Hephaistion's pyre question

[agesilaos]

AMYNTOROS, you are quite right none of the quoted usages of 'pyra' includes its use for a monument above the site of the pyre and Pausanias' description of that very type of monument demonstrates that it was not in the form of the actual pyre.

As testimony to the accuracy of Diodoros' account consider; XVII 115 vff

All of the generals and the soldiers and the envoys and even the natives rivalled one another in contributing to the magnificence of the funeral, so, it is said, that the total expense came to over twelve thousand talents. 6 In keeping with this magnificence and the other special marks of honour at the funeral, Alexander ended by decreeing that all should sacrifice to Hephaestion as god coadjutor. As a matter of fact, it happened just at this time that Philip, one of the Friends, came bearing a response from Ammon that Hephaestion should be worshipped as a god. Alexander was delighted that the god had ratified his own opinion, was himself the first to perform the sacrifice, and entertained everybody handsomely. The sacrifice consisted of ten thousand victims of all sorts.

The votive offering of Diogenes found at Pella makes it clear that, as Arrian states, Hephaistion was worshipped as a Hero and not a God, yet here is an Alexandrian, in whose city there were two heroa dedicated to Hephaistion and allegedly in living memory of his heroisation, making him a God at the last minute; I trust that archaeological evidence is uncontroversial.

[Xenophon]

Alexias:

But, it's late and I'm not really interested any more. Too much aggression tends to put people off, Xenophon.

Aggression?....curious how different perceptions can be. There was I thinking that I was agreeing with you that the requirements of a funeral pyre were for a structure very different to Diodorus' description.

If you are referring to my remarks that your reading of Diodorus was "careless" regarding detail, and a certain 'shortness' overall, that is because it was the wee small hours here.......and even so, please accept my apologies for any perceived "aggression".

A word or two about bricks/tiles. Babylonian bricks varied from era to era in size and shape but were of course fairly uniform in any given building period. Because there were few trees, and hence no fuel for kiln-baking, most bricks were sun-dried rather than 'baked'. In order to expedite sun-drying, the bricks were made quite thin e.g. 33cm x 24 cm x 8 cms thick; 20 x 18.5 x 8 cms thick ; or 23 cm x 9 cm x 6.5 cm thick. Of course, to us, used to much thicker modern kiln-dried bricks, these thin varieties seem more like what we call 'tiles', hence the confusion, but Paralus is right, they are in fact bricks intended for construction, not tiles.

To sort out once and for all what D.S. actually wrote, here is the whole passage:

(1)' Each of the Generals and the Friends aimed at pleasing the king by making ready likenesses of Hephaestion in ivory and gold and all other media which people value highly; and he himself gathered together building-foremen/artisans and a crowd of skilled craftsmen, then demolished a total of ten stades (2,000m/2,200 yds aprox) of the city wall. He collected up the burnt/baked bricks, prepared the place which was to receive the pyre to make it level, and built a four-sided pyre, with each of its sides a stade (200m/220 yds aprox) long. (2) Dividing the place up into thirty rooms/houses/buildings( domoi), and laying out the roofs with trunks of palm trees, he made the whole construction ( kataskeuasma) square. After this he began to decorate the outside with a complete scheme of ornamentation. Golden prows of quinqueremes, two hundred and forty in number, filled the bottom layer, and on the cat-heads (epotides) there were two archers kneeling on one knee, each four cubits high; and there were armoured statues five cubits high, and in between there were red banners made of felt. (3) Above these things, torches fifteen feet high filled the second layer, with golden wreaths on their handles, and at their fiery ends eagles with their wings spread out, looking downward; round the bases of the torches were serpents looking up at the eagles. On the third level had been devised a multitude of animals of all kinds being hunted.( 4) Then the fourth layer had a golden centauromachy, and the fifth had alternating lions and bulls, made of gold. The next part up was filled with Macedonian and barbarian weapons, signifying the deeds of valour of the former, and the defeats of the latter. And over all had been set up hollow Sirens which could conceal people inside them who would sing a mourning dirge for the deceased. ( 5) The height of the whole construction was more than one hundred and thirty cubits(65yds/60m aprox). In sum, since the officers and all the soldiers and the ambassadors, and even the local people, were rivalling each other to beautify the funeral, they say that the total amount of money that was spent came to more than twelve thousand talents.[ other sources say 10,000] (6) In keeping with this majestic display (megaloprepeia) and the other honours that were accorded to Hephaestion at the funeral, he [Alexander] finally commanded everybody to sacrifice to Hephaestion as a presiding god.(5) And it chanced that Philippus, one of the Friends, arrived bringing from Ammon an oracle saying that sacrifice should be made to Hephaestion as a god. So he was overjoyed that the god also had confirmed his own idea, and he was first to carry out the sacrifice, and then he gave a feast to the crowd on a grand scale, sacrificing victims of all kinds to a total of ten thousand.
(In other sources the priests of Ammon deny godhood to Hephaistion, who must be content with the lesser status of 'Hero'. Archaeology confirms that Hephaestion received 'Hero worship', rather than as a god - Diodorus' source is incorrect once again)

Note the following:
1. No mention of using the bricks as a 'platform' - the foundations are simply levelled and large square structure, divided into 30 'buildings' erected.

2. A total of 7 stories/layers is erected.

3. The roof of each layer is made of palm logs - no other usage recorded for them. No mention of wooden 'frame', none of Taphoi's 'planking', or other pure suppositions .

4. Alexander never had as many as 240 quinqueremes from which to cut off the bows to decorate the tomb, and certainly not at Babylon. To hammer a gold plated sheet a mere 1 mm thick over the bows back to the epotides would take over 36 kg of gold, or 1.4 Attic talents, roughly 336 Attic Talents to gold-plate the imaginary 240 quinquereme bows alone, never mind the statues and other decorations....

5. Despite Taphoi's allusions to apparently limitless wealth, the sources agree that Alexander's total loot was 200,000 Talents or less, and 6% or so of the total (10-12,000 Talents)to spend on a funeral went beyond extravagance....

6.The largest stockyard in history was the Union stockyards in Chicago, which at its height covered over a square mile, and even with automated killing machinery and modern industrial methods found 'processing' 1,500-3,000 animals per day a mammoth task, and unlike a sacrifice, they didn't have to cook the portions as well ! ( the smoke rising to heaven was the god's portion, the cooked meat was divided among the worshippers)

Sacrificing 10,000 animals with their attendant ritual would have required the building of vast stockyards by Alexander, and taken weeks or months even with huge numbers of altars, given that following slaughter, each animal was then cooked on the altar, which would have taken hours for each.
....and who could consume the 3-7.5 million pounds of meat ( depending on how many were cattle, pigs, sheep etc )produced and cooked by the sacrifices ?

Every detail of this lurid piece of fantastic fiction presents us with impossibilities.

Far more likely is the sort of funeral pyre you described....in Ecbatana ( the Lion of Hamadan/Ecbatana, still extant, is believed by some to have been part of Hephaistions monument )

[Taphoi]

Instead of agesilaos' amusingly evasive approach of citing cases where the monument on the site of a funeral pyre is not called a pyra, let us instead take the refreshing and daring approach of looking at a couple of examples where the monument is called a pyra.

Lady, methinks thou knowest already the intention of the host, and the vote that has been passed; still will I declare it. It is the Achaeans' will to sacrifice thy daughter Polyxena at the mound heaped o'er Achilles' grave…
Odysseus, if ye must pleasure the son of Peleus, and avoid reproach, slay not this maid, but lead me to Achilles' pyre and torture me unsparingly: 'twas I that bore Paris, whose fatal shaft laid low the son of Thetis.

I’ll tell you then all I saw. As soon as I got to the ancient tomb (theken) of our father I saw that from the top of the tomb some newly-made streams of milk and all around it was adorned by all the flowers that earth can produce.
I was surprised by this and I took a look around in case someone might appear from near by. The place was all quiet everywhere and so I approached the tomb (pyra) even closer and there I saw on its top a newly cut lock of hair. The very moment I saw it, an old and well known image hit my soul, an image of the man I loved the most, that of our brother, Orestes. I picked it up in my hands without uttering a sound in case I ruined the omen and my eyes brimmed with tears. And I’m certain, Elektra, just as much now as then that this ornament is no one else’s but his own because, who else other than you and I are obliged to do such a thing?

Would these usages have been obscure to Alexander? No - for Plutarch, Alexander 8 says that Alexander read the plays of these two authors and he is often cited quoting Euripides. Indeed, Euripides' use is for the monument over the tomb of Achilles, that Alexander himself had visited. Achilles was his ancestor and hero. It is only too likely therefore that Alexander himself in his Last Plans would have termed the monument to be erected over the pyre site of Haphaistion a pyra. And what is the alternative? To suppose that Diodorus was so addled and bumbling as to contradict himself totally on the matter of whether the funeral pyre was completed and burnt within a few pages within his work? Hardly feasible, especially when there is a perfectly coherent explanation.

The mounds (or other monuments) were representative of the pyre and therefore so termed, but Alexander could afford to produce an exact effigy in stone and that is what he evidently intended.

That high status funeral pyres in the Greco-Roman world were step pyramids with external decorations is attested by coin images as well as Diodorus's account. There are excellent clues as to the exact form in Diodorus's details and the context. The ziggurat in Babylon was also a step pyramid with about seven stages. The construction from thirty identical rectangular chambers makes perfect sense. Thirty is the sum of 4-squared plus 3-squared plus 2-squared plus 1. Hence we are looking at thirty chambers of base 100 cubits square and a height of thirty cubits. 16 were arrayed in a 4x4 configuration in the first stage, 9 in the second, 4 in the third and one at the summit. The body and its support probably gave the last 10 cubits and there may have been banners. Each stage was split into two bands of decoration, so these were 15 cubits high (as stated by Diodorus), but the last band (the sirens) was probably 30 cubits high giving seven bands in all. In this arrangement the most loaded chambers on the first stage only supported the weight of less than one additional chamber each (16 base chambers supported 14 upper level chambers). So the structural demands were not all that great.

Note also that Plutarch says that the battlements of Ecbatana (and other nearby cities) were removed by Alexander to give the city a dishevelled mourning prospect. This was a true red-herring from agesilaos. The use of material at Babylon for the pyre-base was an entirely separate matter.

Note further that Diodorus did not call Hephaistion a god, but a theo-paredros, an assistant to a god, which is not so different from a hero.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Diodoros 115

καὶ γὰρκατὰ τύχην ἧκεν εἷς τῶν φίλων Φίλιππος, χρησμὸν φέρων παρ᾽Ἄμμωνος θύειν Ἡφαιστίωνι θεῷ

When you read things it is quite clear. The funeral started with the honours of a theos proedros and then Philip came from Ammon saying the God said hephaistion could be worshipped as a GOD (theos).

Which bit of the distinction between PROSE writers and poetic writers don't you get? Now it maybe that you have actually hit the nail on the head about why Alexander called the monument 'Pyra' but this is simply not everyday usage, and hence the confusion in the sources some of whom took it that the monument which was described as planned was actually built and burned.

Each of the compartments would be 55 yds or 165 feet square so the palms for the roofs doubling as decks needed to be 165feet tall, 50-100 years of growth yields trees only 100 feet tall; to cover all the compartments assuming a trunk three feet wide would require, 1,650 trees all over 100 years old which, of course, implies a tree population of over 165,000 in an area renowned for its lack of trees! Further each log would weigh 40 short tons, the roof of each compartment 2200 tons the compartment bearing the most weight is the central one of the second storey which is directly below the uppermost single one and has to bear 2750 tons of roofing alone. The pyramid were built by ramps but in a desert where there was plenty of mound building material and clear space, neither obtains inside Babylon; better factor in more trees for cranes; better still paint the whole thing red and call it a 'herring'.

[amyntoros]

The mounds (or other monuments) were representative of the pyre and therefore so termed, but Alexander could afford to produce an exact effigy in stone and that is what he evidently intended.

Both your quotes show that "buildings" over the tombs were MOUNDS, just the same as the mound placed over Philip's tomb. One can say they were "representative" of the pyre, but this is still not evidence of an elaborate and intricate construction used for the burning of the body.

That high status funeral pyres in the Greco-Roman world were step pyramids with external decorations is attested by coin images as well as Diodorus's account. There are excellent clues as to the exact form in Diodorus's details and the context.

Again, the images on the coins don't prove that "step pyramids with external decorations" were actually built ... and then burned ... and then a replica rebuilt over the body. Outside of this quote from Diodorus where are references to the construction of elaborately constructed funeral pyres "for burning"?

Regards,

[agesilaos]

Way back when Delos 13 posed these questions

what do you think about the various descriptions of Alexander's grief at Hephaistion's death? How much of it you consider true and how much - a fruit of imagination of the contributing authors? And one more question - what is your opinion on Alexander's desire to emulate Achilles? If you say that it was also a fiction of imagination then would you argue that Alexander's visit to Troy never happened or he and Hephaistion never made obsequies at the tombs of Achilles and Partocles?

But if you don't dispute it (Alexander's desire or at least a show of desire), then wouldn't the King want to follow the example of his alleged ancestor Achilles and follow not only his example of profound grief but also the honours, i.e. the magnificent funeral pyre?

So I had better respond. Taking the visit to Troy first, it certainly happened Arrian takes his itinerary from Ptolemy who had no reason to invent the visit but it has gathered 'colour'

It is also said that he went up to Ilium and offered sacrifice to the Trojan Athena; that he set up his own 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.12 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

I would accept the emboldened passage; the visit to the Temple does not at first sight seem out of character but it is linked with the swapping of armour which is nonsense it is quite clear in the battle descriptions that no merry band of hypaspists trotted in front of the Royal Ile with vintage armour, this appears in Diodoros XVII 18 i, so is likely another of Kleitarchos' embellishments, another source invents the sacrifice to the spirit of Priam, on the basis of Alexander's traditional love of Homer. Similarly, It would appear that Alexander wreathed the tomb of his ancestor but later writers made Hephaistion do the same for Patroklos', because the parallel had become a literary norm. It would seem that the child Alexander did call his tutor, Lysimachos, Phoinix but there is no hint of his calling Hephaistion Patroklos. Already we have an Alexander not so Homeric.

As for the grief we have to accept the details Arrian says were agreed by all his sources here is the whole chapter 14 Book VII

14. IN Ecbatana Alexander offered sacrifice according to his custom, for his good fortune; and he celebrated a gymnastic and musical contest. He also held drinking parties with his Companions. At this time Hephaestion fell sick; and they say that the stadium was full of people on the seventh day of his fever, for on that day there was a gymnastic contest for boys. When Alexander was informed that Hephaestion was in a critical state, he went to him without delay, but found him no longer alive. Different authors have given different accounts of Alexander’s grief on this occasion; but they all agree in this, that his grief was great. As to what was done in honour of Hephaestion, they make diverse statements, just as each writer was actuated by good-will or envy towards him, or even towards Alexander himself. Of the authors who have made these reckless statements, some seem to me to have thought that whatever Alexander said or did to show his excessive grief for the man who was the dearest to him in the world, redounds to his honour; whereas others seem to have thought that it rather tended to his disgrace, as being conduct unbecoming to any king and especially to Alexander. Some say that he threw himself on his companion’s body and lay there for the greater part of that day, bewailing him and refusing to depart from him, until he was forcibly carried away by his Companions. Others that he lay upon the body the whole day and night. Others again say that he hanged the physician Glaucias, for having indiscreetly given the medicine; while others affirm that he, being a spectator of the games, neglected Hephaestion, who was filled with wine. That Alexander should have cut off his hair in honour of the dead man, I do not think improbable, both for other reasons and especially from a desire to imitate Achilles, whom from his boyhood he had an ambition to rival. Others also say that Alexander himself at one time drove the chariot on which the body was borne; but this statement I by no means believe. Others again affirm that he ordered the shrine of Asclepius in Ecbatana to be razed to the ground; which was an act of barbarism, and by no means in harmony with Alexander’s general behaviour, but rather in accordance with the arrogance of Xerxes in his dealings with the deity, who is said to have let fetters down into the Hellespont, in order to punish it forsooth. But the following statement, which has been recorded, does not seem to me entirely beyond the range of probability —that when Alexander was marching to Babylon, he was met on the road by many embassies from Greece, among which were some Epidaurian envoys, who obtained from him their requests. He also gave them an offering to be conveyed to Asclepius, adding this remark: “Although Asclepius has not treated me fairly, in not saving the life of my Companion, whom I valued equally with my own head.” It has been stated by most writers that he ordered honours to be always paid to Hephaestion as a hero; and some say that he even sent men to Ammon’s temple to ask the god if it were allowable to offer sacrifice to Hephaestion as a god; but Ammon replied that it was not allowable. All the authorities, however, agree as to the following facts: that until the third day after Hephaestion’s death, Alexander neither tasted food nor paid any attention to his personal appearance, but lay on the ground either bewailing or silently mourning; that he also ordered a funeral pyre to be prepared for him in Babylon at the expense of 10,000 talents; some say at a still greater cost; and that a decree was published throughout all the barbarian territory for the observance of a public mourning. Many of Alexander’s Companions dedicated themselves and their arms to the dead Hephaestion in order to show their respect to him; and the first to begin the artifice was Eumenes, whom we a short time ago mentioned as having been at variance with him. This he did that Alexander might not think he was pleased at Hephaestion’s death. Alexander did not appoint any one else to be commander of the Companion cavalry in the place of Hephaestion, so that the name of that general might not perish from the brigade; but that division of cavalry was still called Hephaestion’s and the figure made from Hephaestion went in front of it. He also resolved to celebrate a gymnastic and musical contest, much more magnificent than any of the preceding, both in the multitude of competitors and in the amount of money expended upon it. For he provided 3,000 competitors in all; and it is said that these men a short time after also competed in the games held at Alexander’s own funeral.

As can be seen there are many variant traditions and the piece ends with another embellishment, since Alexander had no funeral in Babylon these competitors from the Games at Ecbatana, (if Plutarch can be trusted) would have no occaision to compete; the funeral was to be over two years down the road. Other details, such as the removal of the battlement of nearby cities and the extinguishing of the sacred flame are just more gilding.

As to the pyre, I would say there was one just not in the form Diodoros states for all the reasons stated above.

[Taphoi]

When you read things it is quite clear. The funeral started with the honours of a theos proedros and then Philip came from Ammon saying the God said hephaistion could be worshipped as a GOD (theos).

As I expect you knew very well when you wrote this, proedros is wisely emended to paredros by modern editors on ther basis of Lucian, Calumniae 17.148. The point is that Alexander only authorised worship of Hephaistion as theo-paredros (one who sits beside or assists a god).

Which bit of the distinction between PROSE writers and poetic writers don't you get? Now it maybe that you have actually hit the nail on the head about why Alexander called the monument 'Pyra' but this is simply not everyday usage, and hence the confusion in the sources some of whom took it that the monument which was described as planned was actually built and burned.

I do not accept that Euripides and Sophocles used a different Greek to other contemporaneous literature. Your argument about other cases where the monument at the site of the pyre is not called a pyra is exactly the same as finding modern texts where a Dyson is called a vacuum cleaner and using that to "prove" that it could never possibly have been called a Hoover (and just as disingenuous). The pyra monuments are called other things (mounds, graves...) in the same texts where they are called pyra! That is how we know that they mean the monuments, not actual pyres.

Each of the compartments would be 55 yds or 165 feet square so the palms for the roofs doubling as decks needed to be 165feet tall, 50-100 years of growth yields trees only 100 feet tall; to cover all the compartments assuming a trunk three feet wide would require, 1,650 trees all over 100 years old which, of course, implies a tree population of over 165,000 in an area renowned for its lack of trees! Further each log would weigh 40 short tons, the roof of each compartment 2200 tons the compartment bearing the most weight is the central one of the second storey which is directly below the uppermost single one and has to bear 2750 tons of roofing alone. The pyramid were built by ramps but in a desert where there was plenty of mound building material and clear space, neither obtains inside Babylon; better factor in more trees for cranes; better still paint the whole thing red and call it a 'herring'.

Twisted evil indeed. The height of the chambers was 30 cubits (not 100 cubits), which is the only dimension in which load support requirements would make it desirable that the palm trunks spanned the whole distance. The structure must have been a framework. Insofar as there was any roofing over of the chambers (which may only have been partial or peripheral) it would have been done by planking, not whole trunks. For the rest, we can assume that Alexander's builders practiced the art of carpentry as required. I doubt whether more than a few hundred fully grown palms would have been needed per chamber. Therefore we are dealing with around 10,000 mature (and not exceptional) palm trees. Alexander could use the rivers to bring this number into Babylon with no trouble whatsoever. Note that Aristobulus wrote that there were large numbers of cypresses in Babylonia at that time and that Alexander used them to build a new fleet.

As for amyntoros' comments, they are her usual "I need more evidence amounting to proof before I will believe this". This is of course a response that can be given however much weight of evidence has been presented. It is also true that nothing can be proven in the real world because all reasoning is fallible and all evidence is imperfect. Amyntoros will therefore of necessity have to be satisfied with the weight of imperfect evidence, if she wishes ever to reach any conclusions about anything.

A funeral pyre on a Roman coin, adducing the accuracy of Diodorus's description.


Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

As I expect you knew very well when you wrote this, proedros is wisely emended to paredros by modern editors on ther basis of Lucian, Calumniae 17.148. The point is that Alexander only authorised worship of Hephaistion as theo-paredros (one who sits beside or assists a god).

As I expect you knew very well when you "answered" the above, the point is that Diodorus writes that Ammon gave permission for Hephaestion to be worshiped as a god rather than a hero. Alexander's "authorisation" was neither under discussion nor relevant. Your semantic sophistry alters nothing.

I do not accept that Euripides and Sophocles used a different Greek to other contemporaneous literature.

No one ever claimed that Euripides and Sophocles used "a different Greek" to other contemporaneous literature. The claim is that Euripides and Sophocles utilised the same Greek (of contemporaneous literature) differently. Pretty much as poets have done down through the ages; such is the definition of "poetic license". The difference, seemingly small, is significant. As a "scientist and engineer", it is understandable how such a distinction - as with prose and poetry - might well escape you.

[amyntoros]

As for amyntoros' comments, they are her usual "I need more evidence amounting to proof before I will believe this". This is of course a response that can be given however much weight of evidence has been presented. It is also true that nothing can be proven in the real world because all reasoning is fallible and all evidence is imperfect. Amyntoros will therefore of necessity have to be satisfied with the weight of imperfect evidence, if she wishes ever to reach any conclusions about anything.

Weight of evidence? WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE? You made an assertion of which there is apparently no evidence. You said

If you are saying that Diodorus mistook plans for the monument and cited them for the pyre, I would respond that the point of the monument in these cases was to create a permanent effigy of the pyre.

I asked for evidence of monuments that were permanent representations of a pyre – something which must exist in your mind if you are going to make assertions such as "in these cases". You provided quotes about mounds over pyres as proof. Huh? Now you are posting images of mausoleums on coins as evidence of actual recreations of funeral pyres. This is NOT evidence. This is simply supposition on your part that because the mausoleums existed then the funeral pyres must have looked exactly the same. Again, this is not evidence.

I didn't ask for more evidence. I asked for any evidence. You haven't provided any. You obviously think you have, but you haven't. And do try and remember which particular assertion of yours is under debate here (so that we don't have to suffer any more diversions). It's the one I quoted above. As per your remarks which begin this post, you haven't even provided any "imperfect" evidence to support your statement. All you have provided are more and more assumptions, presumptions, and conjectures. I have been very polite with my responses but you have replied with yet another one of your ad hominem arguments. You, as yet, have nothing to support your assertion so instead you attack the person debating with you in order to discredit them in the eyes of others. You insist on getting personal with me – you have done this time and time again and I have never edited your posts to me because I do not want to be thought of using my position as moderator to my own advantage. So now, in what must be evident frustration to all reading this, I am going to respond to you in kind:-

The insulting remarks you have written at the beginning of this post are nothing more than posturing. They are, immature, irresponsible, inappropriate comments on a forum with a reputation such as ours. And the same would apply no matter to whom they were addressed. Such a chest-beating attitude of superiority belongs on a WWE wrestling show, not on Pothos.

[agesilaos]

220yds =660 ft the base is square and the first storey thus consists of sixteen rooms 55yds or 165 ft square, the height is not an issue the walls have to be spanned to support the storey above. The supposed archaeology found palm trunk impressions, not signs of planking. Nor was Babylon equipped with automated saw mills, logs need only to felled, converting this green wood to planks and then seasoning them would extend the build time even more prohibitively.

Aristobulus says that he found at Babylon the fleet with Nearchus, which had sailed from the Persian Sea up the river Euphrates; and another which had been conveyed from Phoenicia, consisting of two Phoenician quinqueremes, three quadriremes, twelve triremes, and thirty triacontors. These had been taken to pieces and conveyed to the river Euphrates from Phoenicia to the city of Thapsacus. There they were joined together again and sailed down to Babylon. The same writer says that he cut down the cypresses in Babylonia and with them built another fleet; for in the land of the Assyrians these trees alone are abundant, but of the other things necessary for ship-building this country affords no supply.

So, a fleet need only be about fifty ships alot of time and effort would be needed, but no great forests, but leaving a depleted workforce for the alleged pyre. Odd that whislt detailing all these works the engineer Aristoboulos makes no mention of the major project of the period.

You have to remember that everyone can read what is written, sometimes in bold and capitals, so I can't be arsed to rehearse the failings of Diodoros' account again nor did I notice a scale on the coin of Marcus Aurelius (I presume since it commemorates the divinisation of Antoninus pius), but if the uppermost storey is the corpse on its bier then the whole seems 18ft by 18ft ish not the monster Diodoros' source imagined.

[Xenophon]

The uppermost figure, worn though it is, almost certainly depicts the Emperor in a 'quadriga' four horse chariot ( note two horses heads turned left and right respectively )

On what is the supposition that this 'monument' is a funeral pyre based ? It could be anything........

[Paralus]

To suppose that Diodorus was so addled and bumbling as to contradict himself totally on the matter of whether the funeral pyre was completed and burnt within a few pages within his work? Hardly feasible, especially when there is a perfectly coherent explanation.

To quote yourself, “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there”; most especially when it comes to writing “books”. You write as if you well know just exactly how Diodorus wrote his scrolls on a day to day basis. He did not have a computer nor did he have foolscap ring binders neatly ordering everything he’d ever written. The inconsistencies and errors left in the work point very much to the fact that it was a difficult matter (increasingly one thinks) to correlate everything he’d written earlier with what he was currently writing as well as to edit. Even so, as Rubincam has demonstrated *, Diodorus was better than most at internal cross-referencing.

That said, in a work this size error can and did manifest. That it did so does not necessitate Diodorus being described as “so addled and bumbling”. This is, of course, emotive rhetoric designed to counterpoise your claim of “hardly feasible”. On the contrary, several examples might serve show just how feasible.

The death of Chabrias: 15.36.4 & 16.7.3-4
A stubborn battle took place, and since the Thracians suddenly changed sides, the Abderites, now left to fight alone and surrounded by the superior number of the barbarians, were butchered almost to a man, as many as took part in the fight. But just after the Abderites had suffered so great a disaster and were on the point of being besieged, Chabrias the Athenian suddenly appeared with troops and snatched them out of their perils. He drove the barbarians from the country, and, after leaving a considerable garrison in the city, was himself assassinated by certain persons.

The Athenians chose Chares and Chabrias as generals and dispatched them with an army [...] Now Chares, who commanded the infantry force, advanced against the walls by land and began a struggle with the enemy who poured out on him from the city; but Chabrias, sailing up to the harbour, fought a severe naval engagement and was worsted when his ship was shattered by a ramming attack. While the men on the other ships withdrew in the nick of time and saved their lives, he, choosing death with glory instead of defeat, fought on for his ship and died of his wounds.

Philip as a hostage: 15.67.4 & 16.2.2-3
[Pelopidas] proceeding into Macedon, where he made an alliance with Alexander the Macedonian king, he took from him as a hostage his brother Philip, whom he sent to Thebes.

After Amyntas had been defeated by the Illyrians and forced to pay tribute to his conquerors, the Illyrians, who had taken Philip, the youngest son of Amyntas, as a hostage, placed him in the care of the Thebans.

Attalus – nephew or brother? 16.93.8 & 17.2.3
…Attalus's services were needed urgently. He was the nephew of the Cleopatra whom the king had just married as a new wife and he had been selected as a general of the advanced force being sent into Asia…

A possible rival for the throne remained in Attalus, who was the brother of Cleopatra, the last wife of Philip…

These examples all occur between one book and the next. Alarmingly, for your “hardly feasible” assertion, that last occurred “within a few pages within his work” as you would have it. But wait; there is more (he says brandishing steak knives and a block of flats in Tasmania). There are even such errors within a book where a change of books can have no bearing. For example:

The Third Sacred War: 16. 23.1 & 38.6
During their term of office the Sacred War, as it was called, began and lasted nine years. For Philomelus the Phocian, a man of unusual audacity and lawlessness, seized the shrine in Delphi and kindled the Sacred War.

But Phaÿllus himself, falling sick of a wasting disease, after a long illness, suffering great pain as befitted his impious life, died, leaving Phalaecus, son of the Onomarchus who had kindled the Sacred War, as general of the Phocians.

The reign of Agis: 16.63.2 & 16.88.4
Now Archidamus was king of the Lacedaemonians for twenty-three years, and Agis his son succeeded to the throne and ruled for fifteen years.

In the service of Tarentum was Archidamus, the Lacedaemonian king, and it happened that he was himself killed. He had ruled the Lacedaemonians for twenty-three years; his son Agis succeeded to the throne and ruled for nine years.

These, on the basis of your “within a few pages”, must be within paragraphs of each other. Error was clearly possible and, as these few examples show, did creep into to such a work. In the present case we not only have a change of book – and if anything is beyond doubt about Diodorus’ method it was that he wrote in self-contained thematic books – we have a change of source.

Such error is possible even for modern writers availed of the benefits of computers. On this thread alone Taphoi has contradicted both the source and himself. In this post a most marvellous picture of mathematical symmetry is presented explaining the construction of the pyre:

Hence we are looking at thirty chambers of base 100 cubits square and a height of thirty cubits. 16 were arrayed in a 4x4 configuration in the first stage, 9 in the second, 4 in the third and one at the summit. The body and its support probably gave the last 10 cubits and there may have been banners. Each stage was split into two bands of decoration, so these were 15 cubits high (as stated by Diodorus), but the last band (the sirens) was probably 30 cubits high giving seven bands in all.

The envisioned construction is universally accepted to be a ziggurat. Diodorus is absolutely clear that this ziggurat was formed of seven levels. Nowhere does he mention "stages" subdivided into two “bands”. Rather, Diodorus enumerates the decorations of these distinct levels above one another until he reaches the seventh and top level. Dividing three of these levels into two bands would appear to be “modern speculation on the matter, which seems usually to be based on instinct rather than evidence or facts”. Or, in this case, not so gentle manhandling of the facts to suit the theory.

Again Taphoi, on the same page, has contradicted his own claim:

Note further that Diodorus did not call Hephaistion a god, but a theo-paredros, an assistant to a god, which is not so different from a hero.

When you read things it is quite clear. The funeral started with the honours of a theos proedros and then Philip came from Ammon saying the God said hephaistion could be worshipped as a GOD (theos).

As I expect you knew very well when you wrote this, proedros is wisely emended to paredros by modern editors on ther basis of Lucian, Calumniae 17.148. The point is that Alexander only authorised worship of Hephaistion as theo-paredros (one who sits beside or assists a god).

It is clear that Diodorus (via his note of Philip’s information from Ammon) did state that Hephaestion was granted the status of a god. The second claim by Taphoi above is merely sophistic sidestepping of the issue.

All in all I think Diodorus, without modern aids, did remarkable well given the length and scope of his work.

*The Organsiation and Composition of Diodorus' Bibliotheke, EMC 31: 31-38; Cross-References in the Bibliotheke of Diodorus, Phoenix 43: 49-61; Did Diodorus Siculus Take Over Cross-References in His Sources?, AJPh 119: 67-87.

[amyntoros]

I've always maintained that I will readily admit if I am wrong, and I was wrong about the image on the coin posted by Taphoi. It IS a pyre. I'm rather surprised that I had to do my own research to establish (and let others know) that I was wrong, however, I'm happy to provide actual information below. It's a rather long quote but I thought it better not to edit it.

Death and Burial in Roman World by J.M.C.Toynbee, Pages 60-61.

On Septimus Severus

... ... Then the couch was taken to the Campus Martius, where a huge square pyre, as big as a house, had been constructed of logs. This pyre was filled inside with faggots and adorned on its exterior with golden hangings, statues of ivory, and elaborate paintings. It was built up like a lighthouse in five storeys diminishing in size, the topmost one being the smallest of all. The couch on which the image of the emperor lay was placed in the second storey and all kinds of spices and unguents were put with it, together with fruits, herbs, and sweet-smelling juices piled up beside it. There was no race or city, no person of prominence or position who did not give generously of these gifts to honour the dead ruler. When a great heap of spices had been raised and all the space was filled, a cavalry parade took place round the pyre, each company of horsemen riding round it with orderly and rhythmic movements. With the same orderliness chariots were drawn round it, bearing passengers dressed in purple garments and wearing masks that were portraits of the famous roman generals and emperors. Then the new emperor took a torch and kindled the pyre, while others also set a light to it on all sides. The faggots and all the spices that were inside made it burn easily; and from the topmost and smallest storey an eagle was released and flew upwards with the fire towards the sky, the bird being believed to carry the emperor's soul heavenward.

Imperial funeral pyres of the lighthouse type described by Herodian in connection with Septimus Severus' ceremonial obsequies are represented on the reverses of consecration coins of the middle Empire, nearly always accompanied by the legend CONSECRATIO. The earliest known instance of such a design, but without the usual legend, on a denarius and sestertius of Aelius Caesar, known respectively only from a sale-catalogue and from a cast in the British Museum, but believed to be genuine, shows a pyre of six storeys, with horsemen in relief on the outside of the second storey, and figures and garlands on the exteriors of the third, fourth, and fifth storeys. But most of these pyres are composed of four tiers, reckoning the high base as the bottommost. Such is the pyre on the sestertius struck for Faustina the Elder by Antoninus Pius (in AD 141): its base is garlanded, the second and tallest storey is arcaded, and on the summit is a chariot-group, presumably denoting the deceased's apotheosis. All the types struck by Marcus Aurelius for Antoninus Pius (in 161), for Lucius Verus (in 169), and for the Younger Faustina (in 176) show much the same details: the base is garlanded, the second and third storey have arcades, doors and figures, and the fourth storey is draped, flanked by torches, and surmounted by a chariot-group. Almost precisely the same type of pyre is featured on the coins struck for Marcus Aurelius by Commodus (in c. 180). Of the four-tiered pyre on the sestertius struck for Pertinax's consecration (in 193) the details are obscure on the British Museum specimen. Especially magnificent are the five-storeyed pyres on the consecration coins of Septimius Severus (struck in 211). On the these the base, or lowest tier, is either draped or garlanded, the second, third and fourth tiers have niches and figures, and the fifth tier, with its surmounting chariot-group, is either niched or draped or garlanded. With the type struck by Severus Alexander for the consecration of Julia Maesa (in 225) we return to the four-storied pyre: the base is draped; in the second storey is seen the image of the dead on a funerary couch, flanked by figures in niches; figures in niches occupy the third storey; and the fourth storey, topped by the usual chariot-group, is draped and flanked by torches.

The above, however, does not satisfy my previous question about pyres being recreated as monuments/temples which was in response to Taphoi saying:

If you are saying that Diodorus mistook plans for the monument and cited them for the pyre, I would respond that the point of the monument in these cases was to create a permanent effigy of the pyre.

This certainly was not the case with the Roman pyres described above, even though one of the coins was given as evidence of 'these cases'. In the above examples, the elaborate but reasonably sized pyres were simply pyres. The body was taken elsewhere for internment and no permanent effigy of the pyre was built.

Back to the issue of the size of Diodorus' behemoth. Consider the continuing Homeric tradition, as practiced by the Macedonians (although they were not alone in this) of NOT burning the body itself all the way down to ash. The tombs at Vergina are a very good example of this, but I'll quote from Marcel Detienne's The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks, pages 40-41:

The part of the human corpse that the flames devour without a trace is the same part of the animal victim that goes to men for their meal: the meat, including the tendons and internal organs, everything that is perishable and would rot after death. But the funeral pyre is not allowed to consume the body to the point that it cannot be distinguished from the ashes of the pyre. Wine is poured wherever the flames have reigned. The remains of the dead man, that is, the bones, are then carefully gathered. Specifically these are the white bones, osta leuka, which are clearly visible among the ashes where they are easy to spot even if they have been charred. Covered with a double layer of fat, these bones are placed in a vial or small box wrapped with cloth and placed in a grave, the dead man's subterranean abode. In the funeral rite cremation totally consumes the body and sends into the invisible realm what would be the parts reserved in the sacrifice for man's meal; it makes the removal of these "white bones" possible. In the sacrifice these very bones, again covered with fat, constitute the gods' portion – the part the mageiros, who has carved the animal so that the long bones are completely stripped, had set aside in advance to place on the altar to be burned. The two practices are indeed homologous, but since their purposes are different, they work in opposite directions. At the outset of the sacrifice, the incorruptible white bones are set aside and reserved for the gods, who receive them in the form of smoke. In funeral cremation, fire is used to burn the perishable flesh away from the white bones, cleaning them so that men may keep them as an earthly sign of the dead man in his tomb, evidence of his presence in the eyes of his kin. If the essential, the authentic living life of the animal is returned to the gods in the sacrifice with the calcinated bones, while men sustain themselves on the half-raw, half-cooked remains of the divine meal, the funeral uses fire to purify the body of all its corruptible parts, in which life and death are inextricably mixed, and to reduce the remains to the essential – the white bones, the intermediaries that connect living men with the deceased.

Apologies for another long quote, but I thought it prudent not only to show that the bones were rescued but to quote the religious reasoning behind the act. Even in the case of Diodorus' 'pyre', the burning process would still need to be stopped before Hephaistion's body was completely reduced to ash. Alexias brought up on the first page of this thread the question of how this could be done, but I don't think an answer has been presented. I can only say that, IMO, in this huge conflagration of Diodorus' it would have been impossible to even reach Hephaistion's body, let alone douse the flames and save the bones before they were pulverized.

Best regards,

[Xenophon]

Most informative, Amyntoros.....guess that answers my question above !

And a pyre of Imperial proportions - the size of a house - sounds eminently more practical than Diodorus' 'pyre' bigger than a city block and over 20 stories high.....

[Xenophon]

Earlier in this thread, I posted this, and within just a few posts, Taphoi has fulfilled my expectations admirably !

I have noted before your entirely "unscientific" and 'false logic' arguments and selectivity, and how, by seeking to discredit a small part of a post, or distorting what was actually said, or even stating something that was NOT said, you seek to imply the whole is incorrect.

Here's an example....
Taphoi wrote

It is nice that everyone now agrees that pyra is used of the monument on the site of a funeral pyre. <edited by moderator> It is nice that agesilaos likes my reconstruction of the pyre, but curious that he doesn't realise that Alexander pulled down sections of the walls of both Babylon and Ecbatana (see also Plutarch, Pelopidas 34 and Plutarch, Alexander 72.2), but for different reasons.

...but no-one agreed any such thing! Quite the contrary in fact....
Agesilaos wrote:

The benefit of LSJ is that it gives examples of usage, all those for 'pyra' as a mound or grave are poetic, historia was defined as a prose work; guess this is evidence and fact, I challenge you to bite the bullet, live by the apothegm....

...and...

AMYNTOROS, you are quite right none of the quoted usages of 'pyra' includes its use for a monument above the site of the pyre and Pausanias' description of that very type of monument demonstrates that it was not in the form of the actual pyre.

...and I wrote..

Whilst 'pyra' in Greek can mean a subsequent and permanent monument above the funeral pyre as you say, this usage is generally confined to the written Greek Tragedies [see LSJ]- it was not the ordinary or normal terminology for a burial mound.

And incidently, Plutarch Alexander 72.2 and Pelopidas 34 refers almost certainly to Ecbatana and its "neighbouring cities" which hardly extends to Babylon !

For amusement, I invite readers to see if they can find other examples of my predictions of Taphoi's posting style....there are plenty!

Taphoi wrote:

Sorry you got caught up in the tirade. You are perfectly correct that Diodorus describes merely a timber (palm trunk) framework with external decorations that were at least in part made of fabrics. He used the tiles for the foundation platform. There was probably planking across the upper surfaces of the structure, but not a proper roof. However much Xenophon protests that it is impossible to build a wooden framework of this size in six months, if you have vast financial and labour resources, it is obvious from the modern examples alone that it is in fact perfectly feasible. Xenophon doesn't seem to have noticed that the 1000 ship harbour is in Arrian. He also seems to think it impossible for ships to sail from Babylon to the Arabian Gulf, <edited by moderator>

Taphoi being unctuous ?
As readers can see for themselves ( above), above, Diodorus makes no mention of a timber framework, only roofs – which Taphoi denies ! Nor is there any mention of the bricks from the 2,000 yard long stretch of the walls of Babylon supposedly dismantled being used as a ‘foundation platform’....all in Taphoi’s imagination, alas ! Nor is it feasible to make of any material, a structure the size of a city block, or larger, and over twenty stories high, in under 8 months – no matter how ‘endless’ one’s resources. It cannot even be done today with modern pre-fabricated steel and concrete and machinery. This ‘deus ex machina’ of unlimited resources of Taphoi’s is really a ‘chimaera’.

As to yet another ‘red herring’ vis-a-vis the 1,000 ship harbour, we are/were discussing Diodorus, and Taphoi did not make clear that he was referring to Arrian. Since it is not in Diodorus, but details of Alexander’s naval plans are, as I referred to, ( the proposed construction of 1,000 ships ) that is why I suggested he mis-remembered. This story in Arrian too, is another ‘whopper’ where an ancient source comes up with an impossibly large round number, without realising the impossibility of it.
The largest harbours of antiquity were the multiple harbours of Athens and Carthage – the latter at the time of its destruction had a rectangular merchant ship harbour some 200 x 800 metres capable of holding 60-100 merchant ships at a time (depending on size) and a circular military harbour, packed tight with ship sheds all around, and on a central island (warships must have ship sheds for reasons I won’t digress into). It was over 400m in diameter – and held 200 warships. You are talking a ‘warship harbour’, with necessary ship sheds, 5 times this size – built on a river 300 miles from the sea! Athens Piraeus complex c.330 BC supported over 350 warships, and the 'docks' area for ship sheds and other ship’s gear in storage, and other things, was roughly 3,500 metres in diameter (see posts in the thread “A masterpiece. A very boring epigraphy. A second naval Empire.”). This is larger in size than the whole city of Babylon itself – which archaeology has revealed was broadly lozenge shaped, 3.5 km wide by 5 km long, and you are postulating a harbour facility for warships three times the size of Piraeus !
Then there’s the matter of crews. A trireme required a crew of 200 or so, and the new-fangled quinqueremes 300 or so – so a total crew requirement of over 200,000 men just as rowers !! Where were these skilled men to come from? Plus there’s the skilled shipwrights and other craftsmen who are going to build the 1,000 warships – not to mention that all the other things needful to build ships simply didn’t exist in Babylon – as Arrian/ Aristoboulos tells us in an understatement. No single ancient naval power possessed 1,000 warships ( unless one's credulity extends to believing Herodotus when he credits Xerxes with 1,200 warships to accompany his 1,700,000 man army).

This is simply more fantasy, and no scholar with even rudimentary knowledge of ancient naval matters would accept such an incredulous tale.

The reality was rather different, as we can glean from Arrian. He tells us in the same passage that Miccalus of Clazomenae was sent to Phoenicia with the fabulous sum of 500 Talents to hire men “familiar with ships and the sea.” At 6,000 drachma to the Talent, that means if he could have found 200,000 such men, he could pay them for just a fortnight – not even enough time for them to get to Babylon. Obviously the intention was to hire far fewer seamen.

And the real fleet at Babylon? [Arrian ‘Anabasis’ VII.19]
Just two quinqueremes, [so much for the fronts of 240 such decorating Diodorus’ fantasy pyre ! ] three quadriremes, twelve triremes and about 30 triakonters (little more than large row-boats and not warships) brought with what must have been considerable difficulty overland in pieces from Phoenicia to the Euphrates, plus whatever was left of Nearchus’ fleet. This had nothing larger than 80 ‘triakonters’ originally – open thirty-oared rowing boats, and not warships, and Arrian in his ‘Anabasis’ claims that they constructed some, and commandeered Indian river vessels of all sorts numbering “not far short of 2,000” [VI.3]. Incidently, in Arrian’s “Indika” the number is given as just 800 vessel altogether, presumably Nearchus’ own figure. Of these, most of the smaller riverine vessels will have been abandoned on reaching the ocean, being unseaworthy and unable to survive even modest waves. Whatever the number that eventually sailed up the Euphrates to Babylon, none were warships.

Thus Alexander’s real fleet at Babylon numbered just 17 warships and perhaps 100 ‘triakonters’, or largeish open rowboats. Some of the ‘tiremes’ at least were still there some 6 years later when two saw service in the campaign of 317 BC [D.S. XIX.12.5]

Oh, and at no point did I say or even hint that ships could not navigate the Euphrates. Another completely false statement Taphoi has attributed to me – just as predicted.

Taphoi wrote:

Instead of agesilaos' amusingly evasive approach of citing cases where the monument on the site of a funeral pyre is not called a pyra, let us instead take the refreshing and daring approach of looking at a couple of examples where the monument is called a pyra.

....which proceeds to duly demonstrate the point that ‘pyra’ was used in poetry to describe a mound over a tomb, just as Agesilaos, Amyntaros and I ( and the LSJ) said all along.......

The mounds (or other monuments) were representative of the pyre and therefore so termed, but Alexander could afford to produce an exact effigy in stone and that is what he evidently intended.

That’s the second time you’ve referred to stone. There was no suitable supply of stone for building anything in Babylon, which is why everything was built of mud-bricks, and even friezes etc were carved into mud-brick walls.....

There are excellent clues as to the exact form in Diodorus's details and the context. The ziggurat in Babylon was also a step pyramid with about seven stages. The construction from thirty identical rectangular chambers makes perfect sense. Thirty is the sum of 4-squared plus 3-squared plus 2-squared plus 1. Hence we are looking at thirty chambers of base 100 cubits square and a height of thirty cubits. 16 were arrayed in a 4x4 configuration in the first stage, 9 in the second, 4 in the third and one at the summit. The body and its support probably gave the last 10 cubits and there may have been banners. Each stage was split into two bands of decoration, so these were 15 cubits high (as stated by Diodorus), but the last band (the sirens) was probably 30 cubits high giving seven bands in all. In this arrangement the most loaded chambers on the first stage only supported the weight of less than one additional chamber each (16 base chambers supported 14 upper level chambers). So the structural demands were not all that great.

Very imaginative ! Alas this even contradicts Diodorus, who describes 7 distinct levels ( see where I posted the text ante), not 4 levels with 7 bands of decoration. And the ground surface area is divided into 30 compartments/domoi, not 16 – Diodorus is specific about this.
And yet more vague assertions with no evidence whatsoever, “The structural demands were not all that great” ? How about some facts and figures to support this completely un –warranted assertion ? An ounce of evidence is worth pounds of unsupported assertion.....and as Amyntoros points out, Taphoi has produced none at all for his many and varied assertions.

It would appear that Taphoi has no evidence, no plausible hypothesis on how this ‘pyre’ over a city block in ground plan and over 20 stories high could have been constructed in under eight months....in short no case at all, while all the evidence and calculations, albeit rough approximations, more than adequately demonstrate the impossibility of such a project.

In reality the only building project at Babylon seemingly contemplated by Alexander was the rebuilding/repair/restoration of the Etemenenki ziggurat ( the ‘stairway to heaven’ which dominated Babylon ), which had taken 100 years to build and may have never actually been completed. ( mud brick edifices naturally crumble fairly quickly and must be in regular need of repair/restoration) This was apparently 91 metres x 91 metres x 91 metres high, likely a compartmented structure, originally with a roof of cedars of Lebanon (c.f. the ‘pyre’ 200m x 200m x 65 metres high, also allegedly of mud brick with wooden roofs). It took 10,000 troops two months just to remove rubble from the site and gather materials. It did not proceed once Alexander was dead. Perhaps Diodorus’ source confused this project with the imaginary ‘pyre’.

The ‘Last Plans’ – the monument/pyre of Hephaistion, the Harbour, the 1,000 warships at Babylon ( perhaps confused/merged with the plan to build 1,000 warships “larger than triremes” in the Mediterranean for a contemplated attack on Carthage – if this too wasn’t simply more of the post Alexander myth) are where reality transcends into “The Stuff of Legend” and the Alexander Romance begins , for all are demonstrably impossible.

And there, I suggest, we leave those romantics who wish to believe all these legendary things about Alexander literally, to their flights of fancy......