pothos.org

Karen's piece on transcendence really set out the stall on the passion question. In fact, with that one word, I think she nailed down the quality that makes Alexander so fascinating for many of us. There are no boundaries or limitations he is afraid to test, regardless of what the hazards might be - political, military, religious, personal and cultural (Perso-Maced integration).
But what about Macedonian passions? Brilliant as he was, Alexander did not campaign alone. He had around him one of the most effective officer classes in all history. It was backed up by a campaigning army that was utterly irresistible even when shield to shield with the enemy in the tangled melee of the field, where the razor edge of superior tactics would no longer have been applicable, let alone perceptible, to the ordinary man of the line. One individualGÇÖs charisma and ability can do much to inspire this physical quality, but it doesnGÇÖt account for the complete package. What on earth does? Leaving aside discipline, training and structure (all of which weGÇÖll take for granted), what had these guys been reared on that made them so ferocious?
HereGÇÖs my little theory. Hunting. It was a way of life for the Macedonians. I believe they took it more seriously, and pushed themselves harder at it than any other people around at the time. IGÇÖm sure many of the stalwarts here at Pothos will recall CurtiusGÇÖ and PlutarchGÇÖs talk of lion hunts - Alexander bags a monster specimen, then Lysimachus bags a monster, though not before itGÇÖs lacerated his shoulder. Then at a later hunt, Lysimachus tries to help Alexander bag another monster, but is pushed aside because Alexander resents the implication that he might need assistance, and bags it on his own.
Deliberately hunting lions with spears and swords? At first glance this appears to be the stuff of lurid fantasy, or political propaganda. But is it? And if not, were these people completely out of their minds? Perhaps in AlexanderGÇÖs case we can put it down to (as KarenGÇÖs phrased it) his burning desire to transcend. What about Lysimachus? We know that as a bodyguard he would have to be present at any hunt Alexander undertook, particularly if it was a formal occasion. So perhaps what appears to be his enthusiasm is in fact duty. But this wouldnGÇÖt tally with his reported behaviour at the second hunt. He had been mauled on his last outing, yet a short time after, if we are to trust our sources, we find him dashing in front of Alexander for round t

He had been mauled on his last outing, yet a short time after, if we are to trust our sources, we find him dashing in front of Alexander for round two. Clearly he wasnGÇÖt frightened. ItGÇÖs tempting to think he was all brawn and no brains - but he wasnGÇÖt. In India he was one of Calanus' pupils - hardly the sign of an oaf. For me, this is one of the things that sets Alexander and the Companions apart - that rare ability to mix might with mind. Or is it the other way round?
Indeed, Lysimachus was not alone in this desire to tangle with big cats. Nor do we have to rely on Plutarch and Curtius, who may both have had recourse to a faulty source on this issue. Although the piece doesnGÇÖt survive, we know that Lysippus was commissioned to sculpt Alexander and Craterus getting to grips with a lion. A bronze copy of the sculpture was later sited at Delphi, and the votive platform on which it was placed can still be seen, though sadly itGÇÖs now empty. A mosaic in Pella, however, is believed to partially represent what the sculptor came up with. Of the two figures on either side of the lion, one is to be seen getting stuck in with a sword, while the other has gone for the soft option of a spear - doubtless Lysimachus would castigate him as a pansy.
WhatGÇÖs my point? You simply donGÇÖt run around after lions, naked but for a cloak, unless you truly love your sport and are very brave with it. I canGÇÖt recall a single account of the Greeks (per se) doing this sort of thing. Yet their passion for the hunt is beyond doubt. Xenophon, who is the Attic authority on the subject, and who spent most of his life chasing after furry things or cleaning up messes in Asia, recommends that the lion be enticed either to fall into a pit or to consume poison. He makes no mention of the bolder approach so popular amongst our Macedonian pals. And I donGÇÿt think this is because he might have been a wimp, rather that he would have deemed the spear-in-hand method unthinkable - something no normal Hellene would consider. Nor do we hear of ranking Romans engaging in anything as hair-raisingly dangerous solely for reasons of personal sport. In the colosseum, contests with wild animals were undertaken by specialist (sometimes even paid) slaves. (Commodus aside, whoGÇÖs reported to have managed a few hippos - though probably with the help of handlers).
Alexander and his circle could always rely on themselves and each other to be capable of serious physicality. But to be able to do this they had to ste

Alexander and his circle could always rely on themselves and each other to be capable of serious physicality. But to be able to do this they had to step through a mental barrier, a barrier which other ancients would rarely cross. And day to day, it was in the hunt that they honed this extraordinary capacity by pushing themselves to the very limit of courage, exertion and physical risk.
IGÇÖll yammer on about Xenophon again. In GÇÿCynegeticusGÇÖ he handed posterity a succinct outline of what the hunt was all about for the Attic Greek; and there is no reason to suppose it was markedly different for the Macedonians. It was a celebration of the bounty of the Gods, Artemis in particular, and, more practically, it was preparation for the physical demands of war. ItGÇÖs little wonder then, that for warlike Greeks and Macedonians, hunting should be such an intrinsic part of their culture. Xenophon recommends that the young man coming out of his childhood should turn himself to hunting above all other pursuits, and with as much dedication as his means allow. He goes on to outline how best to hunt the boar, the hare and the deer. All his techniques assume tremendous agility and fitness on the part of the hunter, as each animal is to be pursued on foot.
Is there anyone living now who genuinely believes they could manage these quarries in the fashion our ancient friends did - with their legs pumping, their lungs bursting, and their fear of serious injury or death held in check? I've seen wild boars in Italy, where I lived for a few years. And on each occasion, I did what modern wisdom says you're supposed to - I got the hell out of their way. Frankly, once you've seen one of them, the idea of calling out the dogs, reaching for the spear and nets, and having a go seems insane. Similarly, if you can chase down hares, which our pals obviously did (albeit with a bunch of helpful hounds and some more nets) you should be a leading candidate for the mother of all 'nike' advertising contracts. I won't even start on the lion option.

Achilles, whom we so often see Alexander emulating, was renowned for his ability in the hunt. The twelve tasks of another favourite of his, Heracles, are largely hunting related. And it would have been during his childhood that Alexander started to foster the same passion. We know through anecdotal evidence that a fabled hunting pack was kept at Pella. Years before when Archelaeus was monarch, Euripides, so the rumour goes, was mauled to death by the court dogs in a terrible accident. Admittedly, this does smack of the urban myth, but itGÇÖs a tantalising hint of how the Macedonian hunt was seen as fundamentally more savage and robust than the Greek norm - even their dogs are out of control.
Plutarch tells us that Alexander actually had a favourite dog; one which he brought up himself from birth, called Peritas. Apart from Bucephalus, I am aware of no other animal of the period whose name is considered worthy of mention. Whether itGÇÖs true or not, this nugget could only have gained credence if AlexanderGÇÖs passion for the hunt was celebrated amongst his contemporaries, for we can be certain that any dog he kept would have been reared as a hunting animal. Others whose passion for the chase was recorded include Philotas. One of the gripes levelled at him was that he kept something like ten miles worth of hunting nets. Although this looks like it was intended to discredit him as overly extravagant, it couldnGÇÖt have been successfully put about unless he was well known to take his hunting seriously.
We know that Perdicass had an unpleasant run-in with a bear whilst hunting (another species that Xenophon recommends one to trap or poison, both of which options Perdicass looks to have rejected). And IGÇÖve always wondered if HarpalusGÇÖ lameness might have been the result of a cock up with a boar when he was young - even today, itGÇÖs well known that if you get nailed by one of them itGÇÖs usually around the legs, and can be very bad news. GÇÿLyncestiaGÇÖ means GÇÿland of the lynxGÇÖ, another dangerous quarry that the boys would have found hard to resist. And more than once IGÇÖve read of how all adult Macedonians would organise themselves socially in hunting clubs, which contrasts interestingly with those further south in Greece who followed the practice much less. At Pella today, both in the little museum nearby and in-situ around the excavated portions of the town, most of the extant mosaics attest to how significant a part of life hunting was for the Macedonians. Much more so

At Pella today, both in the little museum nearby and in-situ around the excavated portions of the town, most of the extant mosaics attest to how significant a part of life hunting was for the Macedonians. Much more so, I believe, than it was for the Greeks, who do not commemorate it in their sculpture or mosaics to the same degree.

So . . . In a nutshell, my potted theory goes as follows: hunting was to the Macedonians what football is to the Brazilians, or rugby to the All Blacks, or cricket to the . . . no, better not go there; not unique to them, but particular of them. Was it a rougher, hardier, riskier, braver hunting life, and an absolute passion for it, that made these people so tough, or have I just spent the last two hours barking up the wrong tree?
Apologies for banging on so long and laying down an enormous thread.
Aengus.

Greetings Aengus!Good to see you back. The thing I believe that made Alexander so extraordinary a leader besides extreme charisma and consummate skill at about anything he tried, was the fact he never asked his men to do anything he himself would not do and personally lead them into battle. This skill died with him.Macedonians lived the Iliad, martial virtue displayed to its highest be it against man or beast, if men were not available at the time. I should mention that Macedonians are not the only peoples who have hunted lions on foot with sharp weaponsand those peoples didn't necessarily have successful armies. What Macedonians had was a standing army equipped by the government, training and fighting all the time once Philip II became King, which no one else had at the time. That made all the difference. No one else could afford that in Greece. When they weren't hunting people, hunting animals was the preferred method of physical entertainment for the wealthy to showcase martial skill. The more dangerous the beast the better. In fact we are told Macedonian males were not allowed to recline at dinner until they had killed their first boar (lion hunts happened by this time in Asia only)which gives an indication of how important it was to have bravery as a skill that can be displayed to others. I believe Ptolemy makes mention that Cassander had not done so as a slight on his lack of bravery. It was of course the job of Lysimachus to protect his King - Alexander did not hunt lions alone - that would have been against the rules. In fact we are told that Alexander wasn't supposed to hunt lions on foot at all, but on horseback and was told not to do so again. The friends of the King were only willing to suffer so much - twice the King had to be 'saved.'Wasn't it Peukestas who was bitten by the bear and didn't Perdikkas and Craterus have a mishap with a spear while horsing around hunting rats? Ptolemy must have enjoyed including that little piece There was no love lost among Alexander's friends, who were anything but once their leader was gone and proved to be far the lesser.
Regards,Tre

At the risk of making a terrible pun - I can add to this thread by posting a link to a picture of a hunting rug that I have just finished sewing. It's based on medieval tapestries and has taken two years to make. It's nothing really to do with Alexander, except that it's about hunting, but I thought I'd post it anyway.http://lfb.websfor.org/alexanderThe rug's nearly finished and the website is temporary. Does anyone else on the forum have anything they've made that is connected with their interest in Alexander ? If so maybe we could put together a display of them.RegardsSusan

It's gorgeous Susan.Regards,Tre

Sorry 'bout that Perd/Peuc muddle-up. Memory let me down there.Vis-a-vis walloping a boar; wasn't it also the case that as a boy you had to wear a belt, which could only be cast off after you'd notched up your piggie?Back to those martial qualities again (sorry if I seem tiresome). Concur with you when you point to the Macedonian army being a 'standing' outfit; and, yes, it would have conferred advantage. But there are many examples of standing armies that are competently led coming to grief against less composed bodies; for instance, Spartacus and co. wreaking havoc repeatedly with seasoned legions. Or, perhaps more appropriate to the time we're talking about, the Spartans (a standing army if ever there was one) coming undone at Leuctra against Epaminondas. Professionalism alone is no guarantee of success.What I was long-windedly driving at was an extra quality aside from the leadership, the professionalism, the discipline. I think there was a physical savagery to these people when they had a go at their enemies, a savagery that was unrivalled and that had its root in a very devoted and rough hunting culture. I can't help feeling that when they took to the field the vast majority of Macedonians would mentally switch into hunting mode, and (literally) close in on their quarry as if it were an animal. And because they were well used to dealing with big beasties, no response in their enemy's physical repertoire could intimidate them - they'd been successfully habituated to dangerous, life-threatening physical contests since they were children (unfortunate Cassander aside). Moreover, their culture enshrined such contests to a greater degree than any other society did, thereby (maybe inadvertently) ensuring all of its sons, as individuals, would be rigorously competent if and when things got nasty. Of course, it was then up to a Philip or Alexander to mould those many into a cohesive one.I think you're absolutely right when you point to the Homeric values that seem to underpin so much of that world. The Iliad remains for me one of the most frightening pieces of literature of all time. DonGÇÖt get me wrong, I love it, but everything is so absolute and forceful. I often try to place myself realistically in that context; how would I have fared in company such as that? And a bloody great big shiver runs down my spine; I wouldnGÇÖt have lasted very long at all. ItGÇÖs a world without the half measures or compromises that typify our day and age and our soc

I often try to place myself realistically in that context; how would I have fared in company such as that? And a bloody great big shiver runs down my spine; I wouldnGÇÖt have lasted very long at all. ItGÇÖs a world without the half measures or compromises that typify our day and age and our societies. Above all, itGÇÖs a world without pity. The difference between people like me and our Macedonian friends is that they probably reckoned they would have survived, and perhaps even have thrived in the world of Achaean vs. Trojan. And that bespeaks impressive self confidence, physical and mental. Instil that kind of mythology into the hearts of an army that is made of individuals who hunt down dangerous game as a matter of routine and entertainment, and one begins to see the kernel of a very potent force. Cap it with the most talented and charismatic leader in recorded history, and . . . well, we know the rest.So sorry to have overshot yet again.Susan, the rug looks, magnificent. Two years, eh! Hope you're not going to lay it on the floor. I have a couple of sketches of Alexander that I did a few years back when I was working on my draughtsmanship (training as a portrait painter in Italy). If I get access to a scanner I'll fire them off. But two years . . . wow.

Good point, yes they probably felt (ralatively) confident that they were going to survive. After the repulse of the Persian invation the Greeks felt contempt for the Persian fighting ability.
"Up till today nobody has died in battle from a horses' kick or bite" they used to say regarding the Persian horse superiority. The Spartan general Vrasidas said: "those irregular masses very easily swap their fierce charge to rout once they are faced with the cold steel of our discipline army. Because in their country it's the few that rule the many and not the other way round". "The volume of the barbarians creates fear, their yelling is unbearable and the clash of their weapons creates the impression of imminent threat but men from cities like ours hold their place and endure their charges" (cited by Thucidides).
"There's not a singe man in the whole of Asia able to confront the Greeks in battle" (Antiochos from Arcadia).
So yes, a man who goes to do battle knowing that he has good changes of survival, trusts his leaders, knows that his property and family is safe at home is bound to fight better that Darious serfs.
The Greek oath before battle said "I will not value my life above my freedom".

Hi Susan:The rug is just gorgeous! Two years -- wow! It's beautiful. Thanks for showing it to us.Love & peace,
Karen

The main problem is surely that the lion hunt was an ancient Eastern pastime that the Macedonians took over from the Persians. The recorded hunts taking place in the Royal Paradeisoi. Also it is doubtful if any but the nobility really hunted as keenly as you suggest I suspect that peasants/pastoralists have too much work to do.That said it does seem that Macedonian life, with its encircling barbarians, perpetual blood-feuds etc may have promoted a more normalised attitude to violence; part of the reason the Southern Greeks thought of them as barbarians. A willigness to butcher is an asset in an ancient soldier, as the Romans recognised; by promoting gladiatorial games they dulled the reaction of their society towards violence, if a slave dies so well how much better must a free-man act.I would still count organisational and command superiority as more significant factors, however.The Spartans at Leuctra were caught in the flank whilst changing formation, they did not crumple immediately which bespeaks great discipline nor were the legions defeated by Spartacus veterans they were initially garrison troops and then newly-recruited men, the veterans arrived with Pompey after the job had been done by Crassus training his recruits.

Karl,You raised a couple of fair points. To address them: If lion hunting was something that our Macedonian friends were unlikely to encounter pre-Asia, how are we to account for XenophonGÇÖs talk of it in Cynegeticus? Even though he pays it scant attention, itGÇÖs clear the practice was established, albeit on different lines; exotic, yes; rare, yes; atypically Hellenic, yes; but solely Asian, no. Xenophon was writing in Greek for a Greek readership, and he mentions lions in places as familiar to the Macedonians as Pangaion, where the mines were. To cite someone else: HomerGÇÖs description of AchillesGÇÖ shield gives us a vivid picture of lions getting their claws into livestock; and lion attacks feature regularly in his similes. Although times had changed in the interim, I doubt the creature was extinct in more northern, mountainous areas. And I donGÇÖt think the Macedonians would have ignored big carnivores, which might have been inclined to prey upon their flocks. I should reiterate that Lyncestia translates as lynx country. Which brings us on to . . . YouGÇÖre right to point out the Macedonians were by and large pastoral. AlexanderGÇÖs angry words to the Opis mutineers make this clear. It is often the case, however, that hunting becomes most prevalent within pastoral communities, because they donGÇÖt have the time or predictable lifestyle so necessary to cultivate crops, particularly if they inhabit rugged mountainous areas. Herds of sheep and goats must be constantly moved between pastures and protected (aggressively) from predators. The Maasai in Kenya are probably the nearest modern equivalent to ancient pastoralists although they do inhabit broader more open spaces. The lion hunt has always been an established and necessary part of their culture (actually, they have an interesting technique for it - very different from Alexander, Lysimachus and co). As to hunting as something exclusive to nobility: for the reasons cited above, I doubt it. ThatGÇÖs not to say I disagree with you when you imply it was more of a GÇÿsportGÇÖ amongst the nobility, because I donGÇÖt. But I do think in a Macedonian culture that was more rural than those of the Ionic and Doric Greeks, hunting would have been widespread. How else are we to account for the tradition of being allowed to recline when dining, only if youGÇÖd accounted for a boar, as Tre reminded us above? And I doubt this rite of passage was confined to nobility alone. Under Philip, the Companions expanded very rapidly (see

And I doubt this rite of passage was confined to nobility alone. Under Philip, the Companions expanded very rapidly (see DiodorusGÇÖ figures for cavalry in BC 358 and BC 352 - even allowing for auxiliary forces, an enormous growth). If many of these previously less well-appointed individuals suddenly had to go off and kill a boar in order to eat with dignity amongst their fellows, it would have created a farce of colossal proportions. Not only do we hear nothing of this, but it just doesnGÇÖt wash. ItGÇÖs far more likely that theyGÇÖd all hunted big game before, noblemen, clansmen, and herdsmen alike. PtolemyGÇÖs reportage of CassanderGÇÖs boar-virginity was a stinging sideswipe precisely because Cassander was so unique in this respect - even in the company of a relatively recently expanded Nobility - eeach, what a mouthful; sorry. IGÇÖll stick to my guns on this one, and maintain that we might (just perhaps) remain prone to underestimating how significant hunting was in Macedonian culture .Apropos Spartacus: YouGÇÖre spot on about his initial encounters and the Crassus legions. But that pair in Cisalpine Gaul under Longinus were a frontier unit, and certainly not recent drafts. IGÇÖd be surprised if significant sections of the two consular armies were not the same. Granted, these were not of the calibre that Caesar would forge in Gaul, but they were Marian legions nonetheless. YouGÇÖre right about PompeyGÇÖs crowd though; they were undoubtedly the real veterans. As to Leuctra: my reading of Plutarch indicates that the Spartans actually did crumple almost immediately. IGÇÖve checked two translations just to be sure, and each is clear in the relevant passage. The Spartans are described as being disciplined and trained for emergency fixes such as this, GÇ£But now . . . with Pelopidas ALREADY amongst their ranks . . . GÇ¥ And then we have the rout and slaughter. Whatever about Leuctra, at Tegyra, shortly before, in spite of outnumbering their foe by at least two to one if not more, the Spartans were properly beaten. I feel my point might still stand. Discipline, training, professionalism and experience are undoubtedly invaluable, but do not guarantee success.All best - Aengus.