pp.158-159, Book Three
My book opened up to this page, and because I just mentioned Mazaeus
in the Pierre Briant excerpt, I found this interesting paragraph...
Alexander reached Thapsacus in August, during the archonship of
Aristophanes in Athens. Two bridges were already across the river.
For some time previously, Mazaeus, under orders from the Persian
King, had been guarding the approaches to the river with a force of
3,000 mounted troops, two-thirds of them Greek mercenaries; and for
this reason the Macedonians had not carried their bridge to the
further bank, lest the enemy should attack it from their end.
Mazaeus,however, no sooner got wind of Alexander's approach than he
made off at his best speed with all his men, whereupon, the two
bridges were promptly completed and Alexander was able to use them to
get his army across
and this paragraph appears later...
While the troops were resting, there was an almost total eclipse of
the moon, and Alexander offered sacrifice to Moon, Sun, and Earth,
the three deities supposed to be concerned in this phenomenon. The
opinion of Aristander, the seer, was that the moon's failure was
propitious for Alexander and the Macedonians, and that the coming
battle would be fought before the month was out; he concluded,
moreover, that the sacrifices portended victory
I used both paragraphs because one, the reference to Mazaeus
fascinates me since Pierre Brinat has pointed out that he was the
first of the Persians to be appointed a responsible positon, and the
second for the reason that Alexander is so dependent upon the
soothsayer or seers readings of the sacrifices and interpretations of
portents. This latter demonstrating the significance and importance
of the spiritual to Alexander which I maintain must not be discounted
in appreciating Alexander's devotion to his sacrifices and his duty.
Again, I take the responsibility of writing these passages as
my "psychic" pull is what opens the page for me, and I then follow up
with my beliefs.
There is actually more on these two pages about some of Darius's
troops who have been taken and interrogated. Because of seeing the
movie Pride and Glory which I discussed in a separate post, I cannot
help but wonder at interrogation techniques, as to how abusive or
torturous they may have been.
Something else occurred in that film that hit a nerve in me when the
torturous treatment given to a victim in this film reminded me of the
Plutarch article that I had found, as the word "splinters" jumped out
at me.
When I had my teeth pulled, I also found "splinters" from the wisdom
teeth area, and that along with the dialogue in the movie PG made me
think as the autopsy produced teeth and "splinters" in the man's
esophagus proving that he had been tortured.
With Alexander it was the shankbone, with the victim in the movie, it
does not directly state, but in my case I know it is in the wisdom
tooth area...I wondered at when this dialogue for the film was
written...sometimes one has to question so called synchronicities or
coincidences...
Just for the record and still mumbling and thinking to myself all the
while...
The genius of Alexander the Great by J.C. Fuller
Chapter 4. ALEXANDER ESTABLISHES HIS POSITION IN MACEDONIA, GREECE
AND THE BALKANS.
1. The Succession and the trial of conspirators.
The sight of his father being killed by a Bodyguard must have haunted
Alexander for the rest of his life. The memory made him aware of the
constant danger of assassination, and of the fact that a King could
not trust even the chosen Bodyguard. At the moment the first
priority was the selection of a successor. As many of the King's men
as could be summoned met as an assembly under arms in the theater,
where the corpse of Philip was laid out to witness proceedings.
Antipater, Philip's senior friend, presided. The election was not a
foregone conclusion, because there was known to be some support for
the claims of Amyntas, who had been king as a minor in 359-357, and
some for the sons of Aeropus, king in 397-394. The Friends generally
gathered around Alexander. One of them, Alexander Lyncestus, son of
Aeropus, was the first to shout, 'Alexander, son of Philip'. and the
assembly elected Alexander with a resounding acclamation. The
Friends put on their cuirasses, the King's men clashed their spears
against their shields, and the new king led a procession to the
palace.
That is the firt paragraph in chapter 4 of Fuller's book on
Alexander, which can be found on page 27. paperback edition.
It is interesting to me to consider how much Julius Caesar should
have applied that kind of haunting to his own close associates, as
there is little doubt that William Shakespeare in his play on the
topic of Julius Caesar uses the site of Philippi for Caesar's ghost
to return as a reminder of Philips death also.
One cannot help but wonder at the conflicts that raged within
Alexander at the moment of his father's death...fear of his own title
being stripped from him, grief at the loss of a loved one, wonder at
the possibility of succeeding him...all this happening within minutes
and Alexander probably dazed and confused at apprehending the
assassin, and yet having to confront the awesome task of saving his
father if possible...what a powerful moment for all gathered at that
what was to have been a joyful occasion now turned into a tragedy, a
torturous event..
At that moment, Alexander learned who his true friends are, and as
such, we learn how a man can only become a king because of support
from his closest allies and friends.
Alexander can be compared to the winning coach who is carried from
victory on the backs of his players.
But again, Fuller is very perceptive in his understanding of how the
memory would haunt him, and create in him a knowledge that even he
could fall victim to foul play...who can you trust?
As Caesar said so well, Et tu, Brute?
AND THE BALKANS.
1. The Succession and the trial of conspirators.
The sight of his father being killed by a Bodyguard must have haunted
Alexander for the rest of his life. The memory made him aware of the
constant danger of assassination, and of the fact that a King could
not trust even the chosen Bodyguard. At the moment the first
priority was the selection of a successor. As many of the King's men
as could be summoned met as an assembly under arms in the theater,
where the corpse of Philip was laid out to witness proceedings.
Antipater, Philip's senior friend, presided. The election was not a
foregone conclusion, because there was known to be some support for
the claims of Amyntas, who had been king as a minor in 359-357, and
some for the sons of Aeropus, king in 397-394. The Friends generally
gathered around Alexander. One of them, Alexander Lyncestus, son of
Aeropus, was the first to shout, 'Alexander, son of Philip'. and the
assembly elected Alexander with a resounding acclamation. The
Friends put on their cuirasses, the King's men clashed their spears
against their shields, and the new king led a procession to the
palace.
That is the firt paragraph in chapter 4 of Fuller's book on
Alexander, which can be found on page 27. paperback edition.
It is interesting to me to consider how much Julius Caesar should
have applied that kind of haunting to his own close associates, as
there is little doubt that William Shakespeare in his play on the
topic of Julius Caesar uses the site of Philippi for Caesar's ghost
to return as a reminder of Philips death also.
One cannot help but wonder at the conflicts that raged within
Alexander at the moment of his father's death...fear of his own title
being stripped from him, grief at the loss of a loved one, wonder at
the possibility of succeeding him...all this happening within minutes
and Alexander probably dazed and confused at apprehending the
assassin, and yet having to confront the awesome task of saving his
father if possible...what a powerful moment for all gathered at that
what was to have been a joyful occasion now turned into a tragedy, a
torturous event..
At that moment, Alexander learned who his true friends are, and as
such, we learn how a man can only become a king because of support
from his closest allies and friends.
Alexander can be compared to the winning coach who is carried from
victory on the backs of his players.
But again, Fuller is very perceptive in his understanding of how the
memory would haunt him, and create in him a knowledge that even he
could fall victim to foul play...who can you trust?
As Caesar said so well, Et tu, Brute?
Plutarch on Alexander the Great
At first he wore this habit when he conversed with the barbarians, or
within indoors, with his intimate friends and companions, but
afterwards he appeared in it abroad, when he rode out, and at public
audiences, a sight which the Macedonians beheld with grief; but they
so respected his other virtues and good qualities that they felt it
reasonable to gratify his fancies and his passion of glory, in
pursuit in which he had hazarded himself so far, that, besides his
other adventures,he had but lately been wounded in the leg by an
arrow, which had so shattered the shank-bone that splinters had been
taken out. And on another occasion he had received a violent blow
with a stone on the nape of his neck, which diminished his sight for
a good while afterwards. And yet all this could not hinder him from
exposing himself freely to any dangers, insomuch that he passed the
river Orexartes, which he took to be the Tanais, and putting the
Scythians to flight, followed them above a hundred furlongs, though
suffering all the time from a diarrhea
Well, this paragraph should be entitled So you think you have
Troubles?
In a previous post, we learned from Laura Foreman about his having
had his leg struck at Gaza, and an arrow wound in the shoulder, and
so here again, we find Alexander suffering an arrow wound that
shattered his shinbone. The previous paragraph was describing his
conversion to new wearing apparel, and the next sentence was simply
continuing the thought before embarking upon the descriptions of his
various wounds which he has suffered
In reading this paragraph one realizes that "lost in translation"
probably occurs a lot here. First of all, the logical thing is to
wonder whether this information is a result of studying the
physician's records or if this a result of listening to storytelling.
There is no doubt that the physicians would have maintained full
records which would have given information important to historians
about each and everyone of Alexander's physical problems. The last
line about diarrhea makes me wonder as to why and how that got there
as anyone knows that diarrhea is one way to cripple a person from
performing tasks which require walking, riding, or anything
ambulatory. Of course, as the Mongolians are said to have done, the
Macedonians likewise could have "pooped" all over their horses as
they drove them senselessly. I actually believe that that is the
conclusion that is to be expected in this pithy statement
I cannot help but wonder at how comfortable that would be ride sans
underwear as many note that the Macedonians had done, with runny,
watery poop running down their legs and the horse's backs
So what does all this say about Alexander? As I recall reading a
long time ago, that he was carried around after the stone hit him on
the nape of the neck and the arrow had shattered his shinbone. He
was on a gurney of some kind, so that he had to wait til his wounds
healed before he could go running off again, but he did mend quickly
enough to continue his efforts. All this appears to be condensed in
this paragraph by Plutarch according to the Great Books edition
So again, the author is probably in all likelihood trying to give
Alexander a character study that shows how impervious he is to his
bad luck at receiving so many serious injuries. When one's sight is
impaired it is even more difficult to lead a group of men, but the
idea is that he is undaunted and fearlessly continues to pursue his
enemies, in this case, the Scythians.
The sad part is that this same author is letting the reader know that
the Macedonians were greatly grieved by Alexander's method of
changing costume styles in his dress, yet we know that he had already
noted how readily the inhabitants accepted the Persians instead of
the Greeks. But grief is a strong word, and a very sensitive
word...again this author is trying to convey a message but lets us
know that they forgive him for his other virtues which he then goes
on to name, sustaining injuries without complaint, and valiantly
leading his army to defeat his adversaries. All under the harshest
of conditions...
It is said that Alexander ate little, that he was very circumspect in
his diet, and so one would wonder how and when and where he acquired
the diarrhea. This shows again difficulty with his intestinal tract
which it would appear he has suffered several times...
It is important to realize that this author is making Alexander
appear as having superhuman strength to do all these feats. And the
end result is his army's admiration and devotion to him as they
continue to recognize and respect his own dutiful nature.
But more importantly, it is worthwhile to consider the pain that
Alexander was suffering, when splinters are taken from a shinwound,
and vision impaired. He did not have painkillers such as we have
today and one must imagine at how he groaned and held his tongue when
the leg was examined, cleansed, and set. He knew enough about
medicine himself, having learned from Aristotle, that he could and
did often tend the wounds of his soldiers, so that when it was his
injuries to be set he would have had an advantage in assisting with
the wound with his own compliance to the attendant physician on hand.
He is a man who likes to set an example for others to follow, so
there is little doubt that he would do everything necessary to heal
as quickly and immediately as he could. Again, being the person he
was, he was certainly under the greatest of care, and no doubt, was
nursed hourly until his wounds healed sufficiently for him to carry
on.
After all, there was no other soldier so necessary to the Macedonians
than their leader
within indoors, with his intimate friends and companions, but
afterwards he appeared in it abroad, when he rode out, and at public
audiences, a sight which the Macedonians beheld with grief; but they
so respected his other virtues and good qualities that they felt it
reasonable to gratify his fancies and his passion of glory, in
pursuit in which he had hazarded himself so far, that, besides his
other adventures,he had but lately been wounded in the leg by an
arrow, which had so shattered the shank-bone that splinters had been
taken out. And on another occasion he had received a violent blow
with a stone on the nape of his neck, which diminished his sight for
a good while afterwards. And yet all this could not hinder him from
exposing himself freely to any dangers, insomuch that he passed the
river Orexartes, which he took to be the Tanais, and putting the
Scythians to flight, followed them above a hundred furlongs, though
suffering all the time from a diarrhea
Well, this paragraph should be entitled So you think you have
Troubles?
In a previous post, we learned from Laura Foreman about his having
had his leg struck at Gaza, and an arrow wound in the shoulder, and
so here again, we find Alexander suffering an arrow wound that
shattered his shinbone. The previous paragraph was describing his
conversion to new wearing apparel, and the next sentence was simply
continuing the thought before embarking upon the descriptions of his
various wounds which he has suffered
In reading this paragraph one realizes that "lost in translation"
probably occurs a lot here. First of all, the logical thing is to
wonder whether this information is a result of studying the
physician's records or if this a result of listening to storytelling.
There is no doubt that the physicians would have maintained full
records which would have given information important to historians
about each and everyone of Alexander's physical problems. The last
line about diarrhea makes me wonder as to why and how that got there
as anyone knows that diarrhea is one way to cripple a person from
performing tasks which require walking, riding, or anything
ambulatory. Of course, as the Mongolians are said to have done, the
Macedonians likewise could have "pooped" all over their horses as
they drove them senselessly. I actually believe that that is the
conclusion that is to be expected in this pithy statement
I cannot help but wonder at how comfortable that would be ride sans
underwear as many note that the Macedonians had done, with runny,
watery poop running down their legs and the horse's backs
So what does all this say about Alexander? As I recall reading a
long time ago, that he was carried around after the stone hit him on
the nape of the neck and the arrow had shattered his shinbone. He
was on a gurney of some kind, so that he had to wait til his wounds
healed before he could go running off again, but he did mend quickly
enough to continue his efforts. All this appears to be condensed in
this paragraph by Plutarch according to the Great Books edition
So again, the author is probably in all likelihood trying to give
Alexander a character study that shows how impervious he is to his
bad luck at receiving so many serious injuries. When one's sight is
impaired it is even more difficult to lead a group of men, but the
idea is that he is undaunted and fearlessly continues to pursue his
enemies, in this case, the Scythians.
The sad part is that this same author is letting the reader know that
the Macedonians were greatly grieved by Alexander's method of
changing costume styles in his dress, yet we know that he had already
noted how readily the inhabitants accepted the Persians instead of
the Greeks. But grief is a strong word, and a very sensitive
word...again this author is trying to convey a message but lets us
know that they forgive him for his other virtues which he then goes
on to name, sustaining injuries without complaint, and valiantly
leading his army to defeat his adversaries. All under the harshest
of conditions...
It is said that Alexander ate little, that he was very circumspect in
his diet, and so one would wonder how and when and where he acquired
the diarrhea. This shows again difficulty with his intestinal tract
which it would appear he has suffered several times...
It is important to realize that this author is making Alexander
appear as having superhuman strength to do all these feats. And the
end result is his army's admiration and devotion to him as they
continue to recognize and respect his own dutiful nature.
But more importantly, it is worthwhile to consider the pain that
Alexander was suffering, when splinters are taken from a shinwound,
and vision impaired. He did not have painkillers such as we have
today and one must imagine at how he groaned and held his tongue when
the leg was examined, cleansed, and set. He knew enough about
medicine himself, having learned from Aristotle, that he could and
did often tend the wounds of his soldiers, so that when it was his
injuries to be set he would have had an advantage in assisting with
the wound with his own compliance to the attendant physician on hand.
He is a man who likes to set an example for others to follow, so
there is little doubt that he would do everything necessary to heal
as quickly and immediately as he could. Again, being the person he
was, he was certainly under the greatest of care, and no doubt, was
nursed hourly until his wounds healed sufficiently for him to carry
on.
After all, there was no other soldier so necessary to the Macedonians
than their leader
The Epic Story of the Warrior King Alexander by Laura F
Alexander was equally confident, as he marched the army south, having
first sent Hephaestion on with the fleet and the seige equipment: If
Tyre fell, surely no city could withstand him. Nevertheless, Gaza
turned out to be a very tough proposition. The seige towers turned out
to be all but useless, sinking deep into the sand that surrounded the
city. In addition, skirmishes with defending raiders were frequent and
bloody. Alexander himself suffered a serious arrow wound in the
shoulder, but characteristically, impatient with physical limitations,
he ignored the pain but set about to pull off another engineering
miracle. He had his men build a wall of sand completely encircling the
city and as high as the hill on which it stood. His heavy catapaults
were then pulled up ramps to the top, from there to launch a barrage
from all sides.
Soon the walls began to give way, and after savage fighting, Gaza fell.
After the final action, Alexander was wounded again, this time by an
artillery stone that smashed into his leg and broke it. Still, he
pressed on, for the road lay open to the richest plum of the ancient
world: Egypt.
This is one of the few times that Hephaestion is mentioned in most
texts on the subject of Alexander. It is interesting that Hephaestion
is invested with power while Parmenio is still very much in command, as
it is most unusual for him to be mentioned in most books that I have
read.
It appears to me that Alexander is placing great confidence in his
abiity to be an advance man.
Laura is quite interesting in her decision to emphasize the wounds that
Alexander receives but at the same time dismisses them to some degree,
not that he could do that totally, but he appears to place his emphasis
on his need to accomplish his goal rather than nursing his own wounds.
Her choice of the word characteristically appeals to me as she implies
that Alexander shrugs off his wounds. Later, we realize that he truly
does not since he makes certain that everyone remember that he too has
suffered frequently and seriously in his leadership of this army.
How he managed to carry on with a broken leg is something to consider,
and I notice that she omits the story of his treatment of the leader of
Gaza which I will omit also. I do not believe it either.
A thought occurred to me when reading this paragraph and that is what
Alexander would have done to Sparta, as Gaza makes me think of Sparta
also. Everyone in the region except Gaza gave in to Alexander and his
rulership, but when Gaza did not, Alexander proved Gaza to be in the
wrong by defeating them so decisively.
I will take liberties in my comments occasionally drawing upon the
experiences that I have in my memory sessions, and her mention of his
ingenious method of surrounding the city and then drawing his seige
engines up the ramps made me once again recall Alexander's mental
capacity and his state of genius. This kind of engineering genius is
something that is innate in Alexander's mental capacity, something that
most ordinary people would never understand, and probably only a few
true genius personalities would comprehend even. He has the mental
talents of an omnisicient godlike being whose intellect instantly
fathoms the situation, realizes the problem, and then as quickly
realizes a solution. Very few people have this innate ability, but it
is one which distinguishes Alexander from all other men around him, and
why it is that he is so revered, so acknowledged, and so celebrated.
Perhaps the gurus of India will appreciate the way in which Alexander
semingly shrugs off his wounds. As again, mind over matter is what
mends his wounds as he moves on to achieve his goals. Alexander is a
mentalist whose mental thoughts enable him to heal quickly rather than
spin into a feel for sorry himself mode where he would nurse his wounds
to prolong the agony.
There is a lot in this short paragraph to consider. I frankly am
impressed with the choices that Laura has made to develop her look at
Alexander.
first sent Hephaestion on with the fleet and the seige equipment: If
Tyre fell, surely no city could withstand him. Nevertheless, Gaza
turned out to be a very tough proposition. The seige towers turned out
to be all but useless, sinking deep into the sand that surrounded the
city. In addition, skirmishes with defending raiders were frequent and
bloody. Alexander himself suffered a serious arrow wound in the
shoulder, but characteristically, impatient with physical limitations,
he ignored the pain but set about to pull off another engineering
miracle. He had his men build a wall of sand completely encircling the
city and as high as the hill on which it stood. His heavy catapaults
were then pulled up ramps to the top, from there to launch a barrage
from all sides.
Soon the walls began to give way, and after savage fighting, Gaza fell.
After the final action, Alexander was wounded again, this time by an
artillery stone that smashed into his leg and broke it. Still, he
pressed on, for the road lay open to the richest plum of the ancient
world: Egypt.
This is one of the few times that Hephaestion is mentioned in most
texts on the subject of Alexander. It is interesting that Hephaestion
is invested with power while Parmenio is still very much in command, as
it is most unusual for him to be mentioned in most books that I have
read.
It appears to me that Alexander is placing great confidence in his
abiity to be an advance man.
Laura is quite interesting in her decision to emphasize the wounds that
Alexander receives but at the same time dismisses them to some degree,
not that he could do that totally, but he appears to place his emphasis
on his need to accomplish his goal rather than nursing his own wounds.
Her choice of the word characteristically appeals to me as she implies
that Alexander shrugs off his wounds. Later, we realize that he truly
does not since he makes certain that everyone remember that he too has
suffered frequently and seriously in his leadership of this army.
How he managed to carry on with a broken leg is something to consider,
and I notice that she omits the story of his treatment of the leader of
Gaza which I will omit also. I do not believe it either.
A thought occurred to me when reading this paragraph and that is what
Alexander would have done to Sparta, as Gaza makes me think of Sparta
also. Everyone in the region except Gaza gave in to Alexander and his
rulership, but when Gaza did not, Alexander proved Gaza to be in the
wrong by defeating them so decisively.
I will take liberties in my comments occasionally drawing upon the
experiences that I have in my memory sessions, and her mention of his
ingenious method of surrounding the city and then drawing his seige
engines up the ramps made me once again recall Alexander's mental
capacity and his state of genius. This kind of engineering genius is
something that is innate in Alexander's mental capacity, something that
most ordinary people would never understand, and probably only a few
true genius personalities would comprehend even. He has the mental
talents of an omnisicient godlike being whose intellect instantly
fathoms the situation, realizes the problem, and then as quickly
realizes a solution. Very few people have this innate ability, but it
is one which distinguishes Alexander from all other men around him, and
why it is that he is so revered, so acknowledged, and so celebrated.
Perhaps the gurus of India will appreciate the way in which Alexander
semingly shrugs off his wounds. As again, mind over matter is what
mends his wounds as he moves on to achieve his goals. Alexander is a
mentalist whose mental thoughts enable him to heal quickly rather than
spin into a feel for sorry himself mode where he would nurse his wounds
to prolong the agony.
There is a lot in this short paragraph to consider. I frankly am
impressed with the choices that Laura has made to develop her look at
Alexander.
Alexander the Great by Spanoudakis
This is a visual representation of a music piece titled Alexander the Great by one of Greece's most prominent modern composers: Stamatis Spanoudakis
The Genius of Alexander the Great by N.G.L. Hammond
On the far side of the Euphrates, a Persian commander, Mazaeus, with
3,000 calvary, 2,000 Greek mercenaries, and other infantry held a
defensive position. But on the advance of Alexander he withdrew on
the main Persian road down the Euphrates, probably in the hope that
Alexander would pursue and run short of supplies. Alexander
completed his two bridges, brought his troops and supply-train
across, and waited for some days, perhaps misleading Mazaeus about
his intentions. Then he marched northeastward along the Armenian
foothills to obtain pasture for his horses, use local supplies and
avoid the great heat; for he had to feed some 47,000 men and perhaps
some 20,000 horses and mules. The two armies were completely out of
touch with one another for some six weeks during which the
Macedonians made incursions into Armenia. Alexander was the first to
capture some opponents who revealed that Darius's plan was to capture
the Tigris. 'Alexander went in haste towards the Tigris'; he crossed
its fast-flowing waters with difficulty at an undefended point, for
he was higher up river than Darius had expected. While the army
waited for the supply train, the moon was eclipsed on the evening of
September 20, 331. Alexander restored confidence by sacrificing to
the deities who caused the eclipse - Moon, Sun, and Earth - and
Aristander announced that the eclipse portended victory over Persia
in the present month. Moving south through fertile country Alexander
captured some Persian cavalrymen and learned that Darius was in a
prepared position not far off. He halted for four days to 'rest his
men', fortified a base camp with a ditch and a palisade, and placed
in it his sick and a supply train.
Hammond proves to be one of the more meticulously written sources to
read for an understanding of the realities that Alexander faced in
transporting his army across the Asian countryside. With 47,000 men
who many authors claim that Alexander knew by name and could
recognize at once any of them, it is amazing to believe that
Alexander had recruited so many after each and every battle. Who can
believe that all these men at this point were simply from Macedonia?
When one considers the kind of baggage that each mule carried on its
back, the number of horses that had to be kept not only fed, but
freed from lameness and damaged hooves, one cannot help but realize
that Alexander had to recruit more than just soldiers, but also men
who could simply groom and handle the horses and mules. Not everyone
in this camp was a militant, but along with the pack were scientists,
architects, medics, and naturally, the good old cooks to feed this
vast army.
And every soldier had to double as a construction worker when
building bridges, altars, and temples to worship the deities. No
wonder they were so muscular and strong, as they were laborers in
the field when not training for the battles that lay ahead.
The discipline of this army is extraordinary, and the single unifying
force is always the personality and character of the leader,
Alexander. His personal magnetism, his optimism, his deep interest
in his soldiers made him venerable. His constant attention to
serving the gods with his sacrifices proved to be a talisman of good
luck. The gods never deserted him for his devotion to them.
In understanding how the Macedonians trained their horses, it must be
remembered that they pushed them to the limits, so that these horses
had to be treated and handled with great care. Everything depended
upon them for the success of each and every mission, no matter how
great or how small. When one realizes the speed that many times
Alexander and his calvary accomplished, one must know that the horses
were carefully maintained to achieve this. While Bucephalus is
singled out as Alexander's horse, all the others were just as
important and just as well cared and tended.
Alexander's mind is what is interesting to me in Hammond's study. He
had his men rest for four days. Again, the pack mules and the horses
required constant rest as well.
Another point that Hammond does make is that Alexander was successful
twice to capture the enemy and learn of his position. What is most
important is understanding that these captured soldiers gave truthful
answers when questioned. And what became of them? Do they join his
army? Are they held as prisoners of war?
And finally, the emphasis upon Aristander who is taken literally and
positively when he announces that the eclipse is a good omen, and
that it means that the Macedonians will win the battle. Is this
confidence building? Superstition? Was he simply a true seer?
Fortunately, most of his advice and portents are nearly always
correct...no wonder Alexander became so reliant upon his advice...
3,000 calvary, 2,000 Greek mercenaries, and other infantry held a
defensive position. But on the advance of Alexander he withdrew on
the main Persian road down the Euphrates, probably in the hope that
Alexander would pursue and run short of supplies. Alexander
completed his two bridges, brought his troops and supply-train
across, and waited for some days, perhaps misleading Mazaeus about
his intentions. Then he marched northeastward along the Armenian
foothills to obtain pasture for his horses, use local supplies and
avoid the great heat; for he had to feed some 47,000 men and perhaps
some 20,000 horses and mules. The two armies were completely out of
touch with one another for some six weeks during which the
Macedonians made incursions into Armenia. Alexander was the first to
capture some opponents who revealed that Darius's plan was to capture
the Tigris. 'Alexander went in haste towards the Tigris'; he crossed
its fast-flowing waters with difficulty at an undefended point, for
he was higher up river than Darius had expected. While the army
waited for the supply train, the moon was eclipsed on the evening of
September 20, 331. Alexander restored confidence by sacrificing to
the deities who caused the eclipse - Moon, Sun, and Earth - and
Aristander announced that the eclipse portended victory over Persia
in the present month. Moving south through fertile country Alexander
captured some Persian cavalrymen and learned that Darius was in a
prepared position not far off. He halted for four days to 'rest his
men', fortified a base camp with a ditch and a palisade, and placed
in it his sick and a supply train.
Hammond proves to be one of the more meticulously written sources to
read for an understanding of the realities that Alexander faced in
transporting his army across the Asian countryside. With 47,000 men
who many authors claim that Alexander knew by name and could
recognize at once any of them, it is amazing to believe that
Alexander had recruited so many after each and every battle. Who can
believe that all these men at this point were simply from Macedonia?
When one considers the kind of baggage that each mule carried on its
back, the number of horses that had to be kept not only fed, but
freed from lameness and damaged hooves, one cannot help but realize
that Alexander had to recruit more than just soldiers, but also men
who could simply groom and handle the horses and mules. Not everyone
in this camp was a militant, but along with the pack were scientists,
architects, medics, and naturally, the good old cooks to feed this
vast army.
And every soldier had to double as a construction worker when
building bridges, altars, and temples to worship the deities. No
wonder they were so muscular and strong, as they were laborers in
the field when not training for the battles that lay ahead.
The discipline of this army is extraordinary, and the single unifying
force is always the personality and character of the leader,
Alexander. His personal magnetism, his optimism, his deep interest
in his soldiers made him venerable. His constant attention to
serving the gods with his sacrifices proved to be a talisman of good
luck. The gods never deserted him for his devotion to them.
In understanding how the Macedonians trained their horses, it must be
remembered that they pushed them to the limits, so that these horses
had to be treated and handled with great care. Everything depended
upon them for the success of each and every mission, no matter how
great or how small. When one realizes the speed that many times
Alexander and his calvary accomplished, one must know that the horses
were carefully maintained to achieve this. While Bucephalus is
singled out as Alexander's horse, all the others were just as
important and just as well cared and tended.
Alexander's mind is what is interesting to me in Hammond's study. He
had his men rest for four days. Again, the pack mules and the horses
required constant rest as well.
Another point that Hammond does make is that Alexander was successful
twice to capture the enemy and learn of his position. What is most
important is understanding that these captured soldiers gave truthful
answers when questioned. And what became of them? Do they join his
army? Are they held as prisoners of war?
And finally, the emphasis upon Aristander who is taken literally and
positively when he announces that the eclipse is a good omen, and
that it means that the Macedonians will win the battle. Is this
confidence building? Superstition? Was he simply a true seer?
Fortunately, most of his advice and portents are nearly always
correct...no wonder Alexander became so reliant upon his advice...
Alexander on the printed page
ARCHAEOLOGY asked professor Eugene N. Borza to recommend the best and most accessible biographies and histories of Alexander, background volumes on Macedonia, and editions of the ancient authors. Here's his "must read" list:
Alexander
Peter Green. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography. University of California Press, paperback edition 1992. First published as a Pelican Biography in 1974, this is the most comprehensive English-language account of Alexander, written by an eminent scholar and masterful writer.
A. B. Bosworth. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge University Press, paperback edition, 1988. A study of politics, warfare, and diplomacy written by probably the most authoritative scholar currently working on Alexander, and the leading proponent of the "realist" (as opposed to "romantic") interpretation of Alexander.
Paul Cartlege. Alexander the Great. The Hunt for a New Past. Overlook Press, 2004. A topical, rather than strictly chronological, approach to Alexander's career, marked by a number of interesting ideas and taking advantage of the most recent scholarship on Alexander. A good read.
J. F. C. Fuller. The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Da Capo Press, paperback edition, 1989. The classic account of Alexander's military campaigns, originally written in 1960 by a famous British general and military historian, and never really supplanted.
Nicholas Sekunda. The Army of Alexander the Great, 1984. Nicholas Sekunda and John Warry, Alexander the Great: His Armies and Campaigns, 334-323 B.C., 1998. Well illustrated with maps and diagrams, both books are in the well-regarded Osprey military history series, published in paperback editions.
Macedonia
Eugene N. Borza. In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton University Press, paperback edition, 1992. A historical and archaeological account of the rise of the Macedonians down to the death of Philip II and the succession to the kingship by Alexander.
Eugene N. Borza. Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia. Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians 6. Regina Press, paperback edition, 1999. An account of recent scholarship, including archaeology, of the Macedonian kingdom before the reign of Alexander.
Elizabeth D. Carney. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. The most comprehensive study of the women associated with the ancient Macedonians, this useful work is essential for an understanding of Alexander's relationship with his mother and with the women he married during his campaigns.
Ancient sources
Of the five surviving major ancient sources on Alexander's career, English-language translations of Arrian, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius Rufus are widely available in Penguin Classics paperbacks. Justin is available in a paperback translation (Books 7-12 cover the reigns of Philip and Alexander) by J. C. Yardley, with notes by R. Develin; see Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. American Philological Association/Scholars Press, 1994. The only translation of Diodorus Siculus covering the latter part of Philip's career and the whole of Alexander's campaigns is in the Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1963.
Originally posted @ Archaeology
Alexander
Peter Green. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography. University of California Press, paperback edition 1992. First published as a Pelican Biography in 1974, this is the most comprehensive English-language account of Alexander, written by an eminent scholar and masterful writer.
A. B. Bosworth. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge University Press, paperback edition, 1988. A study of politics, warfare, and diplomacy written by probably the most authoritative scholar currently working on Alexander, and the leading proponent of the "realist" (as opposed to "romantic") interpretation of Alexander.
Paul Cartlege. Alexander the Great. The Hunt for a New Past. Overlook Press, 2004. A topical, rather than strictly chronological, approach to Alexander's career, marked by a number of interesting ideas and taking advantage of the most recent scholarship on Alexander. A good read.
J. F. C. Fuller. The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Da Capo Press, paperback edition, 1989. The classic account of Alexander's military campaigns, originally written in 1960 by a famous British general and military historian, and never really supplanted.
Nicholas Sekunda. The Army of Alexander the Great, 1984. Nicholas Sekunda and John Warry, Alexander the Great: His Armies and Campaigns, 334-323 B.C., 1998. Well illustrated with maps and diagrams, both books are in the well-regarded Osprey military history series, published in paperback editions.
Macedonia
Eugene N. Borza. In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton University Press, paperback edition, 1992. A historical and archaeological account of the rise of the Macedonians down to the death of Philip II and the succession to the kingship by Alexander.
Eugene N. Borza. Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia. Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians 6. Regina Press, paperback edition, 1999. An account of recent scholarship, including archaeology, of the Macedonian kingdom before the reign of Alexander.
Elizabeth D. Carney. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. The most comprehensive study of the women associated with the ancient Macedonians, this useful work is essential for an understanding of Alexander's relationship with his mother and with the women he married during his campaigns.
Ancient sources
Of the five surviving major ancient sources on Alexander's career, English-language translations of Arrian, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius Rufus are widely available in Penguin Classics paperbacks. Justin is available in a paperback translation (Books 7-12 cover the reigns of Philip and Alexander) by J. C. Yardley, with notes by R. Develin; see Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. American Philological Association/Scholars Press, 1994. The only translation of Diodorus Siculus covering the latter part of Philip's career and the whole of Alexander's campaigns is in the Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1963.
Originally posted @ Archaeology
The Elusive Tomb of Alexander
Egyptologist and former ARCHAEOLOGY contributing editor Robert S. Bianchi wrote two articles for us on the many expeditions--scientific and fringe--that have tried to find the location of Alexander's final resting place. "Hunting Alexander's Tomb" appeared in our July/August 1993 issue; "Alexander's Tomb...Not" was published in May/June 1995.
Hunting Alexander's Tomb
by Robert S. Bianchi
Alexander the Great, dying at Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates River in June of 323 B.C., was explicit in his last wish. He wanted his body thrown into the river so that his corpse would disappear. In that way, Alexander reasoned, his survivors might perpetuate the myth that he was whisked off to heaven in order to spend eternity at the side of the god Ammon, who had allegedly fathered him. His generals, not respecting the wish, concocted elaborate plans for his burial. According to one ancient account, it took two years from the time of Alexander's death to design and construct a suitable funerary cart in which his mummified body could be conveyed to its tomb. En route to its destination, whether Macedonia or elsewhere is moot, the funerary cart and its entourage were met in Syria by Ptolemy, a Macedonian general in Alexander's army. Ptolemy, who in 305 B.C. would proclaim himself king of Egypt as Ptolemy I Soter and inaugurate the Ptolemaic Dynasty, diverted the body to Egypt where it was buried in a tomb at Memphis.
Subsequently, in the late fourth or early third century B.C. (whether during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter or that of his son and successor, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, is debated) the body of Alexander was removed from its tomb in Memphis and transported to Alexandria where it was reburied. At a still later date, Ptolemy Philopator (222/21-205 B.C.) placed the bodies of his dynastic predecessors as well as that of Alexander, all of which had apparently been buried separately, in a communal mausoleum in Alexandria. By now, Alexander had had at least three tombs in two Egyptian cities. Whenever someone asks where the tomb of Alexander the Great is located, I assume the query refers to the third and last tomb, although admittedly the question might apply equally to his tomb at Memphis or to his first Alexandrian tomb, neither of which has ever been found.
The king's body had been lying in the coffin for six days while everybody's attention had been diverted from the obsequies to forming a government...when Alexander's friends eventually found time to attend to his corpse, the men who entered the tent saw that no decay had set into it and that there was not even the slightest discoloration.
--Plutarch
The literary tradition is clear that the third and last tomb was located at the crossroads of the major north-south and east-west arteries of Alexandria. Octavian, the future Roman emperor Augustus, visited Alexandria shortly after the suicide of Cleopatra VII in 30 B.C. He is said to have viewed the body of Alexander, placing flowers on the tomb and a golden diadem upon Alexander's mummified head. The last recorded visit to the tomb was made by the Roman emperor Caracalla in A.D. 215. The tomb was probably damaged and perhaps even looted during the political disturbances that ravaged Alexandria during the reign of Aurelian shortly after A.D. 270. By the fourth century A.D., the tomb s location was no longer known, if one can trust the accounts of several of the early Church Fathers. Thereafter, creditable Arab commentators, including Ibn Abdel Hakam (A.D. 871), Al-Massoudi (A.D. 944), and Leo the African (sixteenth century A.D.) all report having seen the tomb of Alexander, but do not specify its exact location.
The Egyptian Antiquities Organization [now the Supreme Council for Antiquities] has officially recognized more than 140 searches for Alexander's tomb, and there have been at least four recent attempts to locate it. The first was mounted in l960 by the Polish Center of Archaeology, whose members continue to excavate an area known as Kom el-Dikka in the heart of downtown Alexandria. Reasoning that the crossroads of the ancient city might correspond to the intersection of modern Horreya and Nebi Daniel streets, they obtained permission to excavate a site bounded by these two streets on which stood the remains of a Napoleonic fort and the artificial hill on which it was constructed. Although they have excavated more than 50 feet below the surface, they have not discovered any remains identifiable as the tomb. Their work has produced, however, extraordinary discoveries, including a marble odeum, or small theater, of Roman Imperial date and a contemporary bath complex, both of which have no parallels at any other site in Egypt.
After being instructed to see to the body in their traditional fashion, the Egyptians and Chaldeans did not dare touch him at first since he seemed to be alive. Then, praying that it be lawful in the eyes of god and man for humans to touch a god, they cleaned out the body. A golden sarcophagus was filled with perfumes, and on Alexander's head was placed the insignia of his rank.
--Plutarch
The western limit of the Polish excavation site abuts the Mosque of Nebi Daniel, where Arabic tradition maintains the tomb is to be found. In 1991, Mohammed Abduk Aziz of the Arabic Language Department of Al Azhar University in Zagazig directed excavations at the mosque. He contends that Arabic sources, often overlooked by scholars searching for the tomb, offer good reasons for identifying the mosque with the tomb. His activities have been criticized by Faouzi Fakharani, professor emeritus of the University of Alexandria, who claims that he has already explored every inch of the mosque, including its two subbasements, and has concluded that the tomb of Alexander is not to be found there. While the two professors have squared off in a battle of accusations and counter-accusations, religious officials charged with the administration of the mosque have obtained a moratorium on excavation, fearing that further digging might undermine the building's foundations and precipitate its collapse.
Whereas efforts by the Polish Center and Aziz are creditable and scientifically grounded, two more fanciful attempts to locate the tomb have recently been launched by Greek nationals. Liani Souvaltzi of the Institute of Hellenistic Studies renewed excavations at the site of the so-called Doric Temple at El Maraqi Bilad el Rum in the Siwa Oasis in 1989. The structure was described when it was still standing by Frederic Cailliaud (1822-24), Heinricl1 Minutoli (1826), and Gerhard Rohlfs (1869). Its interior was of an unusual plan, consisting of five rooms, one behind the other. Souvaltzi insists, but without documentation, that she has evidence to suggest that Alexander was buried in the Siwa Oasis because, she claims, "he wanted to be near his father Amun," whose oracle there supposedly proclaimed Alexander his son. She argues that the temple, by virtue of the fact that it is both in Siwa and in the Doric order, must mark the site of Alexander's tomb.
Alexander's body was taken to Memphis by Ptolemy, into whose power Egypt had fallen, and transferred from there a few years later to Alexandria, where every mark of respect continues to be paid to his memory and his name.
--Plutarch
Souvaltzi's theory has been received with skepticism by Egyptologists. She has also managed to alienate the Greek community in Alexandria that steadfastly believes the conqueror is buried in their city. Nonetheless, her contention has received support from Leonardo and Bettina Leopoldo, a Swiss couple, the latter a self-styled ethnologist. The Leopoldos have their own reasons for locating the tomb in the Siwa Oasis-they own a collection of Siwan jewelry and handicrafts that is being exhibited worldwide.
Lastly, there is the claim of Stellio Komotsos, a Greek waiter in Christina Konstantinou's cafe-bar L'Elite in Alexandria. Obsessed with discovering the tomb, Komotsos would save every piaster he earned and, when not waiting tables, go off and dig holes everywhere he could in the city. Now retired and reportedly living in Athens, he is said to have amassed more notes, maps, and documentation on the subject than any scholar. Who knows what secrets are contained therein? Komotsos once offered to share his data with a patron in exchange for a pension in dollars and a new Mercedes. Such a price, mused one starry-eyed graduate student, would be small indeed if the key to the location of the tomb of Alexander was to be found in the Komotsos "archive!"
Alexander's Tomb...Not
by Robert S. Bianchi
In a flurry of media hype exceeded only by that surrounding the O.J. Simpson trial, Liani Souvaltzi, a self-styled authority on Alexander the Great, and her husband, Manos, have once again conned the press into publicizing their latest discovery of Alexander's tomb in the Siwa Oasis, some 330 miles west of Cairo near the Libyan border.
All competent authorities agree that the great conqueror's final resting place was in Alexandria, although the whereabouts of his tomb has perplexed scholars for centuries. This much is known: After Alexander's death at Babylon in 323 B.C. the Macedonian general Ptolemy, who in 305 B.C. would proclaim himself king of Egypt, transported the body to Memphis. It rested there until the late fourth or early third century B.C., when it was taken to Alexandria and reburied, either by Ptolemy or his son and successor, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Toward the end of the third century, during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater, the body was moved to yet another tomb in Alexandria.
Several creditable expeditions have recently looked for the tomb in Alexandria, all without success. The Souvaltzis appear driven to discover it in the Siwa Oasis. According to numerous classical sources, including Plutarch, who included the "Life of Alexander the Great" in his biographies of famous personalities, Alexander visited Siwa in 331 B.C. to consult a famous oracle of the god Ammon, which, tradition maintains, proclaimed him son of that Egyptian god. Six years ago, suggesting that Alexander had always wanted to be buried near his god/father, Liani Souvaltzi began excavating at El Maraqi Bilad el Rum in the Siwa Oasis and "discovered" a Doric temple there. She promptly proclaimed it to be the tomb of Alexander the Great, and reported her discovery at the Sixth International Congress of Egyptology in Turin, Italy, in September 1991. Her paper was immediately challenged by the academic establishment. Her alleged tomb was in fact a temple erected in Siwa during the Greco-Roman period. Still standing in the mid-nineteenth century, it had been described by at least three scholars of the day.
Liani Souvaltzi began excavating at El Maraqi Bilad el Rum in the Siwa Oasis and "discovered" a Doric temple there. She promptly proclaimed it to be the tomb of Alexander the Great.
In the face of such opposition, the Souvaltzis turned their attention to the so-called Oracle Temple, where, according to Plutarch and others, Ammon's oracle had presided. To prove their new case they cited as evidence the text of the Romance of Alexander, an enigmatic work written ca. A.D. 300 by an unknown person. The Souvaltzis had trotted out this same mixture of history and legend in trying to prove the Doric temple was the tomb. To support their new contention, they also reported finding three tablets inscribed in Greek, and a 16-pointed star (an emblem of the Macedonian royal house). One tablet, allegedly written by Ptolemy, claimed that Alexander had been poisoned and that his body had been brought to Siwa.
The Souvaltzis announced their "find" at a press conference so carefully orchestrated that all major media attended. The presence of high officials of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, which regulates archaeological missions in Egypt, encouraged the media to view their claim as a legitimate one. As soon as the sound bites had aired, critics besieged Egyptian officials. This was, after all, the second discovery of a tomb of Alexander the Great at the same place by the same people within five years. Greek archaeologists drove out to Siwa to investigate, but were refused access to excavation records. The Supreme Council of Antiquities quickly called a press conference to distance itself from the Souvaltzis and to dismiss their claim. It reminded the press that, according to ancient historians, both Augustus in 30 B.C. and Caracalla in A.D. 215 had visited the tomb in Alexandria, where they reported seeing Alexander's mummy.
Liani Souvaltzi claimed to have "received mystical guidance in her search, in part from snakes."
One wonders about the Souvaltzis repeated attempts to find this tomb in the Siwa Oasis. Liani Souvaltzi claimed to have "received mystical guidance in her search, in part from snakes," according to a report in The New York Times. She now insists that she was misquoted, and that her guidance came from "saints." Perhaps more to the point was an article in the Cairo newspaper Le Progrès Égyptien, which characterized Souvaltzi, a Greek national, as an ultra-patriot of extreme political views. According to the article, she believes in the prophecy of an authority identified by her only as "Aristander," who allegedly promised that whoever possesses the mortal remains of Alexander the Great shall rule over a stable and prosperous realm. Accordingly, should a Greek secure Alexander's body, the Greeks might well gain control of Macedonia, Alexander's homeland, which they maintain was, is, and forever after ought to be within the borders of their modern nation-state. Greece would thus no longer be forced to share the designation "Macedonia" with Skopje, a province of former Yugoslavia.
The efforts of the Souvaltzis to find the tomb of Alexander appear to be transparent attempts to politicize archaeology. NBC and other media outlets that broadcast or published the "discovery," in some cases without reservation, should be more cautious the next time the Souvaltzis call a press conference to announce yet another discovery of Alexander's tomb...particularly if it is again in the remote, albeit picturesque, Siwa Oasis.
Originaly posted
Hunting Alexander's Tomb
by Robert S. Bianchi
Alexander the Great, dying at Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates River in June of 323 B.C., was explicit in his last wish. He wanted his body thrown into the river so that his corpse would disappear. In that way, Alexander reasoned, his survivors might perpetuate the myth that he was whisked off to heaven in order to spend eternity at the side of the god Ammon, who had allegedly fathered him. His generals, not respecting the wish, concocted elaborate plans for his burial. According to one ancient account, it took two years from the time of Alexander's death to design and construct a suitable funerary cart in which his mummified body could be conveyed to its tomb. En route to its destination, whether Macedonia or elsewhere is moot, the funerary cart and its entourage were met in Syria by Ptolemy, a Macedonian general in Alexander's army. Ptolemy, who in 305 B.C. would proclaim himself king of Egypt as Ptolemy I Soter and inaugurate the Ptolemaic Dynasty, diverted the body to Egypt where it was buried in a tomb at Memphis.
Subsequently, in the late fourth or early third century B.C. (whether during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter or that of his son and successor, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, is debated) the body of Alexander was removed from its tomb in Memphis and transported to Alexandria where it was reburied. At a still later date, Ptolemy Philopator (222/21-205 B.C.) placed the bodies of his dynastic predecessors as well as that of Alexander, all of which had apparently been buried separately, in a communal mausoleum in Alexandria. By now, Alexander had had at least three tombs in two Egyptian cities. Whenever someone asks where the tomb of Alexander the Great is located, I assume the query refers to the third and last tomb, although admittedly the question might apply equally to his tomb at Memphis or to his first Alexandrian tomb, neither of which has ever been found.
The king's body had been lying in the coffin for six days while everybody's attention had been diverted from the obsequies to forming a government...when Alexander's friends eventually found time to attend to his corpse, the men who entered the tent saw that no decay had set into it and that there was not even the slightest discoloration.
--Plutarch
The literary tradition is clear that the third and last tomb was located at the crossroads of the major north-south and east-west arteries of Alexandria. Octavian, the future Roman emperor Augustus, visited Alexandria shortly after the suicide of Cleopatra VII in 30 B.C. He is said to have viewed the body of Alexander, placing flowers on the tomb and a golden diadem upon Alexander's mummified head. The last recorded visit to the tomb was made by the Roman emperor Caracalla in A.D. 215. The tomb was probably damaged and perhaps even looted during the political disturbances that ravaged Alexandria during the reign of Aurelian shortly after A.D. 270. By the fourth century A.D., the tomb s location was no longer known, if one can trust the accounts of several of the early Church Fathers. Thereafter, creditable Arab commentators, including Ibn Abdel Hakam (A.D. 871), Al-Massoudi (A.D. 944), and Leo the African (sixteenth century A.D.) all report having seen the tomb of Alexander, but do not specify its exact location.
The Egyptian Antiquities Organization [now the Supreme Council for Antiquities] has officially recognized more than 140 searches for Alexander's tomb, and there have been at least four recent attempts to locate it. The first was mounted in l960 by the Polish Center of Archaeology, whose members continue to excavate an area known as Kom el-Dikka in the heart of downtown Alexandria. Reasoning that the crossroads of the ancient city might correspond to the intersection of modern Horreya and Nebi Daniel streets, they obtained permission to excavate a site bounded by these two streets on which stood the remains of a Napoleonic fort and the artificial hill on which it was constructed. Although they have excavated more than 50 feet below the surface, they have not discovered any remains identifiable as the tomb. Their work has produced, however, extraordinary discoveries, including a marble odeum, or small theater, of Roman Imperial date and a contemporary bath complex, both of which have no parallels at any other site in Egypt.
After being instructed to see to the body in their traditional fashion, the Egyptians and Chaldeans did not dare touch him at first since he seemed to be alive. Then, praying that it be lawful in the eyes of god and man for humans to touch a god, they cleaned out the body. A golden sarcophagus was filled with perfumes, and on Alexander's head was placed the insignia of his rank.
--Plutarch
The western limit of the Polish excavation site abuts the Mosque of Nebi Daniel, where Arabic tradition maintains the tomb is to be found. In 1991, Mohammed Abduk Aziz of the Arabic Language Department of Al Azhar University in Zagazig directed excavations at the mosque. He contends that Arabic sources, often overlooked by scholars searching for the tomb, offer good reasons for identifying the mosque with the tomb. His activities have been criticized by Faouzi Fakharani, professor emeritus of the University of Alexandria, who claims that he has already explored every inch of the mosque, including its two subbasements, and has concluded that the tomb of Alexander is not to be found there. While the two professors have squared off in a battle of accusations and counter-accusations, religious officials charged with the administration of the mosque have obtained a moratorium on excavation, fearing that further digging might undermine the building's foundations and precipitate its collapse.
Whereas efforts by the Polish Center and Aziz are creditable and scientifically grounded, two more fanciful attempts to locate the tomb have recently been launched by Greek nationals. Liani Souvaltzi of the Institute of Hellenistic Studies renewed excavations at the site of the so-called Doric Temple at El Maraqi Bilad el Rum in the Siwa Oasis in 1989. The structure was described when it was still standing by Frederic Cailliaud (1822-24), Heinricl1 Minutoli (1826), and Gerhard Rohlfs (1869). Its interior was of an unusual plan, consisting of five rooms, one behind the other. Souvaltzi insists, but without documentation, that she has evidence to suggest that Alexander was buried in the Siwa Oasis because, she claims, "he wanted to be near his father Amun," whose oracle there supposedly proclaimed Alexander his son. She argues that the temple, by virtue of the fact that it is both in Siwa and in the Doric order, must mark the site of Alexander's tomb.
Alexander's body was taken to Memphis by Ptolemy, into whose power Egypt had fallen, and transferred from there a few years later to Alexandria, where every mark of respect continues to be paid to his memory and his name.
--Plutarch
Souvaltzi's theory has been received with skepticism by Egyptologists. She has also managed to alienate the Greek community in Alexandria that steadfastly believes the conqueror is buried in their city. Nonetheless, her contention has received support from Leonardo and Bettina Leopoldo, a Swiss couple, the latter a self-styled ethnologist. The Leopoldos have their own reasons for locating the tomb in the Siwa Oasis-they own a collection of Siwan jewelry and handicrafts that is being exhibited worldwide.
Lastly, there is the claim of Stellio Komotsos, a Greek waiter in Christina Konstantinou's cafe-bar L'Elite in Alexandria. Obsessed with discovering the tomb, Komotsos would save every piaster he earned and, when not waiting tables, go off and dig holes everywhere he could in the city. Now retired and reportedly living in Athens, he is said to have amassed more notes, maps, and documentation on the subject than any scholar. Who knows what secrets are contained therein? Komotsos once offered to share his data with a patron in exchange for a pension in dollars and a new Mercedes. Such a price, mused one starry-eyed graduate student, would be small indeed if the key to the location of the tomb of Alexander was to be found in the Komotsos "archive!"
Alexander's Tomb...Not
by Robert S. Bianchi
In a flurry of media hype exceeded only by that surrounding the O.J. Simpson trial, Liani Souvaltzi, a self-styled authority on Alexander the Great, and her husband, Manos, have once again conned the press into publicizing their latest discovery of Alexander's tomb in the Siwa Oasis, some 330 miles west of Cairo near the Libyan border.
All competent authorities agree that the great conqueror's final resting place was in Alexandria, although the whereabouts of his tomb has perplexed scholars for centuries. This much is known: After Alexander's death at Babylon in 323 B.C. the Macedonian general Ptolemy, who in 305 B.C. would proclaim himself king of Egypt, transported the body to Memphis. It rested there until the late fourth or early third century B.C., when it was taken to Alexandria and reburied, either by Ptolemy or his son and successor, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Toward the end of the third century, during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater, the body was moved to yet another tomb in Alexandria.
Several creditable expeditions have recently looked for the tomb in Alexandria, all without success. The Souvaltzis appear driven to discover it in the Siwa Oasis. According to numerous classical sources, including Plutarch, who included the "Life of Alexander the Great" in his biographies of famous personalities, Alexander visited Siwa in 331 B.C. to consult a famous oracle of the god Ammon, which, tradition maintains, proclaimed him son of that Egyptian god. Six years ago, suggesting that Alexander had always wanted to be buried near his god/father, Liani Souvaltzi began excavating at El Maraqi Bilad el Rum in the Siwa Oasis and "discovered" a Doric temple there. She promptly proclaimed it to be the tomb of Alexander the Great, and reported her discovery at the Sixth International Congress of Egyptology in Turin, Italy, in September 1991. Her paper was immediately challenged by the academic establishment. Her alleged tomb was in fact a temple erected in Siwa during the Greco-Roman period. Still standing in the mid-nineteenth century, it had been described by at least three scholars of the day.
Liani Souvaltzi began excavating at El Maraqi Bilad el Rum in the Siwa Oasis and "discovered" a Doric temple there. She promptly proclaimed it to be the tomb of Alexander the Great.
In the face of such opposition, the Souvaltzis turned their attention to the so-called Oracle Temple, where, according to Plutarch and others, Ammon's oracle had presided. To prove their new case they cited as evidence the text of the Romance of Alexander, an enigmatic work written ca. A.D. 300 by an unknown person. The Souvaltzis had trotted out this same mixture of history and legend in trying to prove the Doric temple was the tomb. To support their new contention, they also reported finding three tablets inscribed in Greek, and a 16-pointed star (an emblem of the Macedonian royal house). One tablet, allegedly written by Ptolemy, claimed that Alexander had been poisoned and that his body had been brought to Siwa.
The Souvaltzis announced their "find" at a press conference so carefully orchestrated that all major media attended. The presence of high officials of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, which regulates archaeological missions in Egypt, encouraged the media to view their claim as a legitimate one. As soon as the sound bites had aired, critics besieged Egyptian officials. This was, after all, the second discovery of a tomb of Alexander the Great at the same place by the same people within five years. Greek archaeologists drove out to Siwa to investigate, but were refused access to excavation records. The Supreme Council of Antiquities quickly called a press conference to distance itself from the Souvaltzis and to dismiss their claim. It reminded the press that, according to ancient historians, both Augustus in 30 B.C. and Caracalla in A.D. 215 had visited the tomb in Alexandria, where they reported seeing Alexander's mummy.
Liani Souvaltzi claimed to have "received mystical guidance in her search, in part from snakes."
One wonders about the Souvaltzis repeated attempts to find this tomb in the Siwa Oasis. Liani Souvaltzi claimed to have "received mystical guidance in her search, in part from snakes," according to a report in The New York Times. She now insists that she was misquoted, and that her guidance came from "saints." Perhaps more to the point was an article in the Cairo newspaper Le Progrès Égyptien, which characterized Souvaltzi, a Greek national, as an ultra-patriot of extreme political views. According to the article, she believes in the prophecy of an authority identified by her only as "Aristander," who allegedly promised that whoever possesses the mortal remains of Alexander the Great shall rule over a stable and prosperous realm. Accordingly, should a Greek secure Alexander's body, the Greeks might well gain control of Macedonia, Alexander's homeland, which they maintain was, is, and forever after ought to be within the borders of their modern nation-state. Greece would thus no longer be forced to share the designation "Macedonia" with Skopje, a province of former Yugoslavia.
The efforts of the Souvaltzis to find the tomb of Alexander appear to be transparent attempts to politicize archaeology. NBC and other media outlets that broadcast or published the "discovery," in some cases without reservation, should be more cautious the next time the Souvaltzis call a press conference to announce yet another discovery of Alexander's tomb...particularly if it is again in the remote, albeit picturesque, Siwa Oasis.
Originaly posted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)