don’t buy it.

I view him as a much more calculating individual; more astute than the rather overweening Perdiccas who’s increasingly “grasping” nature lead to his undoing. Ptolemy had ambition and that ambition was not – in my opinion – limited to the geographical bounds of Coele-Syria. A bit like the much quoted line from Dirty Harry, Ptolemy knew his limitations – both personal and materiel.

Taphoi wrote:The forestalling Perdiccas theory is quite a different point of view and I have more sympathy with it. Nevertheless, Perdiccas' ambitions to achieve the throne could only be opposed by armed force in the end. Stealing Alexander's corpse was an insult to him, which was very likely to bring the Grand Army down upon the perpetrator as indeed happened. If Ptolemy had only wished to be politically clever and strategically astute, surely he would have allowed Perdiccas to fight it out with Antipater and Craterus in Greece and Asia Minor?

Again, none of this was happening in a vacuum. Much activity was taking place and the diversion of the king’s corpse did not take place as some spur of the moment thing. Arrian, from memory (Photius, Successors, I do not have a link at work), describes Arrhidaeus as taking the body from Babylon to Ptolemy against the wish of Perdiccas. He will hardly have disobeyed the chilliarch on a whim. Now, if we argue that Alexander’s wish was to be laid to rest in Egypt and that Ptolemy was simply honoring his expired king’s last wishes, it follows that Perdiccas planned to do nothing of the sort. That or, for some inexplicable reason, Arrhidaeus felt that in outright disobedience of the chilliarch's orders, a journey to Memphis - the kingly corpse in tow and likely harassed by Perdiccas’ supporters - would be just the thing for the departed Alexander.

If it is thought difficult to conceive of a senior marshal raising the ire of Perdiccas and the royal army, what then of "an officer called Arrhidaeus"? On your own site you claim he carried this out by "pre-arrangement with Ptolemy". I'd likely as not agree but not for the altruistic motive of seeing his last wishes obeyed.

Perdiccas was probablyin contact with Olympias, Alexander's mother. She is likely to have deplored the plan to send her son's body to Egypt and may have insisted that it should be returned to her. Perdiccas needed her support and was anyway nervous of putting Alexander's corpse into the hands of Ptolemy.

Well indeed and, one might ask, whyfore such nerves?

At this same time Perdiccas - bedazzled by the big picture and buggering the deatail - having eliminated Cynane, is in the process of repudiating Antipater’s daughter, Nicaea, and proposing (at Olympias’ ostensible suggestion) a marriage to Alexander’s sister. Given the dynastic marriage proposed (and recommended by Eumenes), the burial of that corpse in Aeagae may have been quite significant.

Perdiccas' regal ambitions are obvious. Antipater, Craterus and Antigonus were already mobilising to invade, this simply hurried matters, and they had Ptolemy’s support in the venture. Perdiccas would be stopped. Yet you would have it that Perdiccas only invaded Egypt for the corpse, because it was an affront with nary a nod to the wider politics, not to mention warfare, going on.

The furious Perdiccas attacked Egypt with the Grand Army in the Spring of 321BC. ...

The invasion on, Ptolemy now also had his king's corpse and Perdiccas had enemies on two fronts. From Ptolemy’s perspective, his risk was in holding that portion of the royal army which had not been sent north at the gates of Egypt. Of that which was sent north, Neoptolemus’ part promptly went over to the invaders. Eumenes, conspicuously in the wrong place at the wrong time (offering pre-nuptial presents to Cleopatra), allows the invaders a free passage.

The wider subject of Ptolemy’s ambitions for greater empire, or lack thereof, generally rests on his refusal of the chilliarchy – as you have noted. I would note that this took place immediately after his wooing of the Macedonians under the no longer extant Perdiccas’ command. These were an unruly lot and they were most fractious as events would shortly show at Triparadeisos. It was enough, for the time being, that he was looked upon by the Macedonians as quite the opposite to Perdiccas and held in some sort of regard. The last thing he - or the Macedonians for that matter - needed was a civil war with the Antigonus-Antipater coalition. Time and events would prove that pitching Macedonians against each other was a business fraught with incalculables.

Ptolemy will have been a decent poker player. Not for him the grand plans and sweeping power plays. He engineered the delivery of his dreams step by step. I believe he fully comprehended that he was not Alexander. His empire would be built brick by brick and, untill age and seeming retirement intervened, he had a good lunge at it.

Taphoi wrote:Alexander's request, if expressed as a wish to be taken to Ammon, was ambiguous. Access to Egyptian priests and their death magic and the apotheosis and worship of the dead pharaoh were available at Memphis/Saqqara, so Ptolemy could reasonably have considered that the thrust of Alexander's last wish had been fulfilled without the risk of storing the corpse at an isolated and vulnerable location.

IMO, it wasn’t that Ptolemy “could reasonably have considered that the thrust of Alexander’s last wish had been fulfilled” – more that he gave the appearance of fulfilling said wish. There’s no real ambiguity in Alexander’s request; your conjecture in your book that Alexander could have meant any of several other temples to Ammon doesn’t convince. Alexander’s relationship with Ammon centered on Siwah and everyone in his army must have known it. It was in Siwah where some say that Alexander had his divine parentage confirmed and there are two or three instances of soldiers complaining or taunting Alexander about “his divine father” (Philotas, Cleitus, Opis). It is stretching credibility to suggest that it was anywhere other than the temple at Siwah that Alexander sent his request for Hephaistion to be honored as a god. Ptolemy could claim to interpret “take me to Ammon” as meaning to any of his temples in Egypt, but it was pretence and not real conviction – part of the poker game, as Paralus said. More evidence that the abduction and internment of the body was political and not an intent to fulfill Alexander’s last wishes is in your book The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great

It is possible that Ptolemy created a full-scale Royal Tomb at Memphis, in which case the Royal Tombs at Aegae in Macedon may have provided the best prototypes. The tomb of Alexander’s father (Philip II) comprised stone chambers with a painted temple façade and a barrel-vaulted roof to support the tumulus of earth. This would be the best model if Pausanias’ mention of burial according to ‘Macedonian rites’ were taken to refer to the type of tomb in operation. However, a Macedonian internment would normally have required the prior incineration of the corpse, which certainly did not happen.

I think you have a very good argument that a full-scale Macedonian Royal Tomb may have been built, else how could the funeral be realistically described as “Macedonian style”? Alexander wasn’t cremated so this funeral wasn’t entirely in accordance with Macedonian customs and there’s an obvious reason for the inhumation of the mummified body – you have stated it yourself in this same thread”

Taphoi wrote:In Egyptian belief the Pharaoh required his corpse in order to enjoy the afterlife, so burning a Pharaoh's mummy would have been sacrilege - hardly a good move if you desired local support.

So we have a grand Macedonian style entombment (or superficial religious ceremony – the alternate possibility you give in your book and an interesting choice of words ) to gratify the Macedonians present in Egypt and show them how much Ptolemy honored his memory, yet also a mummified, intact corpse to appease the Egyptian population and allow them to worship Alexander as Pharaoh. I don’t see how this can be viewed as anything other than a shrewd political move – playing both sides of the fence, if you will. As politically astute as we are today, we shouldn’t be fooled by the semblance of Ptolemy honoring Alexander’s last wishes. As I see it, it’s all about Ptolemy - a crafty creature and much to be admired, but not someone who put Alexander's wishes above his own. According to Alexander's own wishes, beliefs, and practices, he should have been cremated and there's every reason to believe he wanted his bones entombed at Siwah. Had this been done there would have been no reason to risk “storing the corpse at an isolated and vulnerable location.” Does anyone truly believe that one of the Diadochi would have broken into a tomb at Siwah and stolen or scattered Alexander’s bones? Or that a tomb there would have been at greater risk from Egyptian tomb raiders? Siwah had one of the greatest oracles of ancient times; a temple; priests. Distance from the rest of civilization shouldn’t have been a factor – unless, that is, one wanted to keep Alexander’s body close for political reasons. If Alexander's body had been burnt and buried at Siwah Ptolemy's role in the affair - his connection to Alexander - would have been substantially reduced.

Best regards,