Κατάχωση θέλει η διοίκηση των ΗΣΑΠ για το Βωμό των Δώδεκα Θεών
Η είδηση πέρασε στα "ψιλά" της επικαιρότητας πριν από έναν περίπου μήνα. "Τμήμα του Βωμού των Δώδεκα Θεών στην Αρχαία Αγορά, που προϊδεάζει μόνο για το σύνολο του μνημείου, ανέσκαψαν οι αρχαιολόγοι κάτω από τις γραμμές του ΗΣΑΠ κοντά στο Θησείο. Οι ειδικοί μιλούν για ανακάλυψη υψίστης σημασίας, αλλά η διοίκηση του ΗΣΑΠ έχει διατάξει κατάχωση".
Κι όμως, αυτό για το οποίο η διοίκηση του ΗΣΑΠ, διέταξε κατάχωση, είναι μία από τις σημαντικότερες ανακαλύψεις των τελευταίων χρόνων.
Πρόκειται-όπως γράφει η Καθημερινή- για ένα από τα αρχαιότερα μνημεία της πόλης, που αποτελούσε ορόσημο και θεωρούνταν ουσιαστικά το κέντρο της, εφόσον χρησιμοποιούνταν ως αφετηρία για τη μέτρηση των αποστάσεων. Ηταν η «Πλατεία Συντάγματος» της αρχαίας Αθήνας, όπως λένε χαρακτηριστικά αρχαιολόγοι.
Και ενώ η αρχαιότητα προβάλλει σε όλη της τη μεγαλοπρέπεια στο μίζερο παρόν, οι ΗΣΑΠ δεν επιθυμούν να δώσουν το χρόνο στους αρχαιολόγους να συλλέξουν τα απαραίτητα στοιχεία και να ωριμάσει η σκέψη για το χειρισμό της κατάστασης.
Σύμφωνα με την Καθημερινή, "η νέα αυτή ανακάλυψη επαναφέρει τη σύγκρουση δύο προσεγγίσεων. Ο ΗΣΑΠ βιάζεται να ολοκληρώσει ένα έργο το οποίο έχει ήδη καθυστερήσει και έχει ταλαιπωρήσει το κοινό. Από την άλλη, οι αρχαιολόγοι επισημαίνουν τη μοναδικότητα της ανακάλυψης και παρουσιάζουν το ζήτημα ως μία σπάνια ευκαιρία για να δούμε εξ αρχής την οργάνωση της τοπιογραφίας των αρχαίων Αθηνών μέσα στα όρια της σύγχρονης πόλης (με προφανή τα μακροπρόθεσμα οφέλη στον τουρισμό και στην προβολή της Αθήνας)".
Η διοίκηση των ΗΣΑΠ θέλει να προχωρήσουν γρήγορα τα έργα ,όμως ακόμη κι αν το δούμε πιο κυνικά, ερμηνεύοντας και τις δηλώσεις της Τρόικας για εκποίηση περιουσιακών στοιχείων της Ελλάδας (είπαν ότι δεν θα εκποιηθεί η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά της Ελλάδας) , πιο σίγουρο είναι να μας μείνει ο Βωμός των Δώδεκα Θεών ως εθνικό περιουσιακό στοιχείο παρά ο ΗΣΑΠ.
Για τους αρχαιολόγους, η προοπτική κατάχωσης αυτού του εξαιρετικού ευρήματος προκαλεί απογοητευτικές σκέψεις για τις βασικές επιλογές μας ως κοινωνίας. Καλούμαστε να διαχειριστούμε ένα παρελθόν, λένε, του οποίου αποδεικνυόμαστε κατώτεροι, ακόμη και σε επίπεδο αδυναμίας κατανόησής του. "Αν γίνει κατάχωση, τότε ως κοινωνία θα έχουμε παραδεχθεί ότι δεν μπορέσαμε, ότι άλλοι υπαγορεύουν τους κανόνες, όσοι καταλήστευσαν τον τόπο και, το κυριότερο, όσοι εκμαύλισαν τους ανθρώπους, όσοι συνέβαλαν να χάσουν οι Ελληνες την αξιοπρέπεια της φτώχειας και της ολιγάρκειάς τους, όσοι ξεπούλησαν τη συνείδηση του εμείς αντί του εφήμερου εγώ, όσοι συστηματικά διέσυραν, ευτέλισαν και κατέστησαν το παρελθόν ανυπόληπτο αντί του δανείου ευμαρούς παρόντος», λέει χαρακτηριστικά ο γραμματέας της Ελληνικής Επιγραφικής Εταιρείας κ. Αγγελος Π. Ματθαίου στην εφημερίδα.
Οι αρχαιολόγοι προτείνουν υπερύψωση της γραμμής ή μεταφορά του βωμού και μιλάνε για ανακάλυψη υψίστης σημασίας, ικανή να ανατρέψει τη ματιά μας πάνω στη διαμορφούμενη τοπιογραφία της αρχαίας πόλης. «Λίγα μνημεία των αρχαίων Αθηνών αναφέρει ο Θουκυδίδης στην ιστορία του», λέει η αρχαιολόγος Ανδρονίκη Μακρή. «Από αυτά ακόμη λιγότερα έχουν βρεθεί και υπάρχουν μέσα στους αρχαιολογικούς χώρους της ασφυκτικά χτισμένης σύγχρονης πόλης. Αν κάποιος μας ρωτούσε, "ποια στάση πρέπει να έχουμε προς αυτά τα μνημεία εμείς οι σημερινοί Ελληνες", η απάντηση είναι προφανής. Να τα διαφυλάξουμε ως κόρην οφθαλμού. Να τα αναδείξουμε και να τα προβάλουμε με κάθε τρόπο».
Ο Βωμός των Δώδεκα Θεών (ένα μικρό τμήμα του είναι ορατό στην Αρχαία Αγορά) βρίσκεται σχεδόν στο σύνολό του κάτω από τις γραμμές του τρένου. Οι ΗΣΑΠ δεν επιθυμούν να δώσουν χρόνο στους αρχαιολόγους να συλλέξουν τα απαραίτητα στοιχεία και να ωριμάσει η σκέψη για τον χειρισμό της κατάστασης. Κατά τους αρχαιολόγους, η ανακάλυψη είναι 100% ασφαλής ως προς την ιστορική της ταυτοποίηση, δεν επιδέχεται δηλαδή αμφισβήτηση, διότι ο Βωμός είναι από τα έντονα μαρτυρημένα μνημεία από φιλολογικής απόψεως.
Απο την Εφημερίδα LIFO
Κι όμως, αυτό για το οποίο η διοίκηση του ΗΣΑΠ, διέταξε κατάχωση, είναι μία από τις σημαντικότερες ανακαλύψεις των τελευταίων χρόνων.
Πρόκειται-όπως γράφει η Καθημερινή- για ένα από τα αρχαιότερα μνημεία της πόλης, που αποτελούσε ορόσημο και θεωρούνταν ουσιαστικά το κέντρο της, εφόσον χρησιμοποιούνταν ως αφετηρία για τη μέτρηση των αποστάσεων. Ηταν η «Πλατεία Συντάγματος» της αρχαίας Αθήνας, όπως λένε χαρακτηριστικά αρχαιολόγοι.
Και ενώ η αρχαιότητα προβάλλει σε όλη της τη μεγαλοπρέπεια στο μίζερο παρόν, οι ΗΣΑΠ δεν επιθυμούν να δώσουν το χρόνο στους αρχαιολόγους να συλλέξουν τα απαραίτητα στοιχεία και να ωριμάσει η σκέψη για το χειρισμό της κατάστασης.
Σύμφωνα με την Καθημερινή, "η νέα αυτή ανακάλυψη επαναφέρει τη σύγκρουση δύο προσεγγίσεων. Ο ΗΣΑΠ βιάζεται να ολοκληρώσει ένα έργο το οποίο έχει ήδη καθυστερήσει και έχει ταλαιπωρήσει το κοινό. Από την άλλη, οι αρχαιολόγοι επισημαίνουν τη μοναδικότητα της ανακάλυψης και παρουσιάζουν το ζήτημα ως μία σπάνια ευκαιρία για να δούμε εξ αρχής την οργάνωση της τοπιογραφίας των αρχαίων Αθηνών μέσα στα όρια της σύγχρονης πόλης (με προφανή τα μακροπρόθεσμα οφέλη στον τουρισμό και στην προβολή της Αθήνας)".
Η διοίκηση των ΗΣΑΠ θέλει να προχωρήσουν γρήγορα τα έργα ,όμως ακόμη κι αν το δούμε πιο κυνικά, ερμηνεύοντας και τις δηλώσεις της Τρόικας για εκποίηση περιουσιακών στοιχείων της Ελλάδας (είπαν ότι δεν θα εκποιηθεί η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά της Ελλάδας) , πιο σίγουρο είναι να μας μείνει ο Βωμός των Δώδεκα Θεών ως εθνικό περιουσιακό στοιχείο παρά ο ΗΣΑΠ.
Για τους αρχαιολόγους, η προοπτική κατάχωσης αυτού του εξαιρετικού ευρήματος προκαλεί απογοητευτικές σκέψεις για τις βασικές επιλογές μας ως κοινωνίας. Καλούμαστε να διαχειριστούμε ένα παρελθόν, λένε, του οποίου αποδεικνυόμαστε κατώτεροι, ακόμη και σε επίπεδο αδυναμίας κατανόησής του. "Αν γίνει κατάχωση, τότε ως κοινωνία θα έχουμε παραδεχθεί ότι δεν μπορέσαμε, ότι άλλοι υπαγορεύουν τους κανόνες, όσοι καταλήστευσαν τον τόπο και, το κυριότερο, όσοι εκμαύλισαν τους ανθρώπους, όσοι συνέβαλαν να χάσουν οι Ελληνες την αξιοπρέπεια της φτώχειας και της ολιγάρκειάς τους, όσοι ξεπούλησαν τη συνείδηση του εμείς αντί του εφήμερου εγώ, όσοι συστηματικά διέσυραν, ευτέλισαν και κατέστησαν το παρελθόν ανυπόληπτο αντί του δανείου ευμαρούς παρόντος», λέει χαρακτηριστικά ο γραμματέας της Ελληνικής Επιγραφικής Εταιρείας κ. Αγγελος Π. Ματθαίου στην εφημερίδα.
Οι αρχαιολόγοι προτείνουν υπερύψωση της γραμμής ή μεταφορά του βωμού και μιλάνε για ανακάλυψη υψίστης σημασίας, ικανή να ανατρέψει τη ματιά μας πάνω στη διαμορφούμενη τοπιογραφία της αρχαίας πόλης. «Λίγα μνημεία των αρχαίων Αθηνών αναφέρει ο Θουκυδίδης στην ιστορία του», λέει η αρχαιολόγος Ανδρονίκη Μακρή. «Από αυτά ακόμη λιγότερα έχουν βρεθεί και υπάρχουν μέσα στους αρχαιολογικούς χώρους της ασφυκτικά χτισμένης σύγχρονης πόλης. Αν κάποιος μας ρωτούσε, "ποια στάση πρέπει να έχουμε προς αυτά τα μνημεία εμείς οι σημερινοί Ελληνες", η απάντηση είναι προφανής. Να τα διαφυλάξουμε ως κόρην οφθαλμού. Να τα αναδείξουμε και να τα προβάλουμε με κάθε τρόπο».
Ο Βωμός των Δώδεκα Θεών (ένα μικρό τμήμα του είναι ορατό στην Αρχαία Αγορά) βρίσκεται σχεδόν στο σύνολό του κάτω από τις γραμμές του τρένου. Οι ΗΣΑΠ δεν επιθυμούν να δώσουν χρόνο στους αρχαιολόγους να συλλέξουν τα απαραίτητα στοιχεία και να ωριμάσει η σκέψη για τον χειρισμό της κατάστασης. Κατά τους αρχαιολόγους, η ανακάλυψη είναι 100% ασφαλής ως προς την ιστορική της ταυτοποίηση, δεν επιδέχεται δηλαδή αμφισβήτηση, διότι ο Βωμός είναι από τα έντονα μαρτυρημένα μνημεία από φιλολογικής απόψεως.
Απο την Εφημερίδα LIFO
Two Great Historians On Alexander the Great Part 2
Second in a series of weekly conversations between historians James Romm [JR] and Paul A. Cartledge [PC], editor and introduction-author, respectively, of the new Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, just published by Pantheon under series editor Robert Strassler. This discussion was created by the Reading Odyssey, a non-profit that aims to reignite curiosity and lifelong learning for adults through lectures, reading groups and webcasts.) Week one’s dialogue is here.
————————————————
Did Alexander take part in a plot to murder his father?
JR: Paul, it’s surprising to me how many historians in recent years have expressed suspicions that Alexander the Great was guilty of conspiracy to commit patricide. The stabbing of Alexander’s father Philip in 336 B.C. was done by Pausanias, a resentful courtier and jilted lover, but he may of course have been put up to the job by others, and he was killed before he could be questioned. In antiquity there were rumors that Olympias, Philip’s third wife, had set the assassination plot in motion, but barely a whisper about Alexander’s involvement. Certainly there has never been any evidence to implicate Alexander, so modern suspicions are pure speculation, aren’t they? Or rather, inferences based on what historians assume about Alexander’s character and motives?
PC: Jamie, it does look surprising at first sight, I agree. But let me put to you the following scenario, and I’d ask you to consider it from the point of view of the Roman lawyers’ question ‘cui bono?’ At the time of Philip’s assassination he had already begun his Asiatic campaign – the advance bridgehead force was already ensconced in Asia Minor (northwestern Turkey today). But where was Alexander? Not with that bridgehead force. Nor did Philip have any plans for Alexander to join it. He was going to leave his son and heir behind in Macedonia, as he had done once before, as Regent of his by now very extensive Greek kingdom.
JR: But is it fair to indict a man for murder simply because he stood to gain by the death of the victim? On that reasoning, we could equally well accuse the Persian king Darius III (as Alexander indeed did), or any one of a few thousand Athenians. Ancient writers were certainly willing to charge dynastic rivals with murder on slim evidence — certainly the Romans did this every time a member of the Julio-Claudian family died — but it is interesting that none of them charged Alexander with patricide.
PC: You are quite right that there has never been any good positive historical evidence to implicate Alexander in the assassination, so that modern suspicions must be pure (or rather impure) speculation. But I suggest that such speculation is at least well informed speculation, based as it is both – as above – on the known prior circumstances of Macedonian dynastic
politics (the 390s were an especially bloody passage for Macedonian royalty …) and then also, as you say, on inferences based on what historians assume about Alexander’s character and motives. For if anything seems to me to be a likely inference from those, it is that Alexander will not have been well pleased to have been left out of the Asiatic campaign altogether. Which is where my Roman lawyer’s question comes in.
Cui Bono? means literally ‘for whom [is it/was it/will it be] a good thing [advantageous]‘? In other words, in this particular case (pun intended), to whose advantage above all others would it have been to have Philip assassinated? Answer: Alexander. That’s not the same, anything like, as saying that he was- or ‘must have been’ – guilty of putting Pausanias up to it. But it is the same as saying that, in consequentialist terms, Alexander had very good reasons to be not at all unhappy with the outcome.
JR: I see your point, but wouldn’t it also have been to Alexander’s advantage to let Philip go ahead and invade Asia, on the assumption that a greatly enlarged empire would pass to him in the end? After all, he was Philip’s son and heir, and Philip couldn’t live forever. Indeed, Alexander might have figured that some Persian cavalryman would finish his father off and do the job for him, if we assume that he even wanted the job done.
PC: Well, Alexander was certainly Philip’s oldest legitimate son, but the year before, in 337, he had taken as his seventh (sic) and last consort a noble Macedonian Greek woman, from a family that was by no means on good terms with Alexander, and with whom he was planning to have a son, the first of his sons who would be all-Macedonian (Alexander’s mother Olympias was Greek but not a Macedonian). This marriage had caused Alexander great grief, and he had behaved very badly indeed over it – with surely the at least tacit approval of his mother, who had long been estranged from Philip and who knew all about the murderous nature of Macedonian dynastic politics. For if Philip’s new wife were to bear him a healthy son – as she soon did – and that son were to grow to maturity before Philip’s death, Alexander would without question have been bypassed for the succession to the Macedonian throne, and Olympias’s role in life and probably also her life would have been abruptly terminated.
JR: OK, I’m satisfied that Alexander had a motive, but let’s talk means for a moment. The assassin who struck Philip down was a guardsman named Pausanias, supposedly acting out of jealousy — he was formerly Philip’s lover, since jilted — and injured pride. Why would Alexander use an agent to do the deed, someone who might rat the conspirators out, or botch the job, or blab afterward under torture? Pausanias was conveniently killed by security forces as he tied to make his escape from the scene of the assassination; but would Alexander have risked that something might go wrong and his plot would be uncovered? Couldn’t he have done the murder in a more risk-free way by doing it himself — presumably he had lots of opportunities to stab or poison Philip without being detected?
PC: The killing of Pausanias immediately after the assassination does seem a trifle – er – suspicious, does it not? i.e., my suspicious mind immediately suspects that whoever put Pausanias up to it (perhaps promising him some promotion or other favour from the new boss?) also made very sure that he couldn’t blab. Poison was never a sure method – and the assassination of Philip at the celebration of the marriage of Philip and Olympias’s daughter Cleopatra (Alexander’s full sister) to Olympias’s brother was a brilliantly public, political act, almost a coup in itself.
JR: Well, I’m more inclined to give Alexander the benefit of the doubt (I would have said he’s innocent until proven guilty, but proof in this case — as in most of the Alexander matters we will be discussing — is out of the question). I agree though there’s plenty of grounds for suspicion!
Originally Posted: FORBES
————————————————
Did Alexander take part in a plot to murder his father?
JR: Paul, it’s surprising to me how many historians in recent years have expressed suspicions that Alexander the Great was guilty of conspiracy to commit patricide. The stabbing of Alexander’s father Philip in 336 B.C. was done by Pausanias, a resentful courtier and jilted lover, but he may of course have been put up to the job by others, and he was killed before he could be questioned. In antiquity there were rumors that Olympias, Philip’s third wife, had set the assassination plot in motion, but barely a whisper about Alexander’s involvement. Certainly there has never been any evidence to implicate Alexander, so modern suspicions are pure speculation, aren’t they? Or rather, inferences based on what historians assume about Alexander’s character and motives?
PC: Jamie, it does look surprising at first sight, I agree. But let me put to you the following scenario, and I’d ask you to consider it from the point of view of the Roman lawyers’ question ‘cui bono?’ At the time of Philip’s assassination he had already begun his Asiatic campaign – the advance bridgehead force was already ensconced in Asia Minor (northwestern Turkey today). But where was Alexander? Not with that bridgehead force. Nor did Philip have any plans for Alexander to join it. He was going to leave his son and heir behind in Macedonia, as he had done once before, as Regent of his by now very extensive Greek kingdom.
JR: But is it fair to indict a man for murder simply because he stood to gain by the death of the victim? On that reasoning, we could equally well accuse the Persian king Darius III (as Alexander indeed did), or any one of a few thousand Athenians. Ancient writers were certainly willing to charge dynastic rivals with murder on slim evidence — certainly the Romans did this every time a member of the Julio-Claudian family died — but it is interesting that none of them charged Alexander with patricide.
PC: You are quite right that there has never been any good positive historical evidence to implicate Alexander in the assassination, so that modern suspicions must be pure (or rather impure) speculation. But I suggest that such speculation is at least well informed speculation, based as it is both – as above – on the known prior circumstances of Macedonian dynastic
politics (the 390s were an especially bloody passage for Macedonian royalty …) and then also, as you say, on inferences based on what historians assume about Alexander’s character and motives. For if anything seems to me to be a likely inference from those, it is that Alexander will not have been well pleased to have been left out of the Asiatic campaign altogether. Which is where my Roman lawyer’s question comes in.
Cui Bono? means literally ‘for whom [is it/was it/will it be] a good thing [advantageous]‘? In other words, in this particular case (pun intended), to whose advantage above all others would it have been to have Philip assassinated? Answer: Alexander. That’s not the same, anything like, as saying that he was- or ‘must have been’ – guilty of putting Pausanias up to it. But it is the same as saying that, in consequentialist terms, Alexander had very good reasons to be not at all unhappy with the outcome.
JR: I see your point, but wouldn’t it also have been to Alexander’s advantage to let Philip go ahead and invade Asia, on the assumption that a greatly enlarged empire would pass to him in the end? After all, he was Philip’s son and heir, and Philip couldn’t live forever. Indeed, Alexander might have figured that some Persian cavalryman would finish his father off and do the job for him, if we assume that he even wanted the job done.
PC: Well, Alexander was certainly Philip’s oldest legitimate son, but the year before, in 337, he had taken as his seventh (sic) and last consort a noble Macedonian Greek woman, from a family that was by no means on good terms with Alexander, and with whom he was planning to have a son, the first of his sons who would be all-Macedonian (Alexander’s mother Olympias was Greek but not a Macedonian). This marriage had caused Alexander great grief, and he had behaved very badly indeed over it – with surely the at least tacit approval of his mother, who had long been estranged from Philip and who knew all about the murderous nature of Macedonian dynastic politics. For if Philip’s new wife were to bear him a healthy son – as she soon did – and that son were to grow to maturity before Philip’s death, Alexander would without question have been bypassed for the succession to the Macedonian throne, and Olympias’s role in life and probably also her life would have been abruptly terminated.
JR: OK, I’m satisfied that Alexander had a motive, but let’s talk means for a moment. The assassin who struck Philip down was a guardsman named Pausanias, supposedly acting out of jealousy — he was formerly Philip’s lover, since jilted — and injured pride. Why would Alexander use an agent to do the deed, someone who might rat the conspirators out, or botch the job, or blab afterward under torture? Pausanias was conveniently killed by security forces as he tied to make his escape from the scene of the assassination; but would Alexander have risked that something might go wrong and his plot would be uncovered? Couldn’t he have done the murder in a more risk-free way by doing it himself — presumably he had lots of opportunities to stab or poison Philip without being detected?
PC: The killing of Pausanias immediately after the assassination does seem a trifle – er – suspicious, does it not? i.e., my suspicious mind immediately suspects that whoever put Pausanias up to it (perhaps promising him some promotion or other favour from the new boss?) also made very sure that he couldn’t blab. Poison was never a sure method – and the assassination of Philip at the celebration of the marriage of Philip and Olympias’s daughter Cleopatra (Alexander’s full sister) to Olympias’s brother was a brilliantly public, political act, almost a coup in itself.
JR: Well, I’m more inclined to give Alexander the benefit of the doubt (I would have said he’s innocent until proven guilty, but proof in this case — as in most of the Alexander matters we will be discussing — is out of the question). I agree though there’s plenty of grounds for suspicion!
Originally Posted: FORBES
Two Great Historians On Alexander the Great, Part One
(First in a series of weekly conversations between historians James Romm [JR] and Paul A. Cartledge [PAC], editor and introduction-author, respectively, of the new Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, just published by Pantheon under series editor Robert Strassler. This discussion was created by the Reading Odyssey, a non-profit that aims to reignite curiosity and lifelong learning for adults through lectures, reading groups and webcasts.)
JR: Paul, there are only a few people in history who are universally known as “the Great,” and Alexander of Macedon, who reigned and conquered much of the known world between 336 and 323 B.C., probably tops the list. The word “great” in this context, to my mind, is always positive — implying both that Alexander’s achievements were huge in scale, and that his nature was heroic and awe-inspiring. The question many in the modern world might ask, however, is: Do these two things go hand in hand? Perhaps in the scale of his achievements Alexander was Great, but in his nature Terrible — or perhaps even Terrible in both. So as you and I begin this ten-part dialogue on the controversial figure of Alexander (a conversation made more timely by the recent release of Pantheon’s The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander), maybe it makes sense to ask: Does the appellation “the Great” still make sense for Alexander? Or is it an outdated holdover from an age when conquest and military expansion were more admired than they are now?
PAC: Jamie, I remember a (now very) senior Oxford colleague long ago telling me that all ‘great’ men were by definition bad men… Well, that may be so, but we historians shouldn’t primarily be concerned with our subjects’ morals, but rather with how and why they did what they did, and with what consequences, including among those our current appreciation of their historical significance. Whatever may be thought of Alexander’s morals, there’s no denying that he matters hugely – and always has so mattered, at least from the moment he was acclaimed king of the state of Macedon (which controlled ancient Macedonia – and much else), in the summer of 356 BCE, when he was barely 20.
Very few historical actors have been called ‘the Great’, and Alexander is one of only two known to me (I stand to be corrected …) who have had that title incorporated in their very name: Megalexandros in modern Greek – the other is Charlemagne (‘Karl der Grosse’ in German, crowned Holy Roman Emperor at Aachen on Christmas Day, AD 800). Shakespeare has a character (in Twelfth Night) claim that some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them – I doubt myself that the first member of that trilogy makes any real historical sense, but Alexander’s parents, King Philip II and Olympias, were certainly memorable, and their extremely fraught union decisively shaped his first 20 years at least. But by themselves neither they nor his teaching by Aristotle when he was 13, nor any other aspect of his upbringing and background in that corner of northeastern Greece could by themselves account for Alexander’s truly astonishing 13-year reign (336 – 323 BCE).
In the succeeding exchanges you and I will be re-examining all sorts of aspects of Alexander’s career, personality and achievement. Here let me kick off with what I consider to be unarguably an argument in favour of his being called ‘the Great’, regardless of what side one happens to be on in any of the many other major controversies that still surround this larger-than-life figure. He was, as it’s been nicely put, a military Midas: as a general – off as well as on the battlefield, in strategy as well as tactics – pretty much everything he touched turned to gold, so long that is as he was pursuing strictly military objectives, whether defeating an enemy, or conquering and holding a territory. He was never defeated in a pitched battle, and in siege or guerrilla operations he suffered only relatively slight reverses at worst. This is not to say he never made a mistake, leading his men as he did over thousands of kilometres through the most formidable terrain for over a decade nonstop. But those mistakes never added up to an outright defeat. ‘Invincible’ the Delphic priestess had allegedly declared him in advance of his campaigning in Asia, invincible he proved. Death alone (by whatever means…) at Babylon in early June 323 BCE proved him literally mortal. Of course, if you happen to be a pacifist by conviction, you probably hate all that Alexander stood for as well as what he did in war, but, if the premise of war be granted, he was surely a formidably great generalissimo.
JR: Paul, Your last point raises a question to which I’m afraid I don’t know the answer: When did Alexander first become called “the Great,” and by whom? I would imagine it was the Romans, with their great reverence for military prowess, that awarded him the honor. I would think that the Greeks, who had very mixed and often adverse responses to Alexander — a topic we’ll be discussing in more depth in coming weeks — would not have called him Great, though their were some Greeks of the Roman Empire who very much admired him. Among these was Arrian, a Greek writer and intellectual who became a top administrator in the Roman empire, and who wrote one of the most important accounts of Alexander that survives from antiquity: The Anabasis, translated “Campaigns of Alexander” in the new Landmark edition.
PAC: Jamie, it seems that the earliest certain surviving reference to Alexander as ‘Alexander the Great’ is in a play by the Roman New Comedy author Plautus (flourished c. 200 BCE), whose plays were based, often very closely, on earlier Greek originals, so we can confidently (I think) say – it was at some time before 200 BCE! (This site – - contains some relevant stuff, along with a lot of irrelevance.)
But I would at once add that in itself the title doesn’t matter all that much: what does I think matter a lot is how he was perceived by, on the one hand, the movers and shakers of the immediate post-Alexander Greek world, and, on the other, by ‘ordinary’ Greeks of that same ‘Hellenistic’ (as we scholars know it) world. The former group, that is the rival kings and dynasts and would-be kings and dynasts known collectively as the ‘Successors’ and ‘Epigones’ who slugged it out for well over a generation (323-281 BCE) all to a man (re)presented themselves as Alexander-clones. The latter group included many Greeks living in Asia Minor, who had been liberated from alien barbarian Persian domination by Alexander, and who worshipped him as a god. Without any compulsion, it would seem.
You ask whether I might add something about the topics we’re going to go on to discuss in this exchange. With pleasure – here are some possible topics we could argue the toss over:
Did Alexander participate in the murder of his father?
How good a historian was Arrian?
Why did so many Greeks hate Alexander – whereas others (literally) worshipped him?
Was Alexander as great a general as he’s usually cracked up to be?
Was Alexander a religious fanatic?
How genuine was Alexander’s Hellenism (love and promotion of Greek culture)?
What really was Alexander’s relationship with his right-hand man Hephaestion? or/and What did Alexander really think of women?
How genuinely Asian was Alexander’s style of kingship?
Who or What killed Alexander?
What was/is Alexander’s Legacy – what has he done for Us?
Originally Posted: FORBES
JR: Paul, there are only a few people in history who are universally known as “the Great,” and Alexander of Macedon, who reigned and conquered much of the known world between 336 and 323 B.C., probably tops the list. The word “great” in this context, to my mind, is always positive — implying both that Alexander’s achievements were huge in scale, and that his nature was heroic and awe-inspiring. The question many in the modern world might ask, however, is: Do these two things go hand in hand? Perhaps in the scale of his achievements Alexander was Great, but in his nature Terrible — or perhaps even Terrible in both. So as you and I begin this ten-part dialogue on the controversial figure of Alexander (a conversation made more timely by the recent release of Pantheon’s The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander), maybe it makes sense to ask: Does the appellation “the Great” still make sense for Alexander? Or is it an outdated holdover from an age when conquest and military expansion were more admired than they are now?
PAC: Jamie, I remember a (now very) senior Oxford colleague long ago telling me that all ‘great’ men were by definition bad men… Well, that may be so, but we historians shouldn’t primarily be concerned with our subjects’ morals, but rather with how and why they did what they did, and with what consequences, including among those our current appreciation of their historical significance. Whatever may be thought of Alexander’s morals, there’s no denying that he matters hugely – and always has so mattered, at least from the moment he was acclaimed king of the state of Macedon (which controlled ancient Macedonia – and much else), in the summer of 356 BCE, when he was barely 20.
Very few historical actors have been called ‘the Great’, and Alexander is one of only two known to me (I stand to be corrected …) who have had that title incorporated in their very name: Megalexandros in modern Greek – the other is Charlemagne (‘Karl der Grosse’ in German, crowned Holy Roman Emperor at Aachen on Christmas Day, AD 800). Shakespeare has a character (in Twelfth Night) claim that some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them – I doubt myself that the first member of that trilogy makes any real historical sense, but Alexander’s parents, King Philip II and Olympias, were certainly memorable, and their extremely fraught union decisively shaped his first 20 years at least. But by themselves neither they nor his teaching by Aristotle when he was 13, nor any other aspect of his upbringing and background in that corner of northeastern Greece could by themselves account for Alexander’s truly astonishing 13-year reign (336 – 323 BCE).
In the succeeding exchanges you and I will be re-examining all sorts of aspects of Alexander’s career, personality and achievement. Here let me kick off with what I consider to be unarguably an argument in favour of his being called ‘the Great’, regardless of what side one happens to be on in any of the many other major controversies that still surround this larger-than-life figure. He was, as it’s been nicely put, a military Midas: as a general – off as well as on the battlefield, in strategy as well as tactics – pretty much everything he touched turned to gold, so long that is as he was pursuing strictly military objectives, whether defeating an enemy, or conquering and holding a territory. He was never defeated in a pitched battle, and in siege or guerrilla operations he suffered only relatively slight reverses at worst. This is not to say he never made a mistake, leading his men as he did over thousands of kilometres through the most formidable terrain for over a decade nonstop. But those mistakes never added up to an outright defeat. ‘Invincible’ the Delphic priestess had allegedly declared him in advance of his campaigning in Asia, invincible he proved. Death alone (by whatever means…) at Babylon in early June 323 BCE proved him literally mortal. Of course, if you happen to be a pacifist by conviction, you probably hate all that Alexander stood for as well as what he did in war, but, if the premise of war be granted, he was surely a formidably great generalissimo.
JR: Paul, Your last point raises a question to which I’m afraid I don’t know the answer: When did Alexander first become called “the Great,” and by whom? I would imagine it was the Romans, with their great reverence for military prowess, that awarded him the honor. I would think that the Greeks, who had very mixed and often adverse responses to Alexander — a topic we’ll be discussing in more depth in coming weeks — would not have called him Great, though their were some Greeks of the Roman Empire who very much admired him. Among these was Arrian, a Greek writer and intellectual who became a top administrator in the Roman empire, and who wrote one of the most important accounts of Alexander that survives from antiquity: The Anabasis, translated “Campaigns of Alexander” in the new Landmark edition.
PAC: Jamie, it seems that the earliest certain surviving reference to Alexander as ‘Alexander the Great’ is in a play by the Roman New Comedy author Plautus (flourished c. 200 BCE), whose plays were based, often very closely, on earlier Greek originals, so we can confidently (I think) say – it was at some time before 200 BCE! (This site – - contains some relevant stuff, along with a lot of irrelevance.)
But I would at once add that in itself the title doesn’t matter all that much: what does I think matter a lot is how he was perceived by, on the one hand, the movers and shakers of the immediate post-Alexander Greek world, and, on the other, by ‘ordinary’ Greeks of that same ‘Hellenistic’ (as we scholars know it) world. The former group, that is the rival kings and dynasts and would-be kings and dynasts known collectively as the ‘Successors’ and ‘Epigones’ who slugged it out for well over a generation (323-281 BCE) all to a man (re)presented themselves as Alexander-clones. The latter group included many Greeks living in Asia Minor, who had been liberated from alien barbarian Persian domination by Alexander, and who worshipped him as a god. Without any compulsion, it would seem.
You ask whether I might add something about the topics we’re going to go on to discuss in this exchange. With pleasure – here are some possible topics we could argue the toss over:
Did Alexander participate in the murder of his father?
How good a historian was Arrian?
Why did so many Greeks hate Alexander – whereas others (literally) worshipped him?
Was Alexander as great a general as he’s usually cracked up to be?
Was Alexander a religious fanatic?
How genuine was Alexander’s Hellenism (love and promotion of Greek culture)?
What really was Alexander’s relationship with his right-hand man Hephaestion? or/and What did Alexander really think of women?
How genuinely Asian was Alexander’s style of kingship?
Who or What killed Alexander?
What was/is Alexander’s Legacy – what has he done for Us?
Originally Posted: FORBES
Greece's Acropolis: no crisis for restoration
ATHENS — Like the victory goddess it honours, Athens' ancient Temple of Athena Nike stands free of scaffolding for the first time in nine years in a testament to another triumph -- the prolific restoration of the Acropolis.
Greece may be struggling to ward off financial collapse but nothing will crush the ambitious plan -- first started in 1975 -- to restore Classical glory to the country's most visited monument.
The government vowed in May to press ahead with the drive to restore the landmark despite making deep budget cuts to battle its debt crisis. Even paycuts for the restoration team haven't dampened their determination to see it through.
"People have lower salaries as everybody in Greece today, but working here is a privilege and we have to keep our enthusiasm," said Mary Ioannidou, an engineer who spent 35 years of her life working on the site and today heads the Acropolis Restoration Service.
Yet another round of restoration started in January, this latest to last three years. The EU has already sunk millions of euros into the painstaking work and will finance 80 percent of the 12 million-euro budget (16 million dollars) for the new phase.
Whatever the crisis, "the Greek state never stops to take care of this monument," Ioannidou told AFP. "EU funds never stop; it's a symbol not only for Greece but for all European civilisation.
"It's a monument devoted to Western civilsation," she said.
The exquisite Temple of Athena Nike, on a rise flanking the entrance to the 5th-century BC citadel that towers over the capital, once again dazzles after nearly a decade hidden from view. Its pure Ionic columns support now-complete porticos that cut a fine angle against the deep blue sky. Only its walls hint at change -- where bright new blocks of marble contrast with the centuries-old patina on original stones.
"We don't want to cheat, that's why we use this new marble, so that everybody can understand which is original and which is not," said Ioannidou, as jackhammers blare in the background.
The small temple's scaffolding came down in September at the start of a brief pause in restoration. Two months later, scaffolding was back up, this time on part of the Propylaea, a huge, semi-ruined gateway that served as the entrance to the Acropolis, and the celebrated Parthenon, the temple to Athena, protector of Athens.
The culture ministry plans to hire 50 more archaeologists, architects, stone masons and other artisans in the coming weeks, which would bring the restoration team to 200.
"Human interventions are our biggest enemy," said Ioannidou.
Damage came from many sources -- transformation of temples into churches or mosques, bombings, demolition during the Ottomon empire, fires and notably what Ioannidou called bad restoration work in the early 20th century.
While the ancient Greeks took care to cover with lead the iron rods that link blocks of marble, early 20th-century restorers used ordinary, unprotected iron. "The iron elements rusted, expanded and caused a lot of damage," she said.
Today, modern materials are used, notably corrosion-resistant titanium, and the team's methods have become a reference point. "We have archaeologists coming from all over the world, we even had visitors from Korea where they used our methodology to restore some ancient stone pagodas," said Ioannidou.
Pollution and acid rain have also been a problem. Some sculptures and artefacts have been replaced on site with reproductions and the originals put in the ultra-modern Acropolis Museum that opened at the foot of the citadel in 2009.
Among these are the famous Caryatids, columns sculpted as females holding up the roof of a porch on the southern side of the Erectheum temple, and the frieze from the Temple of Athena Nike.
Six huge metopes, or square spaces on a frieze, from the west side of the Parthenon will also be replaced by copies.
The museum already already houses part of the Parthenon's priceless Elgin Marbles -- with other fragments in the British Museum in London, a sore point between the two capitals. Greece has stepped up pressure on London in recent years to return the fragments, which it says were illegally removed in 1806 by British ambassador Lord Elgin when Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire.
For Italian architect Constantin Karanassos, who has worked on the Acropolis for the last decade, "contemporary architects still have a lot to learn from the perfection of this construction.
"The ancient Greeks used their head and their eyes to measure 'optical accuracy' that today we rely on computers to do," he said.
Greece may be struggling to ward off financial collapse but nothing will crush the ambitious plan -- first started in 1975 -- to restore Classical glory to the country's most visited monument.
The government vowed in May to press ahead with the drive to restore the landmark despite making deep budget cuts to battle its debt crisis. Even paycuts for the restoration team haven't dampened their determination to see it through.
"People have lower salaries as everybody in Greece today, but working here is a privilege and we have to keep our enthusiasm," said Mary Ioannidou, an engineer who spent 35 years of her life working on the site and today heads the Acropolis Restoration Service.
Yet another round of restoration started in January, this latest to last three years. The EU has already sunk millions of euros into the painstaking work and will finance 80 percent of the 12 million-euro budget (16 million dollars) for the new phase.
Whatever the crisis, "the Greek state never stops to take care of this monument," Ioannidou told AFP. "EU funds never stop; it's a symbol not only for Greece but for all European civilisation.
"It's a monument devoted to Western civilsation," she said.
The exquisite Temple of Athena Nike, on a rise flanking the entrance to the 5th-century BC citadel that towers over the capital, once again dazzles after nearly a decade hidden from view. Its pure Ionic columns support now-complete porticos that cut a fine angle against the deep blue sky. Only its walls hint at change -- where bright new blocks of marble contrast with the centuries-old patina on original stones.
"We don't want to cheat, that's why we use this new marble, so that everybody can understand which is original and which is not," said Ioannidou, as jackhammers blare in the background.
The small temple's scaffolding came down in September at the start of a brief pause in restoration. Two months later, scaffolding was back up, this time on part of the Propylaea, a huge, semi-ruined gateway that served as the entrance to the Acropolis, and the celebrated Parthenon, the temple to Athena, protector of Athens.
The culture ministry plans to hire 50 more archaeologists, architects, stone masons and other artisans in the coming weeks, which would bring the restoration team to 200.
"Human interventions are our biggest enemy," said Ioannidou.
Damage came from many sources -- transformation of temples into churches or mosques, bombings, demolition during the Ottomon empire, fires and notably what Ioannidou called bad restoration work in the early 20th century.
While the ancient Greeks took care to cover with lead the iron rods that link blocks of marble, early 20th-century restorers used ordinary, unprotected iron. "The iron elements rusted, expanded and caused a lot of damage," she said.
Today, modern materials are used, notably corrosion-resistant titanium, and the team's methods have become a reference point. "We have archaeologists coming from all over the world, we even had visitors from Korea where they used our methodology to restore some ancient stone pagodas," said Ioannidou.
Pollution and acid rain have also been a problem. Some sculptures and artefacts have been replaced on site with reproductions and the originals put in the ultra-modern Acropolis Museum that opened at the foot of the citadel in 2009.
Among these are the famous Caryatids, columns sculpted as females holding up the roof of a porch on the southern side of the Erectheum temple, and the frieze from the Temple of Athena Nike.
Six huge metopes, or square spaces on a frieze, from the west side of the Parthenon will also be replaced by copies.
The museum already already houses part of the Parthenon's priceless Elgin Marbles -- with other fragments in the British Museum in London, a sore point between the two capitals. Greece has stepped up pressure on London in recent years to return the fragments, which it says were illegally removed in 1806 by British ambassador Lord Elgin when Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire.
For Italian architect Constantin Karanassos, who has worked on the Acropolis for the last decade, "contemporary architects still have a lot to learn from the perfection of this construction.
"The ancient Greeks used their head and their eyes to measure 'optical accuracy' that today we rely on computers to do," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)