pothos.org

jan wrote:When you read stories about New York City, how many times do the authors mention either the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building? They are taken for granted, thus, deserve no mention at all. Everyone there knows all about them. Think about it. Or for that matter, in any western movie that is made in Arizona, there is never a mention of the Grand Canyon either.

marcus wrote:

jan wrote:When you read stories about New York City, how many times do the authors mention either the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building? They are taken for granted, thus, deserve no mention at all. Everyone there knows all about them. Think about it. Or for that matter, in any western movie that is made in Arizona, there is never a mention of the Grand Canyon either.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, Jan. The point is, everyone knew the Temple of Zeus was in Olympia, so it would excite no comment that Alexander went to it, or saw it, or whatever. Similarly the others. Perhaps less so the Pyramid or the Hanging Gardens, but those who wrote about Alexander were writing about Alexander's campaigns, not creating a travel guide.

No doubt the sights were mentioned in those books written by the bematists, or others who were with the army; but as they haven't survived we'll never know.

ATB

Semiramis wrote:I am reluctant to compare Alexander to any tourist as his travels took place while he was attacking these countries, perhaps differentiating his priorities somewhat. However, he did find time to visit the oracle at Siwa, Cyrus' tomb, graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot (the last two I am doubtful of). He visited Nysa, that city Dionysis founded in India (ehem..) and got quite excited by the presence of ivy. All this followed by a good old fashioned Bacchanalia. Then there was the visit to the birthplace of Prometheus. Maybe he had his own list of wonders.

rocktupac wrote:I couldn't respectfully disagree with you more. These aren't 'stories' about Alexander, they're his history, albeit not in the same way we think of history today. Sure people may have known about the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, but isn't Alexander's "story", as you put it, more exciting or interesting to all if it is included? Surely not everybody would have actually seen the magnificent statue, so I still believe it would have been exciting to read about itl, especially when it would have included Alexander! It is a part of his life, especially if his generals were to believe, or wish others to believe, that Zeus was in fact his father. I don't think it is a legitimate excuse or argument for the sites not to be included.

rocktupac wrote:I couldn't respectfully disagree with you more. These aren't 'stories' about Alexander, they're his history, albeit not in the same way we think of history today. Sure people may have known about the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, but isn't Alexander's "story", as you put it, more exciting or interesting to all if it is included? Surely not everybody would have actually seen the magnificent statue, so I still believe it would have been exciting to read about itl, especially when it would have included Alexander! It is a part of his life, especially if his generals were to believe, or wish others to believe, that Zeus was in fact his father. I don't think it is a legitimate excuse or argument for the sites not to be included.

Unlike Plutarch, Arrian, who wrote a history of Alexander, borrowing the title Anabasis from Xenophon, did not at all promote this theme of a fusion of cultures. He was a native of Nicomedia, and a member of the senatorial order who served under both Trajan and Hadrian. So he tended to portray the work of civilization and conquest initiated by Philip of Macedon on the model of Roman domination: he presents the Macedonians as conquering masters. Like the Romans, having started out with very little, they become the masters of the world. He also stresses how very much Alexander's conquest constituted a recapitulation of the whole of past Greek history ever since Troy, and also marked a new beginning. Herodotus' Histories ends with the revenge of Protesilaus at Sestus: the execution of the Persian Artayctes on the very spot where Xerxes' bridge had ended was a long-delayed riposte to the death of Protesilaus on the shores of Troy. On his way to Asia, Alexander made sure he halted at Elacous, to offer a sacrifice at the tomb of Protesilaus. Arrian adds, "The intention of the sacrifice was that the setting foot on Asian soil might be more propitious to Alexander than to Protesilaus." This was all the more important given that it was said that Alexander too, like a latter-day Protesilaus, was the first to leap from his ship on to the soil of Asia. He was a pious Greek assuming his inheritance.

But at the very same time he also repeated a number of Xerxes' gestures: the very same, but without the hubris and giving them a different meaning, the right meaning. It was as if he believed that repeating them but performing them as they should be performed would open up the path to victory. When Xerxes crossed the Hellespont, he poured libations from a golden cup that he then threw into the sea. When Alexander was half-way across the straits, he offered up a sacrifice and made a libation, likewise using a golden cup that he then threw into the sea. Xerxes had insisted on seeing Priam's Pergamum, where he had sacrificed a thousand oxen to Athena Ilias. Alexander went up to Illium and likewise sacrificed to Athena Ilias, but also to Priam (to assuage his anger), and placed a wreath on the tomb of Achilles.

amyntoros wrote:

Semiramis wrote:I am reluctant to compare Alexander to any tourist as his travels took place while he was attacking these countries, perhaps differentiating his priorities somewhat. However, he did find time to visit the oracle at Siwa, Cyrus' tomb, graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot (the last two I am doubtful of). He visited Nysa, that city Dionysis founded in India (ehem..) and got quite excited by the presence of ivy. All this followed by a good old fashioned Bacchanalia. Then there was the visit to the birthplace of Prometheus. Maybe he had his own list of wonders.

May ask what it is that you doubt about Alexander's visiting of the graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot? I.e., is it just specific details that you question or the visits in their entirety? I recall reading some interesting comments about Alexander at Troy (in a non-Alexander book) but I'm not sure whether they're relevant.

Best regards,

Arrian wrote:HAVING settled these affairs, he returned into Macedonia. He then offered to the Olympian Zeus the sacrifice which had been instituted by Archelaus, and had been customary up to that time; and he celebrated the public contest of the Olympic games at Aegae. It is said that he also held a public contest in honour of the Muses. At this time it was reported that the statue of Orpheus, son of Oeagrus the Thracian, which was in Pieris, sweated incessantly. Various were the explanations of this prodigy given by the soothsayers; but Aristander, a man of Telmissus, a soothsayer, bade Alexander take courage; for he said it was evident from this that there would be much labour for the epic and lyric poets, and for the writers of odes, to compose and sing about Alexander and his achievements.

At the beginning of the spring he marched towards the Hellespont, entrusting the affairs of Macedonia and Greece to Antipater. He led with him not much over 30,000 infantry together with light-armed troops and archers, and more than 5,000 cavalry. His march was past the lake Cercinitis, towards Amphipolis and the mouths of the river Strymon. Having crossed this river he passed by the Pangaean mountain, along the road leading to Abdera and Maronea, Grecian cities built on the coast. Thence he arrived at the river Hebrus, and easily crossed it. Thence he proceeded through Paetica to the river Melas, having crossed which he arrived at Sestus, in twenty days altogether from the time of his starting from home. When he came to Elaeus he offered sacrifice to Protesilaus upon the tomb of that hero, both for other reasons and because Protesilaus seemed to have been the first of the Greeks who took part with Agamemnon in the expedition to Ilium to disembark in Asia. The design of this sacrifice was that disembarking in Asia might be more fortunate to himself than that it had been to Protesilaus. He then committed to Parmenio the duty of conveying the cavalry and the greater part of the infantry across from Sestus to Abydus; and they crossed over in 160 triremes, besides many trading vessels. The prevailing account is that Alexander started from Elaeus and put into the Port of Achaeans, that with his own hand he steered the general's ship across, and that when he was about the middle of the channel of the Hellespont he sacrificed a bull to Poseidon and the Nereids, and poured forth a libation to them into the sea from a golden goblet. They say also that he was the first man to step out of the ship in full armour on the land of Asia, and that he erected altars to Zeus, the protector of people landing, to Athena, and to Heracles, at the place in Europe whence he started, and at the place in Asia where he disembarked. It is also said that he went up to Ilium and offered sacrifice to the Trojan Athena; that he set up his ow n panoply in the temple as a votive offering, and in exchange for it took away some of the consecrated arms which had been preserved from the time of the Trojan war. It is also said that the shield-bearing guards used to carry these arms in front of him into the battles. A report also prevails that he offered sacrifice to Priam upon the altar of Zeus the household god, deprecating the wrath of Priam against the progeny of Neoptolemus, from whom Alexander himself was descended.

WHEN he went up to Ilium, Menoetius the pilot crowned him with a golden crown; after him Chares the Athenian, coming from Sigeum, as well as certain others, both Greeks and natives, did the same. Alexander then encircled the tomb of Achilles with a garland; and it is said that Hephaestion decorated that of Patroclus in the same way. There is indeed a report that Alexander pronounced Achilles fortunate in getting Homer as the herald of his fame to posterity.

Arrian wrote:It is said by some that when Alexander could find out no way to loosen the cord and yet was unwilling to allow it to remain unloosened, lest this should exercise some disturbing influence upon the multitude, he struck it with his sword and cutting it through, said that it had been loosened. But Aristobulus says that he pulled out the pin of the wagon-pole, which was a wooden peg driven right through it, holding the cord together. Having done this, he drew out the yoke from the wagon-pole. How Alexander performed the feat in connection with this cord, I cannot affirm with confidence. At any rate both he and his troops departed from the wagon as if the oracular prediction concerning the loosening of the cord had been fulfilled. Moreover, that very night, the thunder and lightning were signs of its fulfilment; and for this reason Alexander offered sacrifice on the following day to the gods who had revealed the signs and the way to loosen the cord.

Plutarch wrote:Then he subdued the Pisidians who made head against him, and conquered the Phrygians, at whose chief city, Gordium, which is said to be the seat of the ancient Midas, he saw the famous chariot fastened with cords made of the rind of the cornel-tree, which whosoever should untie, the inhabitants had a tradition, that for him was reserved the empire of the world.

Most authors tell the story that Alexander finding himself unable to untie the knot, the ends of which were secretly twisted round and folded up within it, cut it asunder with his sword. But Aristobulus tells us it was easy for him to undo it, by only pulling the pin out of the pole, to which the yoke was tied, and afterwards drawing off the yoke itself from below.

From hence he advanced into Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, both which countries he soon reduced to obedience, and then hearing of the death of Memnon, the best commander Darius had upon the sea-coasts, who, if he had lived, might, it was supposed, have put many impediments and difficulties in the way of the progress of his arms, he was the rather encouraged to carry the war into the upper provinces of Asia.

Semiramis wrote:
With regards to Alexander not wanting to be reminded of the ancient roots of Egyptian culture, I'm not sure this was the case. The simple act of his claiming to be Pharaoh would have been reminder enough. Alexander never claimed his right of conquest due to the cultural superiority of the Greeks. His reasons evolved from revenge to justice to simply not recognizing him as the ruler. Learned Greeks were usually willing to accord Egypt it's place in history as a much more ancient civilization and a seat of learning. It's most likely, as you say, he was playing to an audience familiar with Greek religious myths, which is what he was drawing on in his own myth-making.

Sorry for the long post! Take care.

jan wrote:Rocktupac, You may disagree respectfully or not, but in truth, the two most famous places in NYC are the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty. I have visited the city in the past several times, and to this day, have not yet visited either of the two most famous spots. Perhaps at a future day, I may, but my first priority was my personal reasons for being in the city and that did not include sightseeing either of those scenic features.