It's good to see someone promoting a serious discussion on Alexander, but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what your point is.
The sources we have on Alexander are second and third hand, including the various versions of the Alexander Romance which are ultimately based on the Pseudo-Callisthenes, but a great deal of scholarly effort has been expended in the last hundred years or more on collating the facts as stated by the various sources, and trying to remove the bias of first hand, second hand and modern historians to try to arrive at a concensus of opinion as to the facts of Alexander's life and the reasons behind the choices he made. Harder to evaluate are Alexander's character, what made him the man he was and how he achieved what he did. I would suggest that this is the ultimate reason that Alexander is so fascinating: we know so much about him, but much less about his motives. Historians, I think, are probably romantics at heart who dream of walking with great men and women who have changed the course of the world.
I would suggest that any definitive answers to Alexander's character or motives are unlikely to be found in any eastern sources. Useful insights may be gained but these sources are likely to be scanty and hard to find, as well as difficult to corroborate. I would also suggest that the eastern perception of Alexander is much more likely to be limited and biased than in the west. Alexander's influence in the east was limited and he is more likely to be viewed hostilely there as he came as a conqueror. For exqample, in Iran/Iraq he is viewed as Alexander the Accursed, the horned one, who extinquished the sacred fires of Ahura-Mazda. The east is also less likely than the west to understand the culture from which Alexander came and to understand his motives. For example, eastern sources do not understand the ram's horns of Zeus-Ammon which Alexander wore, but believed they actually grew from his head!
As for 'the concept of Alexander as divine', are you implying that he was more than human? I would suggest that Alexander's divinty equates to his status as a hero - a source of entertainment, inspiration, a role model, a star in modern terms. In achieving this divine, star status, he has achieved immortality through ever-lasting fame, something we know he wished to achieve as he was very conscious of his reputation. The award of divine honours during and after his lifetime was a recognition of his extraordinary achievements, not an indication that he believed he was truely immortal - at least not in body, but in spirit.
BTW, are you aware of www.pothos.org which has a lively forum for discussion of Alexander?
I thought I had made a number of points, so my apologies for being unclear, though at least you managed to take issue with some.
From your asking if I think Alexander "was more than human", you have misunderstood: "Alexander became a 'divine man' and as with other divine men of Antiquity, the closer we look at the sources, the less we find." I am not describing a personal, theological belief, but a historical phenomenon.
Yes, there has been a consensus on the facts of Alexander's life and I question its validity. (There is, for example, a consensus for the historicity of a number of 'divine men' in Antiquity and I suspect the consensus is wrong in some cases at least.)
To try and provide definitive answers to the questions you raise on Alexander requires a reliable history. Alexander believed himself a god and yet you consider Asian beliefs unworthy of consideration? My interest is in history, in which people believe all sorts of things and that is what I am attempting to describe.
Thank you for your reference to the forum on Alexander - its introduction is wrong - a god king cannot be only secular. What did you think of Dr Pal's 'Non-Jonesian History'?
I think I now understand part of what you are trying to say, although I am still not clear what you mean by a 'divine man'. The usual terminology is that he was awarded divine honours, and if you mean something different from this I think you need to define your meaning.
If your rather vague statement "the closer we look at the sources, the less we find" was meant to refer to the dissemination of Alexander's image in the centuries following his death, I think I would have had to be psychic to have understood that!
The use of Alexander's image in iconography from the Colossus of Rhodes to the Byzantine Christ and the Indian Buddha is not a new one. John Romer brought it to popular attention in 1994 with The Seven Wonders of the world, which was televised by the BBC, but I doubt he was the first to spot the similarities. This use of Alexander's image has little to do with him being declared a god - and I really think you need to investigate what that concept meant to him, as well as it's subsequent effect on others. The use of his image has far more to do with the history of art than theology, with the popularity of Alexander's story, with his excellent PR (we know he had approved stylists in the sculptor Lysippus and the painter Apelles), and with the fact that his story clearly resonated with the universal myth of the death of the young warrior. This myth, and it's variant of the sacrifical death of the young man, has worn many faces eg Adonis, Mithras, Christ. But this does not mean that Alexander was 'divine' in the same way. He did not exhibit any supernatural powers, but his achievements were 'extra' ordinary and this was his claim to godhead.
Why do you question the validity of the histories of Alexander and the scholarship that has investigated his life? What is your alternative history? I don't understand your statement 'a concensus for the historicity of a number of 'divine men''. A concensus on what? That they did not exist? That they were not mortal men? And who else do you mean?
Again, you say that Alexander 'believed himself a god', but if you are questioning this you really need to define what Alexander would have understood by this claim, and what you understand by it. I certainly did not say that I consider Asian beliefs unworthy of consideration, but as far as I am aware, Alexander was never considered a god in India, and the question of the divinity of the Great King of Persia and the Pharaoh of Egypt (both titles held by Alexander)are more related to his functions as ruler than any theological beliefs he may have held.
If you are proposing alternative theories about Alexander, you really need to set out clearly why and what you believe. I don't know enough about Indian history to hold an opinion on Dr Pal's theories.
The sources we have on Alexander are second and third hand, including the various versions of the Alexander Romance which are ultimately based on the Pseudo-Callisthenes, but a great deal of scholarly effort has been expended in the last hundred years or more on collating the facts as stated by the various sources, and trying to remove the bias of first hand, second hand and modern historians to try to arrive at a concensus of opinion as to the facts of Alexander's life and the reasons behind the choices he made. Harder to evaluate are Alexander's character, what made him the man he was and how he achieved what he did. I would suggest that this is the ultimate reason that Alexander is so fascinating: we know so much about him, but much less about his motives. Historians, I think, are probably romantics at heart who dream of walking with great men and women who have changed the course of the world.
I would suggest that any definitive answers to Alexander's character or motives are unlikely to be found in any eastern sources. Useful insights may be gained but these sources are likely to be scanty and hard to find, as well as difficult to corroborate. I would also suggest that the eastern perception of Alexander is much more likely to be limited and biased than in the west. Alexander's influence in the east was limited and he is more likely to be viewed hostilely there as he came as a conqueror. For exqample, in Iran/Iraq he is viewed as Alexander the Accursed, the horned one, who extinquished the sacred fires of Ahura-Mazda. The east is also less likely than the west to understand the culture from which Alexander came and to understand his motives. For example, eastern sources do not understand the ram's horns of Zeus-Ammon which Alexander wore, but believed they actually grew from his head!
As for 'the concept of Alexander as divine', are you implying that he was more than human? I would suggest that Alexander's divinty equates to his status as a hero - a source of entertainment, inspiration, a role model, a star in modern terms. In achieving this divine, star status, he has achieved immortality through ever-lasting fame, something we know he wished to achieve as he was very conscious of his reputation. The award of divine honours during and after his lifetime was a recognition of his extraordinary achievements, not an indication that he believed he was truely immortal - at least not in body, but in spirit.
BTW, are you aware of www.pothos.org which has a lively forum for discussion of Alexander?
Reply
From your asking if I think Alexander "was more than human", you have misunderstood: "Alexander became a 'divine man' and as with other divine men of Antiquity, the closer we look at the sources, the less we find." I am not describing a personal, theological belief, but a historical phenomenon.
I posted to my Journal 'Alexander the Great as Helios' which introduces the subject - http://apollinaris.livejournal.com/896.html
Yes, there has been a consensus on the facts of Alexander's life and I question its validity. (There is, for example, a consensus for the historicity of a number of 'divine men' in Antiquity and I suspect the consensus is wrong in some cases at least.)
To try and provide definitive answers to the questions you raise on Alexander requires a reliable history. Alexander believed himself a god and yet you consider Asian beliefs unworthy of consideration? My interest is in history, in which people believe all sorts of things and that is what I am attempting to describe.
Thank you for your reference to the forum on Alexander - its introduction is wrong - a god king cannot be only secular. What did you think of Dr Pal's 'Non-Jonesian History'?
Reply
If your rather vague statement "the closer we look at the sources, the less we find" was meant to refer to the dissemination of Alexander's image in the centuries following his death, I think I would have had to be psychic to have understood that!
The use of Alexander's image in iconography from the Colossus of Rhodes to the Byzantine Christ and the Indian Buddha is not a new one. John Romer brought it to popular attention in 1994 with The Seven Wonders of the world, which was televised by the BBC, but I doubt he was the first to spot the similarities. This use of Alexander's image has little to do with him being declared a god - and I really think you need to investigate what that concept meant to him, as well as it's subsequent effect on others. The use of his image has far more to do with the history of art than theology, with the popularity of Alexander's story, with his excellent PR (we know he had approved stylists in the sculptor Lysippus and the painter Apelles), and with the fact that his story clearly resonated with the universal myth of the death of the young warrior. This myth, and it's variant of the sacrifical death of the young man, has worn many faces eg Adonis, Mithras, Christ. But this does not mean that Alexander was 'divine' in the same way. He did not exhibit any supernatural powers, but his achievements were 'extra' ordinary and this was his claim to godhead.
Why do you question the validity of the histories of Alexander and the scholarship that has investigated his life? What is your alternative history? I don't understand your statement 'a concensus for the historicity of a number of 'divine men''. A concensus on what? That they did not exist? That they were not mortal men? And who else do you mean?
Again, you say that Alexander 'believed himself a god', but if you are questioning this you really need to define what Alexander would have understood by this claim, and what you understand by it. I certainly did not say that I consider Asian beliefs unworthy of consideration, but as far as I am aware, Alexander was never considered a god in India, and the question of the divinity of the Great King of Persia and the Pharaoh of Egypt (both titles held by Alexander)are more related to his functions as ruler than any theological beliefs he may have held.
If you are proposing alternative theories about Alexander, you really need to set out clearly why and what you believe. I don't know enough about Indian history to hold an opinion on Dr Pal's theories.
Reply
Leave a comment