Roxanne

[Ian]

Can anyone tell me what Roxanne did in the immediate aftermath of the death of Alexander, assuming this is documented ? She must have been heavily pregnant.Does anyone also know if she accompanied the funeral cortege when it set out from Babylon some two years after Alexander's death ? If so, would she have gone to Egypt when it was "diverted" there ? I put that word in quotes since I'm aware some sources say Ptolemy persuaded the cortege to go to Egypt.Any information gratefully received.Ian

[susan]

Roxane was in Babylon, where she stayed until her son was born. I imagine that she would have been closely guarded, as indeed she was for the rest of her life. She would have been in the care of Perdiccas, and have left Babylon when he did. She didn't follow the funeral cortege - this took some time to build and the focus of power had long since shifted back to Macedonia. I don't know whether she went to Egypt with Perdiccas, though, when he waged war on Ptolemy.For the rest of her life she was shuttled around with her son. The Suda mentions her doctor, who was of the family of Hippocrates, being put to death by Cassander - so it's possible that many of her entourage died at the same time.
Susan

[Ian]

Thanks Susan, that was a helpful reply. I've read in a number of web sites that Cassander had both Roxanne and her son murdered as well as Olympias. If so, then he certainly had it in for Alexander's family. But maybe we do him an injustice. It sometimes seems to me that for every source stating one view, there's another source with a different view.
Coming back briefly to Roxanne, I guess there was no obligation on her to do the 'grieving widow' bit and follow her husband's coffin. It sounds from what you say as if she was under virtual house arrest and that she couldn't go anywhere without Perdiccas's approval. Would you say that's a fair description ?

[susan]

I don't think that Cassander has many defenders - I think that his enmity towards Alexander was probably recognised by his father, Antipater, who bypassed him and selected Polyperchon as regent. However, Cassander was also acting for the other generals, none of whom wanted to keep Alexander IV alive.
I don't know that there was necessarily any need to murder Roxane in her own right; it was her son who was the obstacle to the generals' plans.Susan

[alejandro]

HelloRe Cassander, I read recently an article where his actions were, though not "defended", at least not labeled as "anti-Alexander" ones.
The main thesis is that Alexander depleted Macedonia's pool of male soldiers during the 10-year campaign through Persia and India, so people only remembered him (angrily) as someone who only took away fathers, brothers and sons, and had no other emotional link with him (that those same fathers, brothers and sons developed during the campaign). Also, since he left Macedonia after just 1/2 years of becoming king, people there hardly remembered him, but they did remember his father Philip (whose policies were continued by the Regent Antipater while Alexander was wandering through Asia).
Hence, the murders of Olimpyas, Roxane and Alexander IV were not such a shock for the Macedonians. But, at the same time, Cassander married Thessalonike, strenghtening his links with the royal house, ie, Philip's house. The author also says that the defection of most of Cassander troops to Olympias and Polyperchon during the succession wars was not so much because she was the mother of Alexander, but because she was Philip's wife!
As you say, it's very interesting to see that the same facts can be interpreted in so many different ways!
Kind regardsAlejandro

[Ian]

Your last point is so true. Take for example the funeral cortege leaving Babylon. Was it bound for Aigi or Egypt ? Was it redirected by force or did Ptolemy persuade the leader of the convoy to go to Egypt voluntarily ? Was there a battle assuming this leader declined to do what Ptolemy may or may not have tried to persuade him to do ? And on another subject (apologies if this is discussed in another thread) why would Ptolemy bother to 'kidnap' the convoy near Damascus if he wanted to take it to Memphis or Alexandria and it was already bound for Siwa in Egypt ? Why not redirect it once it was on Egyptian soil ? Did Alexander really say he wanted to be buried in Siwa ? If so, Perdiccas went to alot of trouble to avoid fulfilling that wish.So many questions....so many different views from the available sources. The question of what happened to Alexander's body has to be one of the most intriguing puzzles of our time.

[susan]

The funeral cortege was bound for Aigai; Ptolemy 'came to terms' (financial?) with the cortege leader, who if I remember rightly was named Aridaeus ( no connection with Alexander's half-brother) , so I don't think there was a battle.Damascus was the best place for Ptolemy to hijack it, as there wasn't any easy direct route across the desert to Egypt, that a cortege could take.

Once Alexander was dead, his wishes about where he wanted to be buried weren't so important - after all, if the generals were willing to wipe out his family and each other, respecting his burial wishes was a fairly minor matter. I don't think that Alexabder really expressed any desire to be buried in Siwah - he would have expected either Aigai - after all he was still the Macedonian king - or possibly a grand mausoleum in Babylon, the centre of his new empire. A small oasis, out in the desert, on the far edges of his empire and only accessible with great difficulty, wouldn't have been too appealing, I feel. At the time, Ptolemy was spreading the rumour that he was Alexander's half-brother, so the possession of Alexander's body would have been a big boost to him and to his dynastic aims.Susan

[Ian]

Hi SusanThanks again for your comments. I agree that the cortege (is that the right word ?) was probably bound for Aigi but according to Diodorus it was bound for Egypt. However your point about the little Oasis in the middle of nowhere is a valid point. There's no way a man like Alexander would have accepted that - at least in my view. I guess I'm courting controversy by saying that.However, one thing puzzles me a little. You refer to Ptolemy's dynastic ambitions and that he was spreading rumours that he was in fact Alexander's brother. I've read this too but can't remember where. Anyway, if the body was so critical to his dynastic aims, why wait from about 320 BC ? by which time he must have had it, until 305 or 306 when he decided to become Pharaoh ?Do you have any idea why he delayed his coronation for so long ? I'd have thought that if he became Pharaoh as soon as possible that he'd have more authority, and therefore support, from native Egyptians, for his various military campaigns. As it was, he was basically a general or satrap, for nearly 15 years.

[susan]

None of the generals could declare themselves kings until Alexander's legitimate heirs were out of the way - so they continued with the fiction that they were going to hand over power to Alexander IV when he came of age - although of course they weren't going to do this.However, none of them was powerful enough to defeat all the others, and the first one to declare himself king would have been subject to a concerted attack by the others. It's a bit like a pack of wolves after the lead wolf is dead - there was no natural successor strong enough to become the leader, and so the rest spent years making alliances and war to try to build their own powerbases.Ptolemy was Pharaoh in all but name from a very early stage.Susan

[Tre]

Ptolemy had to displace the current regime when he took over Egypt. Point of Fact - to be Pharoah he had to be related. Alexander was defacto ruler and therefore Pharoah of Egypt - as his half-brother he could claim to be Pharoah by blood. One must also remember the Macedonians had to be convinced too - to declare himself as King of Egypt, he had to have Argead blood. Whether or not he was the illegitimate son of Philip, it was believable enough to convince later historians, and I am certain Ptolemy was convinced of it as well.At first he interred Alexander in Memphis where his body could be more properly guarded (Siwa was remote and not a place one would want to put troops). As caretaker of his half-brother's body as he so elected himself, he had to come up with a reason when he was writing those memoirs as to why he stole the body which isn't looking good for PR purposes. Therefore the story of how Alexander wanted to be buried at Siwa. It must have seemed plausible enough. Unfortunately Arrian doesn't understand that a King can indeed, lie, even if only for PR purposes.As for where Alexander wanted to be buried, it would have been Babylon in a great pyre a la Hephaistion, certainly not Aegae, but that was not a popular choice among the survivors. Perdikkas, who despite the roundabouts in history, was selected by Alexander to be ruler after him, by obligation and tradition, had to return the body to Aegae. Don't forget, after the King died, everyone was Macedonian again and the popular decision in front of the troops was to return the King to his ancestral burial ground. In the ancient mindset, improper care of such things could lead to the most dire consequences, some of which are mentioned in later sources.Regards,Tre

[susan]

I think that, just as there's a tendency to Cassander as bad, there's a tendency to see Ptolemy as a good fellow, trying to do the best by his half-brother. This must be an example of the winner writing history - his Alexander history seems to be the standard from which others versions differ, and also Arrian obviously regarded him as reliable - but I think that a lot of what we read is just his gloss on it. He doesn't seem to have been inside the inner circle while Alexander was alive. I've a feeling that the other generals were astounded by his nerve in hijacking the body.
I'm interested in why you think that Ptolemy was convinced that he was Alexander's half-brother - I see him more cynically than that - but that's just my view.Susan

[Tre]

I suppose that I would characterize Ptolemy as a person who omits things moreso than outright lies, most of the time, but not all of the time. But since about everyone who writes their own history does same, I suppose we can't hold him to a greater standard.As for Ptolemy's views on his father. I ask you the question - what would you rather believe - son of Lagus, or son of Philip? I do not question that his mother was one of Philip's mistresses (or indeed the story would not have flown at all)and she may well have told him Philip was his father. Outside of Lagus himself, who may well have been dead, who would actually challenge the remark except for Philip? He does not appear to have done so (perhaps he didn't know himself). Ptolemy was clearly in a high enough position at court being one of the chosen friends of Alexander, that Philip did not find him objectionable. Well, until he supported Alexander first over the King, something Philip would not tolerate, not even from his own legitimate son.I would agree that he was not one of the 'inner circle' but he would certainly have been considered a friend. He did show Alexander great honor in death, so I do believe he was quite fond of his King.As for the others, they would not have expected Ptolemy to hijack the corpse of course. He went to Egypt, one of the richest parts of the empire, and should have been happy. But Ptolemy had other ideas, none of which included Perdikkas as King who was not able to intrigue very well and died at the hands of his own men (some of who shared the inner circle with him).Regards,Tre

[agesilaos]

Initially Roxane and Perdikkas were a clique; he promoted the chances of her son, yet unborn and connived at her elimination of a rival. thereafter she would have been protected in some city while the regent annoyed the Empire, had she been on the Nile it would have been mentioned.I too see Ptolemy as a cynic, yet I think his alleged relationship with Alexander more a product of counter-propaganda, illegitimacy dis-barred ancients from inheritance and carried as much stigma as supporting Man U these days!

[jan]

Where were Roxanne and her son buried? Did she stay in Greece or was she shipped back to Sogdiana? Anyone know?

[susan]

Alexander IV was probably the youth burired at Aigai whose tomb has been found. I don't know what happened to Roxane - certainly she would not have been sent back to Sogdiana, but she was not of Macedonian royalty so she wouldn't have been buried at Aigai. As Cassander didn't release the news of their deaths for some time, I think it's likely that Roxane, Alexander IV and their retinue were killed and buried quietly; then when the time was right Cassander re-buried Alexander IV at Aigai as the last of Alexander's line. There had to be a public burial to show people that he was dead, and that therefore Cassander could legitimately take over. Alexander's half-sister, Thessalonike, who was Cassander's wife, may have taken the role of chief family mourner.Susan