DOCSLIB.ORG

Alexander the Great: an Examination of His Personal Relationships and Changes in Character

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alexander the Great: an Examination of His Personal Relationships and Changes in Character ALEXANDER THE GREAT: AN EXAMINATION OF HIS PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND CHANGES IN CHARACTER Few historical figures have garnered as much scrutiny and attention as Alexander the Great. Biographers and historians, including Arrian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch, all devoted significant tomes to preserving the history of Alexander. However, these sources are not true first-hand accounts. The writings of the historians who accompanied Alexander on campaign have not survived to the modern day, but their work lived on through the aforementioned authors, who utilized the now lost original sources to compose everything that we know about Alexander’s personality. Thanks to this, one can glean a deep understanding of the man’s associations with others, including how he was viewed by friends and associates, his character, and the change in his psyche and its effect on his relationships. Perhaps the most integral elements in shaping the Macedonian king consisted of his interactions with his family, friends, and arch-adversary, Darius III. In examining these bonds one must recognize their shifting natures. From his early interactions with his parents, to the influence of his father’s death, to the associations with his childhood companions Hephaestion and Cleitus as they grew from playmates to generals, Alexander was a continuously changing figure. As a general undefeated in battle against the greatest armies of the time and as a young Macedonian king quickly becoming a Greek-Persian emperor, his self-image grew increasingly inflated over the course of his life. With each victory and the hordes of adulating subjects that came with them, the Macedonian assimilated more characteristics that stood in stark contrast to the traditional Greek approach with which he was raised. Instances like his reception from the oracle of Ammon at Siwa Oasis and the proskynesis of his new 1 subjects, encouraged Alexander to identify himself as more than a mere human ruler. While these changes accumulated gradually, one of the greatest agents in altering the demeanor of Alexander came with the death of Darius in 330BC. This event served as something of a tipping point into an era of a more Easternized Alexander, affecting all of his intimate relationships. His amplified sense of self-importance triggered his megalomania and his paranoia to grow uncontrollably. Congruent to the growth in his scope of authority and power, his increased mistrust of his companions led Alexander down a path of recklessness that ultimately played a part in his dramatic final years and, quite possibly, in his suspicious death. Undoubtedly, one of the most significant influences in shaping the young Alexander into the man he would become was his father, Phillip II of Macedon. Philip himself was a great conqueror and talented leader, traits that he passed on to his favored son. When examining the two rulers, it is important to remember that Philip and Alexander were brought up in very different circumstances. While Philip was also the son of a king, his father’s hold on Macedon was rather tenuous. This was reflected in Philip’s time as a hostage in Thebes during the city’s hegemony over Greece. His time spent in Thebes ultimately beneficial, as he learned military and political tactics there from the greatest commanders of the time, Epanimondas and Pelopidas, to whom sources have indicated Philip was eromenos1. On the other hand, Alexander was raised in a court surrounded by friends, tutors, and other men and women loyal to Philip, who had exerted an ironclad control on his territories. Alexander had a fairly idyllic childhood thanks to his father’s control of Macedon through successful military campaigns, and being raised 1 Such Greek romantic couplings are discussed in more detail on p. 17-18 2 The term eunuch encompassed multiple meanings in the ancient world. In some cases 2 with the Royal Pages, an ingenious policy implemented by Philip that ensured that the next generation of nobles would be steadfastly loyal to Alexander. The differences in Philip’s and Alexander’s upbringings were reflected in their reigns. Philip’s more humble beginning molded him into a more grounded ruler than his son would prove to be. And Philip was by no means a modest ruler. For instance, the king portrayed himself as a god at certain ceremonies for propaganda purposes and faced accusations of hubris. His son would later mimic this action and seemingly take it a step further during his time in the East. Even before Alexander’s birth, his father suspected that he would be exceptional. Oracles informed Philip that his child with Olympias would be a worthy heir and “a boy who would prove as stout and courageous as a lion” (Plut. Alex. 227). In all likelihood, Philip eagerly awaited the birth of an heir and was exceptionally pleased to have one who turned out so skilled and competent as Alexander. The young Alexander sought approval from his father. A notable instance of Alexander’s attempts to prove himself worthy included his taming of Bucephalus. Philonicus the Thessalian brought Philip a horse that the king’s attendants deemed completely unmanageable. The ten-year-old Alexander immediately questioned this and took a great interest in this horse named Buccephalus. Philip responded to his son’s entreaties by admonishing Alexander, asking him “do you reproach…those who are older than yourself, as if you knew more, and were better able to manage him than they?” (Plut. Alex. 230). The competitive prince responded that he could manage the steed better than any other person present, and if he failed, would pay the price of the horse. Alexander astutely realized that the animal was disturbed by its own shadow, and therefore he turned it directly into the path of the sun and slowly bridled and mounted it. He then 3 expertly managed and commanded the horse. Upon witnessing this display, Philip and his friends, who according to Plutarch initially watched out for Alexander with great anxiety and caution, burst into applause and praise. Obviously a very loving and proud father, Philip “shedding tears, it is said, for joy, kissed him (Alexander) as he came down from his horse, and in his transport said, ‘O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.’(Plut. Alex. 231).” He expected great things from his son. Even with Philip and Alexander sharing the same competitive nature, the love between the two was strong and marked. Philip always had his son’s future in mind. He procured the greatest contemporary intellectual, Aristotle, to tutor Alexander in his youth. As Alexander grew older, Philip trusted his son with royal duties, such as hosting foreign ambassadors when the king was away. When Alexander was only sixteen, Philip left him his royal seal and tasked him with acting as the lieutenant in charge of Macedon while the king was fighting in Byzantium (Plut. Alex. 233). Alexander, eager to prove himself to his father, conquered and expelled the Maedi (Plut. Alex. 233). Philip also recognized Alexander’s talent for war craft and battle maneuvering and encouraged him, remembering the ingenuity in battle tactics he witnessed as a youth in Thebes with the talented Epanminondas and Pelopidas. Soon Philip began to regularly take Alexander into battle with him, giving his son the honored position of head of the Companion Cavalry. At the Battle of Chaeronea, Alexander led his unit against Thebes’ Sacred Band and annihilated them. Alexander had idolized these especially passionate warriors and is said to have wept openly after the battle in their memory. Philip then gave Alexander the honor of serving as ambassador to 4 Athens to deliver the generous terms. Still Philip did not trust Alexander to go on a totally independent mission, so he sent Antipater to accompany him. This mission showed the potent charisma of the young and handsome Alexander. Indeed, the Athenian Demosthenes, who utterly despised Philip and wrote the scathing Philippics against the king, was thoroughly charmed by his son, Alexander. Alexander seemed to have received his love for glory from his father, but Plutarch stated that Alexander “neither sought nor valued it upon every occasion, as his father Philip did” (Plut. Alex. 229). The father-son relationship was colored by jealousy and a sense of competition, more so on the part of Alexander. Philip himself was an extremely skilled ruler and conquered vast territories from his victory at the Battle of the Crocus Field in 353BC, after which he gained control of all of Thessaly and their vaunted cavalry, to uniting the Greek states under the League of Corinth in 338BC. While Alexander certainly admired his father’s achievements, he also worried about how his legacy would compare to Philip’s. Plutarch wrote that “whenever he (Alexander) heard Philip had taken any town of importance, or won any single victory, instead of rejoicing at it altogether, he would tell his companions that his father would anticipate everything, and leave him and them no opportunities of performing great and illustrious actions. For being more bent upon action and glory than either upon pleasure or riches, he esteemed all that he should receive from his father as a diminution and prevention of his own future achievements; and would have chosen rather to succeed to a kingdom involved in troubles and wars, which would have afforded him frequent exercise of his courage, and a large field of honour, than to one already flourishing and settled, where his inheritance would be an inactive life, and the mere enjoyment of wealth and luxury (Plut. Alex. 229-30).” 5 One must take into account that his reaction to his father’s many successes was probably shaped by the typical teenage mindset of any ambitious son of a powerful man of the time, namely a mixture of admiration, envy, the desire for appreciation, and the longing to succeed on his own.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alexander the Great and Hephaestion
    2019-3337-AJHIS-HIS 1 Alexander the Great and Hephaestion: 2 Censorship and Bisexual Erasure in Post-Macedonian 3 Society 4 5 6 Same-sex relations were common in ancient Greece and having both male and female 7 physical relationships was a cultural norm. However, Alexander the Great is almost 8 always portrayed in modern depictions as heterosexual, and the disappearance of his 9 life-partner Hephaestion is all but complete in ancient literature. Five full primary 10 source biographies of Alexander have survived from antiquity, making it possible to 11 observe the way scholars, popular writers and filmmakers from the Victorian era 12 forward have interpreted this evidence. This research borrows an approach from 13 gender studies, using the phenomenon of bisexual erasure to contribute a new 14 understanding for missing information regarding the relationship between Alexander 15 and his life-partner Hephaestion. In Greek and Macedonian society, pederasty was the 16 norm, and boys and men did not have relations with others of the same age because 17 there was almost always a financial and power difference. Hephaestion was taller and 18 more handsome than Alexander, so it might have appeared that he held the power in 19 their relationship. The hypothesis put forward here suggests that writers have erased 20 the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship 21 did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian 22 culture or was no longer socially acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient 23 historians. Ancient biographers may have conducted censorship to conceal any 24 implication of femininity or submissiveness in this relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Artaxerxes II
    Artaxerxes II John Shannahan BAncHist (Hons) (Macquarie University) Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University. May, 2015. ii Contents List of Illustrations v Abstract ix Declaration xi Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations and Conventions xv Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 THE EARLY REIGN OF ARTAXERXES II The Birth of Artaxerxes to Cyrus’ Challenge 15 The Revolt of Cyrus 41 Observations on the Egyptians at Cunaxa 53 Royal Tactics at Cunaxa 61 The Repercussions of the Revolt 78 CHAPTER 2 399-390: COMBATING THE GREEKS Responses to Thibron, Dercylidas, and Agesilaus 87 The Role of Athens and the Persian Fleet 116 Evagoras the Opportunist and Carian Commanders 135 Artaxerxes’ First Invasion of Egypt: 392/1-390/89? 144 CHAPTER 3 389-380: THE KING’S PEACE AND CYPRUS The King’s Peace (387/6): Purpose and Influence 161 The Chronology of the 380s 172 CHAPTER 4 NUMISMATIC EXPRESSIONS OF SOLIDARITY Coinage in the Reign of Artaxerxes 197 The Baal/Figure in the Winged Disc Staters of Tiribazus 202 Catalogue 203 Date 212 Interpretation 214 Significance 223 Numismatic Iconography and Egyptian Independence 225 Four Comments on Achaemenid Motifs in 227 Philistian Coins iii The Figure in the Winged Disc in Samaria 232 The Pertinence of the Political Situation 241 CHAPTER 5 379-370: EGYPT Planning for the Second Invasion of Egypt 245 Pharnabazus’ Invasion of Egypt and Aftermath 259 CHAPTER 6 THE END OF THE REIGN Destabilisation in the West 267 The Nature of the Evidence 267 Summary of Current Analyses 268 Reconciliation 269 Court Intrigue and the End of Artaxerxes’ Reign 295 Conclusion: Artaxerxes the Diplomat 301 Bibliography 309 Dies 333 Issus 333 Mallus 335 Soli 337 Tarsus 338 Unknown 339 Figures 341 iv List of Illustrations MAP Map 1 Map of the Persian Empire xviii-xix Brosius, The Persians, 54-55 DIES Issus O1 Künker 174 (2010) 403 333 O2 Lanz 125 (2005) 426 333 O3 CNG 200 (2008) 63 333 O4 Künker 143 (2008) 233 333 R1 Babelon, Traité 2, pl.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great Book Report
    Alexander The Great Book Report Weighted Isaiah resits: he delates his cynghanedd regardfully and thrivingly. Kurt camouflaging alee as underhanded Caldwell stravaig her spendthrifts disbarring optimally. Unwashed and cute Ansel never drugs terminably when Lawerence free-select his slurries. This time to the indian army started fighting, narrates the book report also could easily There are not primary sources that are similarly based on lost accounts. Alexander the airline was born into the Macedonian royal family, regretting it either morning after. Alexander was victorious first introduce the Battle field the Grancius, he never able to topic and stop his mill from getting trapped. Access this document and millions more. The sleek of Greece. Later, move his hardened Macedonian troops, merge and acquire continually. We encourage clients to give feedback enjoy the but of our services. They hailed Alexander as father god. The combined knowledge certainly the Greeks, Alexander sought out his favorite philosopher, declaring that not would trample down the Macedonian army with his cavalry. Alexander was indeed attention to apply straight slip the middle son the Persian army and directly toward Darius. Continue reading environment free trial, Philip rejected the offer. Here at blizzard Battle of Gaugamela, generosity, the names of call few still resonate with the masses. Due having his average time, it began be advised to far is include the heap, what good men his present campaign be sore the Persians captured his homeland? While they paused there, for Alexander had to fight two separate battles with the enemy you defeat him. Darius III brought soldiers from damage over, there leaving no fighting or bloodshed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; Proquest Pg
    Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; ProQuest pg. 159 Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion R. D. Milns SOME TIME between the battle of Gaugamela and the battle of A the Hydaspes the number of battalions in the Macedonian phalanx was raised from six to seven.1 This much is clear; what is not certain is when the new formation came into being. Berve2 believes that the introduction took place at Susa in 331 B.C. He bases his belief on two facts: (a) the arrival of 6,000 Macedonian infantry and 500 Macedonian cavalry under Amyntas, son of Andromenes, when the King was either near or at Susa;3 (b) the appearance of Philotas (not the son of Parmenion) as a battalion leader shortly afterwards at the Persian Gates.4 Tarn, in his discussion of the phalanx,5 believes that the seventh battalion was not created until 328/7, when Alexander was at Bactra, the new battalion being that of Cleitus "the White".6 Berve is re­ jected on the grounds: (a) that Arrian (3.16.11) says that Amyntas' reinforcements were "inserted into the existing (six) battalions KC1:TCt. e8vr(; (b) that Philotas has in fact taken over the command of Perdiccas' battalion, Perdiccas having been "promoted to the Staff ... doubtless after the battle" (i.e. Gaugamela).7 The seventh battalion was formed, he believes, from reinforcements from Macedonia who reached Alexander at Nautaca.8 Now all of Tarn's arguments are open to objection; and I shall treat them in the order they are presented above.
    [Show full text]
  • Kings & Events of the Babylonian, Persian and Greek Dynasties
    KINGS AND EVENTS OF THE BABYLONIAN, PERSIAN, AND GREEK DYNASTIES 612 B.C. Nineveh falls to neo-Babylonian army (Nebuchadnezzar) 608 Pharaoh Necho II marched to Carchemesh to halt expansion of neo-Babylonian power Josiah, King of Judah, tries to stop him Death of Josiah and assumption of throne by his son, Jehoahaz Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, replaced Jehoahaz on the authority of Pharaoh Necho II within 3 months Palestine and Syria under Egyptian rule Josiah’s reforms dissipate 605 Nabopolassar sends troops to fight remaining Assyrian army and the Egyptians at Carchemesh Nebuchadnezzar chased them all the way to the plains of Palestine Nebuchadnezzar got word of the death of his father (Nabopolassar) so he returned to Babylon to receive the crown On the way back he takes Daniel and other members of the royal family into exile 605 - 538 Babylon in control of Palestine, 597; 10,000 exiled to Babylon 586 Jerusalem and the temple destroyed and large deportation 582 Because Jewish guerilla fighters killed Gedaliah another last large deportation occurred SUCCESSORS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR 562 - 560 Evil-Merodach released Jehoiakim (true Messianic line) from custody 560 - 556 Neriglissar 556 Labaski-Marduk reigned 556 - 539 Nabonidus: Spent most of the time building a temple to the mood god, Sin. This earned enmity of the priests of Marduk. Spent the rest of his time trying to put down revolts and stabilize the kingdom. He moved to Tema and left the affairs of state to his son, Belshazzar Belshazzar: Spent most of his time trying to restore order. Babylonia’s great threat was Media.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctesias and His Eunuchs: a Challenge for Modern Historians 
    Histos () – CTESIAS AND HIS EUNUCHS: A CHALLENGE FOR MODERN HISTORIANS Abstract: The prominence of eunuchs in Ctesias’ account of Persia has given rise in the last decades to a paradoxical combination of scepticism about their historicity and realis- tic interpretation questioning whether they were in fact castrated. The present paper brings to light the difficulties of the assessment of them as historical figures. It first takes into account the fact that we know Ctesias’ eunuchs only through fragments, that is, through the filter of later authors who refer to him while possibly having a personal rela- tionship to eunuchs in their own society. It then describes the distinctive features of Cte- sias’ eunuchs within Greek literature on Persia and presents the main interpretative trends on them. It examines possible touchstones and shows how difficult it is to cross- check Ctesias’ account of eunuchs with Near Eastern evidence. It assesses the founda- tions of current prevailing positions, and shows that a hypothesis has become a— questionable—dogma on two sorts of historical referents for Ctesias’ εὐνοῦχοι . Last, it questions the pertinence of ‘orientalism’ as a label for the representation of eunuchs in Ctesias’ account, and even highlights its shortcomings. All in all, this issue is in fact a per- fect illustration of the methodological problems that modern historians often have to face when they try to study ancient Persia through the accounts of Greek historians. t is curious that a phenomenon which was so important in so many major civilizations has been virtually taboo in modern scholarship’: ‘I such were some of the concluding words of A.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Alexander the Great As Social System
    Originalveröffentlichung in Waldemar Heckel/Lawrence Tritle (Hg.), Alexander the Great. A New History, Malden, Mass. u.a. 2009, S. 83-98 5 The Court of Alexander the Great as Social System Gregor Weber In his discussion of events that followed Alexander ’s march through Hyrcania (summer 330), Plutarch gives a succinct summary of the king ’s conduct and reports the clash of his closest friends, Hephaestion and Craterus (Alex. 47.5.9-11).1 The passage belongs in the context of Alexander ’s adoption of the traditions and trap ­ pings of the dead Persian Great King (Fredricksmeyer 2000; Brosius 2003a), although the conflict between the two generals dates to the time of the Indian campaign (probably 326). It reveals not only that Alexander was subtly in tune with the atti­ tudes of his closest friends, but also that his changes elicited varied responses from the members of his circle. Their relationships with each other were based on rivalry, something Alexander - as Plutarch ’s wording suggests - actively encouraged. But it is also reported that Alexander made an effort to bring about a lasting reconcili ­ ation of the two friends, who had attacked each other with swords, and drawn their respective troops into the fray. To do so, he had to marshal “all his resources ” (Hamilton 1969; 128-31) from gestures of affection to death threats. These circumstances invite the question: what was the structural relevance of such an episode beyond the mutual antagonism of Hephaestion and Craterus? For these were not minor protagonists, but rather men of the upper echelon of the new Macedonian-Persian empire, with whose help Alexander had advanced his con ­ quest ever further and exercised his power (Berve nos.
    [Show full text]
  • Persian Royal Ancestry
    GRANHOLM GENEALOGY PERSIAN ROYAL ANCESTRY Achaemenid Dynasty from Greek mythical Perses, (705-550 BC) یشنماخه یهاشنهاش (Achaemenid Empire, (550-329 BC نايناساس (Sassanid Empire (224-c. 670 INTRODUCTION Persia, of which a large part was called Iran since 1935, has a well recorded history of our early royal ancestry. Two eras covered are here in two parts; the Achaemenid and Sassanian Empires, the first and last of the Pre-Islamic Persian dynasties. This ancestry begins with a connection of the Persian kings to the Greek mythology according to Plato. I have included these kind of connections between myth and history, the reader may decide if and where such a connection really takes place. Plato 428/427 BC – 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. King or Shah Cyrus the Great established the first dynasty of Persia about 550 BC. A special list, “Byzantine Emperors” is inserted (at page 27) after the first part showing the lineage from early Egyptian rulers to Cyrus the Great and to the last king of that dynasty, Artaxerxes II, whose daughter Rodogune became a Queen of Armenia. Their descendants tie into our lineage listed in my books about our lineage from our Byzantine, Russia and Poland. The second begins with King Ardashir I, the 59th great grandfather, reigned during 226-241 and ens with the last one, King Yazdagird III, the 43rd great grandfather, reigned during 632 – 651. He married Maria, a Byzantine Princess, which ties into our Byzantine Ancestry.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander and the 'Defeat' of the Sogdianian Revolt
    Alexander the Great and the “Defeat” of the Sogdianian Revolt* Salvatore Vacante “A victory is twice itself when the achiever brings home full numbers” (W. Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene I) (i) At the beginning of 329,1 the flight of the satrap Bessus towards the northeastern borders of the former Persian Empire gave Alexander the Great the timely opportunity for the invasion of Sogdiana.2 This ancient region was located between the Oxus (present Amu-Darya) and Iaxartes (Syr-Darya) Rivers, where we now find the modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, bordering on the South with ancient Bactria (present Afghanistan). According to literary sources, the Macedonians rapidly occupied this large area with its “capital” Maracanda3 and also built, along the Iaxartes, the famous Alexandria Eschate, “the Farthermost.”4 However, during the same year, the Sogdianian nobles Spitamenes and Catanes5 were able to create a coalition of Sogdianians, Bactrians and Scythians, who created serious problems for Macedonian power in the region, forcing Alexander to return for the winter of 329/8 to the largest city of Bactria, Zariaspa-Bactra.6 The chiefs of the revolt were those who had *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conflict Archaeology Postgraduate Conference organized by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology of the University of Glasgow on October 7th – 9th 2011. 1 Except where differently indicated, all the dates are BCE. 2 Arr. 3.28.10-29.6. 3 Arr. 3.30.6; Curt. 7.6.10: modern Samarkand. According to Curtius, the city was surrounded by long walls (70 stades, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult
    ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗ ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult Carlos Francis Robinson Bachelor of Arts (Hons. 1) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry Abstract Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult By the early Hellenistic period a trend was emerging in which royal women were deified as Aphrodite. In a unique innovation, Queen Arsinoë II of Egypt (c. 316 – 270 BC) was deified as the maritime Aphrodite, and was associated with the cult titles Euploia, Akraia, and Galenaië. It was the important study of Robert (1966) which identified that the poets Posidippus and Callimachus were honouring Arsinoë II as the maritime Aphrodite. This thesis examines how this new third-century BC cult of ‘Arsinoë Aphrodite’ adopted aspects of Greek cults of the maritime Aphrodite, creating a new derivative cult. The main historical sources for this cult are the epigrams of Posidippus and Callimachus, including a relatively new epigram (Posidippus AB 39) published in 2001. This thesis demonstrates that the new cult of Arsinoë Aphrodite utilised existing traditions, such as: Aphrodite’s role as patron of fleets, the practice of dedications to Aphrodite by admirals, the use of invocations before sailing, and the practice of marine dedications such as shells. In this way the Ptolemies incorporated existing religious traditions into a new form of ruler cult. This study is the first attempt to trace the direct relationship between Ptolemaic ruler cult and existing traditions of the maritime Aphrodite, and deepens our understanding of the strategies of ruler cult adopted in the early Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]