#ancient Macedonian politics

[jeannereames]

Kind of related to the ask on Cleopatra, and even your one way earlier on Krateros… What do you think Alexander would’ve been like if he weren’t an Argead, and instead fated to be a Marshal for whoever else was meant for the throne? Do you think he would’ve been rebellious? Or cutthroat and ambitious like Krateros? Or more-so disciplined and loyal? I kind of see him as a combination of all three because I don’t peg Alexander for someone who can be contained, lol.

To answer this, we must keep in mind that, for the ancient Greeks, belief in divine parentage for certain family lines was very real. A given family and/or person ruled due to their descent. The heroes in Homer had divine parents/grandparents/great-grandparents. This notion continued into the Archaic period with oligarchic city-states ruled by hoi aristoi: “the best men.” (Yes, our word “aristocrat” comes from that.) Many of these wealthy families claimed divine ancestry; that’s why they were “best.”

In the south, this began to break down from the 5th century into the 4th. But not in Macedonia, Thessaly, or Epiros. In fact, even by Alexander’s day, many Greek poleis remained oligarchies, not democracies. And in democracies, “equality” was reserved for a select group: adult free male citizens. Competition (agonía) was how to prove personal excellence (aretȇ), and thereby gain fame (timȇ) and glory (kléos). All this was still regarded as the favor of the gods.

Alexander believed himself destined for great things because he was raised to believe that, as a result of his birth. Pop history sometimes presents only Olympias as encouraging his “special” status. But Philip also inculcated in Alexander a belief he was unique. He (and Olympias) got Alexander an Epirote prince as a lesson-master, then Aristotle as a personal tutor. Philip made Alexander regent at 16 and general at 18. That’s serious “fast track.” Alexander didn’t earn these promotions in the usual way; he was literally born to them.

If Alexander hadn’t been an Argead, that would have impacted his sense of his place in the world no less than it did because he was an Argead. What he might have reasonably expected his life path to take would have depended heavily on what strata of society he was born into.

Were he a commoner, in the Macedonian military system, his ambitions might have peaked at decadarch/dekadarchos (leader of a file). Higher officer positions were reserved for aristocrats through Philip’s reign. With Alexander himself, after Gaugamela, things started to change for the infantry, at least below the highest levels (but not in the cavalry, as owning a horse itself was an elite marker). Under Philip, skilled infantry might be tagged for the Pezhetairoi (who became the Hypaspists under ATG). But Alexander himself wouldn’t have qualified because those slots weren’t just for the best infantrymen, but the LARGEST ones. (In infantry combat, being large in frame was a distinct advantage.) So as a commoner, Alexander’s options would have been severely limited.

Things would have got more interesting if he’d been born into the ranks of the Hetairoi families, especially if from the Upper Macedonian cantons.

Lower cantons were Macedonian way back. If born into those, he (and his parents) would have been jockeying for a position as syntrophos (companion) of a prince. Then, he’d try to impress that prince and gain a position as close to him as possible, which could result in becoming a taxiarch/taxiarchos or ilarch/ilarchos in the infantry or cavalry. But he’d better pick the RIGHT prince, as if his wound up failing to secure the kingship, he might die, or at least fall under heavy suspicion that could permanently curtain real advancement.

That was the usual expectation for Lower Macedonian elites. Place as a Hetairos of the king and, if proven worthy in combat, relatively high military command. Yes, like Krateros. But hot-headedness could curtail advancement, as apparently happened to Meleagros, who started out well but never advanced far. The higher one rose, the more one became a potential target: witness Philotas, and later Perdikkas. In contrast, Hephaistion was Teflon (until his death). Yet Hephaistion’s status rested entirely on his importance to Alexander. And he probably wasn’t Macedonian anyway; nor was Perdikkas from Lower Macedonia, for that matter.

The northern cantons were semi-independent to fully autonomous earlier in Macedonian history. Their rulers also wore the title “basileus” (king); we just tend to translate it as “prince” to acknowledge they became subservient to Pella/Aigai. Philip incorporated them early in his reign, and I think there’s a tendency to overlook lingering resentment (and rebellion) even in Philip’s latter years. Philip’s mother was from Lynkestis, and his first wife (Phila) from Elimeia. Those marriages (his father’s and his) were political, not love matches.

Similarly, Oretis was independent, and originally more connected to Epiros. Note that Perdikkas, son of Orontes, was commanding entire battalions when he, too, was comparatively young. Like Alexander, he was “born” to it. Carol King has a very interesting chapter on him in the upcoming collection I’m editing, one that makes several excellent points about how later Successors really did a number on Perdikkas’s reputation (and not just Ptolemy).

If Alexander had been born into one of these royal families from the upper cantons, quasi-rebellious attitudes might be more likely. Much would depend on how he wanted to position himself. Harpalos, Perdikkas, Leonnatos, Ptolemy…all were from upper or at least middle cantons. They faired well. For that matter, Parmenion himself may have been from an upper canton and decided to throw in his hat with Philip.

By Philip’s day, trying to be independent of Pella was not a wise political choice, but if one came from a royal family previously independent, we can see why that might be seductive. Lower Macedonia had always been the larger/stronger kingdom. But prior to Philip, Lynkestis and Elimeia both had histories of conflict with Macedonia, and of supporting alternate claimants for the Macedonian throne. At one point in (I think?) the Peloponnesian War, Elimeia was singled out as having the best cavalry in the north. Aiani, the main capital, had long ties WEST to Corinthian trade (and Epirote ports). It was a powerful kingdom in the Archaic/early Classical era, after which, it faded.

So, these places had proud histories. If Alexander had been born in Aiani, would he have been willing to submit to Philip’s heir? Maybe not. But realistically, could he have resisted? That’s more dubious. By then, Elimeia just didn’t have the resources in men and finances.

I hope this gives some insight into how much one’s social rank influenced how one learned to think about one’s self. Also, it gives some insight into political factions in Macedonia itself. As noted, I believe we fail to recognize just how much influence Philip had in uniting Lower and Upper Macedonia. Nor how resentment may have lingered for decades. I play with this in Dancing with the Lion: Rise, as I do think it had an impact on Philip’s assassination.

(Spoiler!)

Philips discussion with his son in the Rise, and his “counter-plot” (that goes awry) may be my own invention, but it’s based in what I believe were very real lingering resentments, 20+ years into Philip’s rule.

[occvltswim]

Re the depictions of cleopatra as black, the whole statue or cameo being black doesn’t automatically equal the individual being depicted as black. There are Egyptian statues that are all sandstone, but they’re not meant to depict colour either, of the skin or otherwise. If they were, people could make the same argument that the people in the sandstone statues are being depicted as white, which we also know is not true. These depictions are simply not ‘colored in’ for lack of a better term, so they’re not really good examples regarding black depictions of cleopatra

"Now, your question about whether or not it's OK or not OK to portray her as Black - Cleopatra manipulated her own image all the time. She had one face for her coinage and multiple faces for her coinage that went out amongst the Greeks in the Mediterranean and the Romans. And she had a different face that she wore in her Egyptian iconography. So she herself was manipulating her own image for audience. So whether we do this in our own entertainment industry or not seems to be fitting in with her own iconographic tradition..." — Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy, PhD, The Modern Racial Politics of Cleopatra

More Videos: Black Africans in the Ancient Mediterranean

"History teaches us that Macedonia (ancient Macedon) was a region of northern Greece, whose people were of a tribe that settled there by the seventh century B.C. and who were similar in language and outlook to the Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians, the rest of the Greek tribes. Macedon and Macedonians were never in all their history known as a separate country or a distinctive ethnic group. It was simply a region in ancient Greece, inhabited by Greeks.

The Slavs, on the other hand, made their appearance in history sometime between A.D. 570 and 630. They never used the name Macedonia, not even as a geographic term. They mentioned it for the first time during the 19th century, when their ethnic awareness was taking place.

Macedonians appear as a separate ethnic group (race) in 1923 following a decision made at the Third Communist International. The independent "nation of Macedonia" was established in 1944, after a decision by Marshal Tito; the Slavs were baptized into "Macedonians," and a new race was created.

A census conducted in the region in 1940, a few years before the Slavs were baptized "Macedonians," listed only Slavs, Bulgarians and Greeks. There were no registered Macedonians. A fourth ethnic group, either named or nicknamed "Macedonians," was completely unknown. Thanks to Tito's efforts, in the 1956 census, 861,000 declared themselves "Macedonian." KOSTAS G. MESSAS Denver, Sept. 18, 1991"

New York Times Article: History Doesn't Know 'Ethnic Macedonians'

[planet-gay-comic]

Homosexuality in History: Kings and Their Lovers

Hadrian and Antinous Hadrian and Antinous are famous historical figures who epitomize one of the most well-known homosexual relationships in history. Hadrian, the Roman Emperor from 117 to 138 AD, developed a close friendship with Antinous, a young man from Egypt. This relationship was characterized by deep affection and is often viewed as romantic. There are indications of an erotic component, evident in Hadrian's inconsolable reaction to Antinous's tragic death. Hadrian erected monuments and temples in honor of Antinous, underscoring their special bond.

Alexander the Great and Hephaestion The ancient world was a time when homosexuality was not as taboo in many cultures as it is today. Alexander the Great and Hephaestion are a prominent example of this. Alexander, the Macedonian king from 336 to 323 BC, and Hephaestion were best friends and closest confidants. Their relationship was so close that rumors of a romantic or even erotic connection circulated. After Hephaestion's death, Alexander held a public funeral, indicating their deep emotional bond.

Edward II and Piers Gaveston During the Middle Ages, homosexuality was not as accepted in many cultures as it is today. The relationship between Edward II and Piers Gaveston was marked by rumors and hostilities, demonstrating that homosexuality was not always accepted in the past. Their relationship is believed to have been of a romantic nature, leading to political turmoil and controversies. Gaveston was even appointed Earl of Cornwall by Edward, highlighting their special connection.

Matthias Corvinus and Bálint Balassi In the Renaissance, there was a revival of Greco-Roman culture, leading to increased tolerance of homosexuality. Matthias Corvinus ruled at a time when homosexuality was no longer illegal in Hungary. The relationship between Matthias Corvinus and Bálint Balassi is another example of homosexuality being accepted during this period. Matthias Corvinus had a public relationship with Bálint Balassi, a poet and soldier. Their relationship may have been of a romantic nature, as Balassi was appointed as the court poet, and it had cultural influence.

These relationships between the mentioned kings and their lovers are remarkable examples of the long history of homosexuality in the world. In many cultures of antiquity and the Middle Ages, homosexuality was not as strongly stigmatized, demonstrating that homosexuality was not always rejected in the past.

Text supported by Bard and Chat-GPT 3.5 These images were generated with StableDiffusion v1.5. Faces and background overworked with composing and inpainting.

[what-even-is-thiss]

Xenia, often translated as the laws of hospitality, was really important in the stories of Greek Mythology.

It wasn't just on the host. The rules also applied to the guests.

Xenia was basically what allowed for nobles of different cities to network with each other.

Greece, you may have noticed, is mountainous and rocky. If you're ruling with ancient technology the easiest way to set up a government is to put a fortress on a hill and rule everything you can physically see from there. Maintaining an empire of any kind is difficult. Frankly, idk how the Macedonians and Romans pulled it off.

But. Even though they all have different governments there's a general shared culture in the area. Not identical, but they all worship the same gods, speak roughly the same language, and have similar moral codes. There's a specific type of guy who is a noble-born Hellene. A free citizen of a city. A guy who owns property. A guy who is Greek. You know a Greek when you come across one.

So when the noble-born Hellenes are traveling around they are guaranteed safe lodging by the laws of hospitality. They help their host, their host helps them, they eat together, they work together, and this is where the inter-city and inter-regional politics happen. These dinner conversations are where alliances are struck. These rules are what makes travel safe. They keep you from being attacked by your host and keep you from sleeping on the ground.

The laws of hospitality really do kind of hold the entire society together by keeping all of these different city-states socially connected to each other. This is the real reason you scare each other with stories of Zeus striking down people who break the rules of xenia. Because if you turn away strangers you turn away potential allies and everyone around here is stuck in a seemingly never-ending struggle for local influence. Zeus is both a god of politics and a god of strangers. If you mess with friendly strangers, you're betraying your chief god and your entire political system.

[nanshe-of-nina]

Women’s History Meme || Women from Ancient History (or legends) (3/5) ↬ Septima Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra (c. 240 – c. 274)

Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, and self-proclaimed Empress, is one of the heroines of the ancient world who has inspired successive generations of scholars, writers, librettists and musicians, playwrights and actors. In the modern western world she is slightly less well known than Cleopatra; in the east she is still supreme, as demonstrated by the massive response throughout the Arab world to the television series called Anarchy (Al-Abadid) broadcast in Syria in 1997. The role of the Empress Zenobia was played by a very famous and beautiful Arab actress, Raghda, and her struggle against the Romans was depicted in twenty-two episodes watched by millions of people. For political reasons, but by controversial calculations, Zenobia claimed descent from Cleopatra, who was neither Arab nor Egyptian, but a Macedonian Greek. The writers of the television series emphasized Zenobia’s iconic Arab origins, but in fact, as a Palmyrene, Zenobia combined elements of Aramaic and Arabic ancestry. The population of Palmyra was descended from an amalgamation of various tribes of different ethnic backgrounds, and their language was a dialect of Aramaic. As the heroic and ultimately tragic Queen of Palmyra, Zenobia ranks with two other heroines of ancient history: the British Queen Boudicca and Cleopatra, who stood firm for their principles and their people, defied their oppressors, and were ultimately defeated. In each case the tragedy is all the more poignant because all three queens were the last of their lines, and after their deaths, each of their kingdoms disappeared, absorbed by Rome. These heroic women passed into legend as a result of their individual struggles and tragic fates, and the simple fact that they were women, who ruled as capably, and fought just as fiercely, as kings. Their enduring fame far outstrips the quantity and quality of the information about them. — Empress Zenobia: Palmyra’s Rebel Queen by Pat Southern

[whencyclopedia]

Aristotle

Aristotle of Stagira (l. 384-322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher who pioneered systematic, scientific examination in literally every area of human knowledge and was known, in his time, as "the man who knew everything" and later simply as "The Philosopher”, needing no further qualification as his fame was so widespread.

He literally invented the concept of metaphysics single-handedly when he (or one of his scribes) placed his book on abstract philosophical speculation after his book on physics (metaphysics literally means “after physics”) and standardized in learning – how information is collected, assimilated and interpreted, and then communicated – across numerous disciplines.

During the later Middle Ages (c. 1300-1500 CE), he was referred to as "The Master", most notably in Dante's Inferno where the author did not need to even identify Aristotle by name for him to be recognized. This particular epithet is apt in that Aristotle wrote on, and was considered a master in, disciplines as diverse as biology, politics, metaphysics, agriculture, literature, botany, medicine, mathematics, physics, ethics, logic, and the theatre. He is traditionally linked in sequence with Socrates and Plato in the triad of the three greatest Greek philosophers.

Plato (l. c. 424/423-348/347 BCE) was a student of Socrates (l. c. 469/470-399 BCE) and Aristotle studied under Plato. The student and teacher disagreed on a fundamental aspect of Plato's philosophy – the insistence on a higher realm of Forms which made objective reality possible on the earthly plane – although, contrary to the claims of some scholars this did not cause any rift between them. Aristotle would build upon Plato's theories to advance his own original thought and, although he rejected Plato's Theory of Forms, he never disparaged his former master's basic philosophy.

He was hired by Philip II, King of Macedon (r. 359-336 BCE) as tutor for his son Alexander the Great (l. 356-323 BCE) and made such an impression on the youth that Alexander carried Aristotle's works with him on campaign and introduced Aristotelian philosophy to the east when he conquered the Persian Empire. Through Alexander, Aristotle's works were spread throughout the known world of the time, influencing ancient philosophy and providing a foundation for the development of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theology.

Early Life

Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, Greece, on the border of Macedonia. His father, Nichomachus, was the court physician to the Macedonian king and died when Aristotle was ten years old. His uncle assumed guardianship of the boy and saw to his education. Aristotle probably spent time with the tutors at the Macedonian court, as the son and nephew of palace staff, but this not known with certainty. When he was 18, Aristotle was sent to Athens to study at Plato's Academy where he remained for the next 20 years.

He was an exceptional student, graduated early, and was awarded a position on the faculty teaching rhetoric and dialogue. It appears that Aristotle thought he would take over the Academy after Plato's death and, when that position was given to Plato's nephew Speusippus, Aristotle left Athens to conduct experiments and study on his own in the islands of the Greek Archipelago.

Continue reading...

[mademoiselle-red]

I was watching the newest season of “When History Meows”, an animated speed-run retelling of ancient chinese history where all the characters are cats. And this season focuses on the rise of the Mongol Empire and the show used the term 一代天骄 “Heaven’s Pride” to describe Genghis Khan. And I realized, in a flash of recognition, that the connotation of this word and the characterization of Genghis Khan of the Mongolian Empire in this retelling is very much in the same spirit of Mary Renault’s characterization of Alexander the Great of the Macedonian Empire in her novel “Fire from Heaven”, which is a retelling of Alexander’s childhood and adolescence. From the way the anime’s story begins with an eagle flying over the vast expanse of Mongolian steppes, the warring grassland tribes being pitted against each other by the powerful Jin empire in the south, the fated 天可汗 Heavenly Khagan who arose from this fractured political landscape and unified the Mongolian people and led them on a conquest to lands beyond the “known world”, terrifying and brilliant, burning across the land like a fire from heaven.

And if anyone in history could give Alexander a run for his money, Genghis Khan is the man.

[thegrapeandthefig]

hi! i’m writing an essay on the shift of helios as a sun god to apollo being the main sun god, and wondered whether you had any resources on it, or an opinion of why this happened! the topic is so so interesting to me since there are a lot of different perspectives on it, but it’s difficult to find concrete evidence on exactly when/what period it happened. if not don’t worry, but i’d love to hear your perspective on it.

hope you’re doing well, and thank you :))

Hi! Here are some suggestions for resources that might be useful to what you're looking for:

The Neglected Heavens: Gender and the Cults of Helios, Selene, and Eos in Bronze Age and Historical Greece by Katherine A. Rea: she places the switch in the 5th century BC and only cites Athenian evidence, and makes other interesting points on the topic.

In the common precinct dedicated to Apollo and Helios (Plato, Lg., 945 b-948 b) by Miguel Spinassi (in Spanish): This is mainly a philosophical analysis, but you might be able to find some interesting ideas concerning the syncretism through the philosophical lens.

The cult of Helios in the Seleucid East by Catharine C. Lorber & Panagiotis P. Iossif: this is more indirect and later down the timeline for you, but could give you leads as to the political role of the syncretism in the context of the Seleucid kingdom and why it spread so widely outside of "mainland Greece".

Two works by Tomislav Bilić might also be of indirect interest: this article and his book The Land of the Solstices: myth, geography & astronomy in ancient Greece. Bilić is an ethnoastronomer but he explores how different Greek traditions (Delphian, Athenian, Delian etc.) deal with Apollo and/or Helios through the link between astronomy and cult.

My personal opinion aligns more with what K. Rea brings up. I think that, if the syncretism between Helios and Apollo originates from the Athenian tradition or similar, it would have very easily spread through the centuries, but especially during the "Golden Age" of Athenian colonialism (the famous pentecontaetia). From there, it is easy to imagine how it could have spread to more territories through the Macedonian conquests etc. And then there's the case of Rhodes, which, as far as I know, had a very distinct Helian cult that doesn't seem to have been strongly infiltrated by Apollo. Whether Rhodes is an exception to the rule or evidence that the sync was originally a local tradition that gained popularity until becoming the norm is something I honestly cannot form a convincing opinion on.

This said, I hope the references above help you for your essay, and good luck!

[paganimagevault]

Marriage of Alexander and Roxana by Il Sodoma, 1517 CE

"Roxana (c. 340 – 310 BC, Ancient Greek: Ῥωξάνη; Old Iranian: *Raṷxšnā- "shining, radiant, brilliant, little star"; sometimes Roxanne, Roxanna, Rukhsana, Roxandra and Roxane) was a Sogdian or a Bactrian princess who Alexander the Great married after defeating Darius, ruler of the Achaemenid Empire, and invading Persia. The exact date of her birth is unknown, but she was probably in her early teens at the time of her wedding.

Alexander married Roxana despite opposition from his companions who would have preferred a Macedonian or other Greek to become queen. However, the marriage was also politically advantageous as it made the Sogdian army more loyal towards Alexander and less rebellious after their defeat.

To encourage a better acceptance of his government among the Persians, Alexander also married Stateira II, the daughter of the deposed Persian king Darius III.

After Alexander's sudden death at Babylon in 323 BC, Roxana is believed to have murdered Stateira. According to Plutarch, she also had Stateira's sister, Drypetis, murdered with the consent of Perdiccas.

By 317, Roxana's son, called Alexander IV lost his kingship as a result of intrigues started by Philip Arrhidaeus' wife, Eurydice II. Afterwards, Roxana and the young Alexander were protected by Alexander the Great's mother, Olympias, in Macedonia. Following Olympias' assassination in 316 BC, Cassander imprisoned Roxana and her son in the citadel of Amphipolis. Their detention was condemned by the Macedonian general Antigonus in 315 BC. In 311 BC, a peace treaty between Antigonus and Cassander confirmed the kingship of Alexander IV but also Cassander as his guardian, following which the Macedonians demanded his release. However, Cassander ordered Glaucias of Macedon to kill Alexander and Roxana. It is assumed that they were murdered in spring 310 BC, but their death was concealed until the summer. The two were killed after Heracles, a son of Alexander the Great's mistress Barsine, was murdered, bringing the Argead dynasty to an end."

-taken from Wikipedia

[gemsofgreece]

Because unfortunately the internet doesn't have any lists of famous couples in Greek history aside of course... Greek mythology.. i know of Pericles- Aspasia/ Theodora- Justinian but i am very sure there are many more.

Can you make a list of famous couples in Greek history starting from ancient times until 20th century?

I am not perfectly sure how to approach this though. Are we talking about couples both members of which contributed to history? Or just a famous couple we know existed? Also, is this only about history or does it include famous couples culture-wise? Do they both have to necessarily be Greeks by descent? There are many questions I have but I will give it a try.

Periclés & Aspasia (5th century BC)

Aspasia was the sister-in-law of Alcibiades who brought her too with him in Athens from her hometown Miletus in Asia Minor. Aspasia worked as a high-class courtesan, a hetaera. She is perceived in two different ways by Ancient Greeks: either as a vulgar promiscuous woman or as a philosopher and an intellectual. Maybe the truth was somewhere in between. She had a son with Pericles, the most prominent politician of Classical Athens. It is suggested that Perciles heard her council and took her opinions regarding politics into account.

Socrátes & Xanthippe (5th-4th century BC)

Not exactly a role model of a pairing but a famous one nonetheless. For one, the most famous Greek philosopher, Socrates, must have been a LOT older and his marriage to Xanthippe might have not even be his only one. On the other hand, many sources seem to agree that Xanthippe was a notoriously temperamental person and she would mistreat Socrates, who viewed this as an opportunity to practice the values of patience and forbearance.

Crates & Hipparcheía (4th century BC)

Crates of Thebes was a cynical philosopher, whom Hipparcheia of Maroneia met and fell madly in love with. She insisted that (the unattractive) Crates would be the only one she would be having, leading her wealthy parents to despair. The parents asked Crates to talk her out of it himself and Crates complied! He removed his clothes and showed himself to Hipparcheia, telling her: "That's all you'll be getting in a life with me". He did not phase Hipparcheia one bit and eventually the parents ceded and allowed Crates to marry her. They are notorious for a little too much PDA (they were having sex publicly) which scandalised Ancient Greeks a great deal. Their relationship was one of mutual love and respect and living on equal terms together. Hipparcheia not only embraced but started practicing philosophy and totally immersed herself in the respective lifestyle of cynicism as well.

[???] Cleopatra & Antonius (1st century BC)

I don't know if they count since Antonius AKA Mark Antony was not Greek, however Cleopatra was a member of the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and their story essentially sealed the Greek future. Mark Antony was a Roman general who opposed to Julius Caesar´s assassins and allied with the latter´s relative Octavian. Later, however, their relationship was strained leading to a form of civil war in the Roman Empire. The reason was that Mark Antony had a long affair with the Queen of Egypt Cleopatra, even had three kids with her, and now favoured promoting Caesarion (Cleopatra´s son from her past affair with Caesar) to the Roman throne instead of Octavian. Mark Antony was defeated by Octavian in the Battle of Actium in Greek territory and then again in the Battle of Alexandria. Knowing there was no hope for them at this point, Cleopatra and Antonius committed suicide together and this generally is viewed as the "official" end of any form of Hellenistic hegemony in the now completely Roman empire.

[???] Justinian & Theodora (5th - 6th century AD)

The question marks are because Theodora was of Greek descent but Justinian was not. Justinian was one of the most successful emperors of the East Roman / Byzantine Empire, making it reach its widest borders, including "reconquests" of the fast dissolving Western Roman Empire. He also achieved or rather imposed the peace in the internal affairs of the empire, sometimes with the use of a lot of violence. It is believed that he was very influenced by his wife Empress Theodora, who was hardened by her very humble origins (she was likely a prostitute). Theodora was extremely strong-minded and contributed a lot to the strong image built around her husband. Furthermore, she contributed to the making of laws for the improvement of the position of women in the society. Most sources agree Justinian was crazy for her, while it is uncertain whether Theodora was loyal to him.

Surviving mosaics of Justinian and Theodora in a Byzantine Church in Italy.

Kassianí and Theóphilos (9th century AD)

These two have become a romance in legends more than they might have actually been in their real life. Still, their affair or lack thereof, technically, has a significant enough impact on Greek and Greek Orthodox culture so they should be mentioned. The Byzantine Emperor Theophilos invited all the prettiest maidens of the empire to his court in order to pick a wife. Amongst them, Kassiani was the one who stood out both in looks and intellect. The emperor stood before her and offered her a golden apple, token of his affection and proposal. It is totally unclear what was happening in Theophilos' brain at the moment but of all things he could say to impress her, he chose to tell her something very sexist. Kassiani ended him on the spot with her response and did not take the apple. The emperor, humiliated in front of all his court, gave the apple to Theodora (another one!), another fine lady standing next to Kassiani. For all we know, this could be the end of it. But Kassiani's choice to never marry and isolate herself in a monastery instead has created legends and speculations that it was due to her heartbreak. In any case, Kassiani proceeded to become the most (or only) significant female psalm composer and poetess in the history of the empire and her psalms and hymns are used in the Service of the Orthodox Church during the Holy Week of Easter. Meanwhile, Theophilos fell ill early in his life and died young. It is said / speculated that when he felt death was near, Theophilos visited Kassiani in her monastery to see her one last time. Kassiani saw his carriage approach and hid herself in a closet to avoid the temptation. Theophilos entered her cell and saw nothing but the psalm she was composing at the time on a table. He read it and added the last line himself. He understood she was hiding from him, respected this and left. Kassiani got out, read the hymn and kept Theophilos' addition. Since then, the last verse of this hymn is attributed to Theophilos. For more about Kassiani and what exactly were the notorious exchanges they had that separated them as well as how the content of this hymn is essentially what led to these speculations, read this older post I had made.

Mantó Mavroyénus & Demétrios Ypsilantis (19th century)

A romance that flourished amidst the years of the Greek Independence War. Demetrios led many of the battles against the Ottoman army, however he is a little overshadowed by the more tragic story of his brother, Alexander Ypsilantis, who was the overall leader of the Friendly Society (the secret organisation which plotted and spread the fervor for the Greek Revolution). Meanwhile, Manto was the daughter of a wealthy aristocratic Greek expat in Italy, who was also a member of the Friendly Society. When the war broke out, Manto first tried to raise awareness about the Greek cause in France. Soon, she departed for Mykonos island, the place of her descent, with a large part of her fortune. She bought ships and created her own fleet, sending them and her men to many battles in the islands. She later participated in several battles in mainland Greece as well. There she met Demetrios and they got engaged. She became renowned in all of Europe at the time for her beauty and activity. The couple was in love and they were adored by the Greeks, who really liked that union of brave noble Greek role models. A prominent and very corrupted politician, Ioannis Koletis, did not share the sentiment. Fearing that the couple was gaining too much power and influence over the public, that could eventually turn political, he started a relentless defamation of Manto to her fiancé. He spread his lies so that Manto's reputation was ruined. Ashamed, Demetrios broke up with her. Manto returned to her home island heartbroken and penniless as she had given all her fortune for causes of the war. After the official indepedence of the Greek state, the enlightened governor Ioannis Kapodistrias restored her reputation and gave her the honorary title of Lieutenant general. Around the same time, Demetrios passed away young as he had always frail health.

Penelópe Delta & Ion Dragumis (19th - 20th century)

A famous love story rather than a couple. Ion Dragumis was a prominent young politician and the biggest adversary of the famous Greek politician Eleftherios Venizelos. He was very sophisticated, seductive and a smooth womanizer. He drew the attention of the slightly older author Penelope Delta, who at the time was already a mother of three. Delta fell so madly in love that she had the guts to reveal the truth to her husband and ask for a divorce. Her husband refused, trying to protect both his and her reputation. However, Delta's passion for Dragumis was so fierce that neither the husband nor her father could fight it. They eventually gave her an ultimatum that she had to choose either her children or leave the children to the father and go away with Dragumis. Delta chose to stay with her children but her desire was such that she attempted suicide multiple times. Meanwhile, Dragumis went on with his life and started an open affair with the famous actress Marika Kotopuli, without any intent to marry, which was very scandalous for the time. When Delta heard of this affair she started dressing in black, as if in grief, and kept doing it until the end of her days. At some point, there was an attempt at an assasination of Venizelos in Paris. Fanatic supporters of his in Athens, believing mistakenly that his big adversary Dragumis was behind it, trapped him and shot him in the middle of a street. Delta dedicated some of her later activity to sort out and copy a lot of Dragumis' drafts full of thoughts and ideas, that his brother had entrusted with her. Apart from this, Delta kept writing novels that made her the most prominent female writer of her time in Greece. She had reached her sixties when, in 1941, the Nazi Germans invaded Athens. On that day, she finally committed suicide by drinking poison. For more details, read this older post about Ion Dragumis' love life.

Kostas Karyotakis & Maria Polyduri (20th century)

Two young people, brought apart by their very different personalities and brought together by the fact that they both happened to be poets. The young couple fell madly in love. Karyotakis was a very timid and bashful man, full of insecurities and suicidal thoughts. On the other hand, Polyduri was a raging emancipated extrovert, which caused judgement at the time. Although they were very much in love and dreamed to elope together, Karyotakis was afraid of the bold lifestyle of Polyduri and the judgement it caused. When the girl even took the initiative to propose to him, the young man was so taken aback and panicked that he lied to her that it was no use, because he suffered from syphilis and therefore they should not consumate the marriage. Polyduri did not believe him but she was very heartbroken by his rejection. She departed for Paris where she continued her bohemian lifestyle, maybe taking it too far, until they found her unconscious in a narrow alley. She was diagnosed with tuberculosis and was taken to the sanatorium in Athens. As she was fighting for her life, she learnt that in her absence her past lover had finally committed suicide. His suicide note is very famous, as he describes how he initially tried to kill himself by drowning in the sea but failed because he was a skilled swimmer. He resorted to a pistol. The tragic news had very adverse effects on Polyduri's fragile health. A friend of hers, maybe taking pity on her, handed her injections of morphine, with which she ended her life as well. She has left a suicidal poem, which confirms that grief was the reason she took her life.

Maria Callas & Aristotle Onassis (20th century)

A very dark couple but the lovers were two of the most internationally well known Greeks of the century. Maria Callas was a Greek American who distinguished herself for being the most famous soprano in the history of Opera. She was born in the USA to Greek parents but soon they were divorced and little Maria followed her mother and sister in Greece where she received her operatic training. Later, she spent most of her time in Italy and France for her career where she enjoyed huge success and glory. She became a symbol of music and finesse. Despite all this, Callas was a tortured soul because she constantly felt unloved and exploited, both by her family and her Italian husband at the time. She suffered from great insecurities and was often deeply melancholic. Meanwhile, Aristotle Onassis was a Greek from Smyrna (now Izmir, Turkey) whose family experienced the atrocities of the Great Fire of Smyrna (in Greek known as Asia Minor Catastrophe). He emigrated to the Americas and started building a colossal business and fortune. He became one of the globally most well known tycoons by accumulating the largest privately owned shipping fleet. His power was immense. He was insanely ambitious and wanted to taste and own all the finest things in the world. He was impressed by Callas and courted her, although he was still married to his first wife. Callas succumbed and broke up with her husband. It was certainly a status affair, however Callas saw something in him, maybe his intelligence, his ambition, that made her fall in love with him deeply. She was pushing for marriage, as she ultimately dreamt to have kids and a conventional love life but Onassis was giving her the hot and cold treatment. One day, Maria Callas famously turned on the TV in her apartment, only to see in the news that Onassis had married the widow of American president John Kennedy. I can only imagine the impact learning such a thing from the news had for the sensitive psyche of Callas. Onassis went mad with the sense of status it gave him to marry the wife of the American president. However, he never loved Jackie and they barely even interacted in their marriage. Onassis would often pay visits to Callas which did no good to her but she found it very hard to resist him even though he made her sadder and sadder still. Despite all his cleverness and strategies, Onassis became miserable with tragedies that struck his family, so much that there is a talk of the "Onassis curse", generally insinuating that he was paying for his wrongdoings. Onassis could not suffer the untimely death of his son and his health deteriorated fast. Callas visited him in his deathbed and there were sources claiming he expressed his regret to her. Callas too had a very fragile health for many years. His death is believed to have contributed to her own premature death from a heart attack two years later.

King Constantine II of Greece & Queen Anne-Marie of Greece (20th - 21st century)

Because the majority of Greeks have no positive views about the constitutional monarchy, this may seem like an odd choice, however the truth is that before the graceless fall and exile of the king, the young royal couple was adored by the Greek public because it was viewed as the quintessential romantic image of a royal fairytale. He was young and super handsome, she was super beautiful and graceful, he was the Greek king, she was the Danish princess. Their marriage may have been one of the most grande events that took place in Athens in the 20th century. The media were delirious, one magazine declaring how "we" had the most beautiful royal couple in the world and, you know, as bold a statement as it may seem, it was perhaps not far from the truth. The image of the king was forever ruined after his catastrophic choices to tolerate the Greek dictatorship and then organize a childish coup against it. The fallen royal family lived in exile for the following decades - and we can accept that they sincerely resented this - until the ex-king was allowed back in Greece in the 00s. Regardless of anything else, the two of them were a rare example of marital success and mutual devotion in the royal circles. Despite all the drama and resentment against Constantine and the institution of monarchy, the Greeks retain respect for former Queen Anne Marie, who remained graceful all this time, viewed as a perfect role model of a wife and respectable royal. Constantine passed away a year ago.

They were literally Disney.

Aliki Vouyouklaki & Dimitris Papamichaél (20th century)

I thought of ending this with a celebrity couple, certainly the most famous Greek celebrity couple. Much like it happens in such cases, the image was so very bright but the truth was darker. Despite all the toxicity, it is generally believed Vouyouklaki and Papamichael were each other's love of their life. Vouyouklaki and Papamichael were the most promising and charismatic actors of their generation. They were in the same theatrical school and developed a love-hate relationship with constant bickering. When they rose to stardom, they simply tranferred this energy to the movies they starred in together, which led to great success and immense adoration from the Greek public. Aliki Vouyouklaki retains the title of the "national star". When the two got married, their fans were losing their minds. The marital life was not peaceful as their youthful bickering had now transformed into the much darker career competition. Papamichael was a very conservative man and he was poisoned of feelings of injustice and envy when Vouyouklaki attracted more attention and acknowledgement than he did, because he thought of himself a better actor than she was. Now, that was generally true, Papamichael was a great actor with a big range for comedy and drama. Vouyouklaki has posthumously been accused of bad acting, however this is not entirely fair. She was indeed bad in drama but she was exceptional in comedy. A problem that could negatively affect her performances was that she refused to spoil her looks for a role, no matter how essential it was for the plot. Anyway, the marriage was often violent and neither of the two ceded to the other, as Vouyouklaki was extremely sharp and refused to sacrifice anything from her image, her career and her decency. Eventually, they broke up in a bad way as well. Both went on with their lives but Papamichael found it harder to cope without her. In later years, they reached a sort of mutual understanding and formed a platonic friendship of sorts. Aliki Vouyouklaki was prematurely diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In her deathbed, Papamichael would visit her and lament, and implore her to rise and go away together. After her death, which shocked and deeply grievened all of Greece, Papamichael would regularly visit her grave for the rest of his life.

And one from when they were far less glamourous but finally healthily loving / respectful to each other, with their son, because I want to end this on a good note.

Is this an early Valentine post? lol idk it takes some serious left turns

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross‐Cultural Encounters 1st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE (ATHENS, 11‐13 NOVEMBER 2006) Edited by Seyed Mohammad Reza Darbandi and Antigoni Zournatzi National Hellenic Research Foundation Cultural Center of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Athens Hellenic National Commission for UNESCO Athens, December 2008

Description The extraordinary feats of conquest of Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great have left a lasting imprint in the annals of world history. Successive Persian and Greek rule over vast stretches of territory from the Indus to the eastern Mediterranean also created an international environment in which people, commodities, technological innovations, as well as intellectual, political, and artistic ideas could circulate across the ancient world unhindered by ethno-cultural and territorial barriers, bringing about cross-fertilization between East and West. These broad patterns of cultural phenomena are illustrated in twenty-four contributions to the first international conference on ancient Greek-Iranian interactions, which was organized as a joint Greek and Iranian initiative.

Contents

Preface (Ekaterini Tzitzikosta)

Conference addresses (Dimitrios A. Kyriakidis, Seyed Taha Hashemi Toghraljerdi, Mir Jalaleddin Kazzazi, Vassos Karageorghis, Miltiades Hatzopoulos, Seyed Mohammad Reza Darbandi, Massoud Azarnoush, David Stronach)

Introduction (Seyed Mohammad Reza Darbandi and Antigoni Zournatzi)

Europe and Asia: Aeschylus’ Persians and Homer’s Iliad (Stephen Tracy)

The death of Masistios and the mourning for his loss (Hdt. 9.20-25.1) (Angeliki Petropoulou)

Magi in Athens in the fifth century BC? (Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou)

Hājīābād and the dialogue of civilizations (Massoud Azarnoush)

Zoroastrianism and Christianity in the Sasanian empire (fourth century AD) (Sara Alinia)

Greco-Persian literary interactions in classical Persian literature (Evangelos Venetis)

Pseudo-Aristotelian politics and theology in universal Islam (Garth Fowden)

The system Artaphernes-Mardonius as an example of imperial nostalgia (Michael N. Weiskopf)

Greeks and Iranians in the Cimmerian Bosporus in the second/first century BC: new epigraphic data from Tanais (Askold I. Ivantchik)

The Seleucids and their Achaemenid predecessors: a Persian inheritance? (Christopher Tuplin)

Managing an empire — teacher and pupil (G. G. Aperghis)

The building program of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae and the date of the fall of Sardis (David Stronach)

Persia and Greece: the role of cultural interactions in the architecture of Persepolis— Pasargadae (Mohammad Hassan Talebian)

Reading Persepolis in Greek— Part Two: marriage metaphors and unmanly virtues (Margaret C. Root)

The marble of the Penelope from Persepolis and its historical implications (Olga Palagia)

Cultural interconnections in the Achaemenid West: a few reflections on the testimony of the Cypriot archaeological record (Antigoni Zournatzi)

Greek, Anatolian, and Persian iconography in Asia Minor: material sources, method, and perspectives (Yannick Lintz)

Imaging a tomb chamber: the iconographic program of the Tatarlı wall paintings (Lâtife Summerer). Appendix: Tatarli Project: reconstructing a wooden tomb chamber (Alexander von Kienlin)

The Achaemenid lion-griffin on a Macedonian tomb painting and on a Sicyonian mosaic (Stavros A. Paspalas)

Psychotropic plants on Achaemenid style vessels (Despina Ignatiadou)

Achaemenid toreutics in the Greek periphery (Athanasios Sideris)

Achaemenid influences on Rhodian minor arts and crafts (Pavlos Triantafyllidis)

Historical Iranian and Greek relations in retrospect (Mehdi Rahbar)

Persia and Greece: a forgotten history of cultural relations (Shahrokh Razmjou)

The editors Seyed Mohammad Reza Darbandi is General Director of Cultural Offices of the Islamic Republic of Iran for Europe and the Americas. Antigoni Zournatzi is Senior Researcher in the Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation. Her work focuses on the relations between Achaemenid Persia and the West.

The whole volume can be found as pdf on:

[jeannereames]

Do you think that Alexander was truly liked by those around him, in a personal level? True friendship. Not really Hephaistion but also like Ptolemy, Seleucus, Roxanne, Arrhidaios, those who grew up with him or were his closest circle. Or was it all cynical politics?

Found it! That was weird. Appearing/disappearing asks?

Did the people around Alexander like him?

Did the people around Alexander like him? Hephaistion did. But the rest?

The asker refers to his personal circle, but I want to address this more broadly. I’ll return to his personal circle at the end.

First, we must beware of that pesky “shading” by later authors as part of their attempts to use Alexander’s career for commentary on their own time. They meant to show how success and power spoilt him and made him into a tyrant. That said, I believe he was well-liked overall. Yet things did change over time.

He began as king of a (relatively) small kingdom in northern Greece where all a Macedonian had to do before addressing him was to take off his hat—didn’t even use the title “King.” By his death, he’d taken over in a tradition that depicted rulers as “King of Kings” and “King of the Four Quarters” [e.g., the Whole World], even a god-king (Egypt). Going from (little) Macedonia to (enormous) Asia naturally cut down on his availability to soldiers and even his own Companions/Hetairoi—which pissed them off. Partly, it was simple logistics. He had too many responsibilities, and too many people wanted a piece of his time. Yet after Darius’s death in 330, he also added layers of court ceremonial to better align with ancient near eastern royal expectations and secure Persian respect.

That alienated his own people (maybe more than he expected). However exaggerated I believe the objections to his adoption of Persian custom, there’s little doubt it wasn’t well-received by traditionalists who preferred their kings approachable. Now, be aware: that approachability was more curated than our sources admit, as these sources inflated shifts to serve their own themes. Macedonian kings had bodyguards for a reason, and certain aspects of divine charisma were associated with their physical person (see below). The average citizen could NOT just wander up to one for a chat. Even so, elaborate Persian ceremonial was quite alien to Macedonia.

Nor was such ceremonial required of Macedonians in 330; our sources note that Alexander was essentially running two parallel courts with differing expectations. Nonetheless, the Macedonians took exception to the changes, offended to see “their” king “succumb” to foreign ways. He was getting uppity. They may also have feared it would trickle down to them eventually, even if it hadn’t yet.

Kleitos the Black’s exact words to Alexander in their infamous, alcohol-fueled spat is 99% invented. (Except maybe the line from Euripides; I’m least suspicious of that.) Some of it involved a play mocking officers who’d died recently at the Marakanda massacre as a means to absolve Alexander, who hadn’t been present, but whose failure to clarify the chain of command got them killed. I suspect that was a lot of it. But as with all “straw that broke the camel’s back” fights, it quickly escalated into a litany of complaints. Some of those were about the changes at the court. And Kleitos didn’t survive the encounter.

Alexander’s remorse appears to have been genuine. And the fact the army was ready to convict Kleitos of treason after-the-fact, said a lot about their empathy for the king. Nonetheless, after that, NOTHING was the same for his inner circle. In the right circumstance, he might kill you. And the army would absolve him of it.

Yet the army didn’t regard every negative act by Alexander as forgivable. They were not willing to overlook the murder of Parmenion. If they could understand/see themselves getting worked up enough to kill even a good friend when drunk, the cold, calculated removal of a potential (not even demonstrated) political threat was something else again. Especially a threat who’d served Alexander (and Philip) with such distinction.

E.g., nuance is required when assessing soldierly opinion.

A couple more things suggest Alexander was—overall—beloved:

1. At the battle of Granikos, he was elected the ancient equivalent of MVP; an award made by soldiers. He accepted, then never allowed his own name to be in the running again. Yet it was an award from the soldiers, and means he was respected not just as a leader, but as a fighter.

2. During both so-called “mutinies,” the soldiers didn’t want to kill him, they only wanted him to change his policies. If there’s some doubt the first actually occurred, the second at Opis certainly did. Yet when he showed the soldiers what it would mean to reject him (he replaced them), they came crying for his forgiveness. They didn’t say, “Good riddance” and head home.

3. On his deathbed, the Macedonian soldiers clamored so to see him that his top officers had to knock down a palace wall in order for them to parade through and say a final goodbye.

Now, that’s soldiers. What about his Companions/Hetairoi? At this high level, liking or disliking also involved personal advancement and family position—as the asker alluded to.

Those willing to “play ball” (so to speak)—go along with Alexander’s changes—had a whole new world opened. This wasn’t just his personal circle but included figures such as Krateros who understood what side his bread was buttered on. I’m not sure how much love was lost between him and Alexander, but they certainly respected each other. There were others who fell into this category, such as Koinos and Kleitos the White. Non-Macedonians/Greeks too, who may have seen him as a road to higher office than they’d held under Darius, or perhaps just to survival. Although I do think Poros and Alexander had a Moment; Poros remained loyal even after it served him to do so, despite his own son’s death at the Battle of Hydaspes. Something actually clicked with those two, I believe.

As for those who grew up with him—Hephaistion, Perdikkas, Leonnatos, Seleukos, Lysimakos … it seems they did like him, even if they didn’t always like each other. Seleukos was responsible for Perdikkas’s murder, in the Successor Wars later. There were others, but those names float to the top again and again. Similarly, although older, Harpalos, Ptolemy, Erigyios, and Laomedon all got themselves exiled for his sake. And Alexander never forgot it. The man who brought news to Alexander of Harpalos’s first flight (due to embezzling) was initially arrested for a false report. Alexander simply didn’t believe his friend had betrayed him.

 And it wasn’t just those men. The tale of Alexander drinking a medical potion given him by his doctor Philip—despite a missive from Parmenion warning him about Philip—became famous as a tale of trust. And sure enough, the drought cured the king, so ATG’s trust was well-placed. A later story about Alexander locking up Lysimachos in a cage with a lion in punishment is almost certainly bogus (with overtones of Roman-era stuff). Other evidence suggests great affection for his men. That’s perhaps why Philotas’s failure to inform him about a conspiracy endangering his life came as such a blow.

One may wonder if some of those guys, like the talented—and older—Krateros, didn’t want to replace him as king? Certainly after his death, they did vie to be kings.* Periodically, I run across some misguided person arguing that Philotas and/or Parmenion wanted to take his place, hence the conspiracy. It’s even embedded in our ancient sources, which didn’t understand Macedonian kingship (were thinking on Roman models).

But those men couldn’t be kings. They weren’t Argeads, and it mattered. (Such supposition also assumes they were part of the real conspiracy, rather than Philotas simply being an arrogant dumbfuck who failed to report it.)

The Argeads had Royal Charisma. Charis is a gift from the gods: literally. It can be beauty and grace, sure, but at its base, it simply means “favor.” The difference between a king and a tyrant was that the former had charis by descent. The men who became tyrants (or tried and failed) all believed they had it too, but by their own demonstrated aretē and timē. That’s why they were never just popular Joe Blow off the street. They were Olympic victors, winning generals, etc.  All were also aristocrats and fully intended to establish their own royal dynasties…but failed.

Until the Hellenistic Age. The Successors were just tyrants who made it work. Some (like Seleukos) even created mythological origins for themselves. Daniel Ogden has a good book on the creation of this myth: The Legend of Seleucus: Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World. If you’re curious about how all those things go into charis, I recommend it.

It’s not enough to be competent. One also needed the gods’ blessing. Charisma. That’s why Alexander’s officers might compete with and snipe at each other…but not with/at him.*

As for figures such as Roxane or Oxyathres (Darius’s brother who joined ATG’s court after Darius’s murder), it’s impossible to know what their opinion of him would have been. We have zero reliable evidence. It would seem Sisygambis (Darius’s mother) genuinely liked him. But again, this may have served later narratives, so I wouldn’t swear to it. She might have just made the best of a bad situation.

So! The final vote is that he seems to have been more popular/well-received than not … for a rather ruthless ancient world conqueror. Ha. I think that’s part of his eternal fascination. He’d be far less interesting if he’d simply been a monster.

Also, I forgot, but I did a separate post a while back on a related topic: Did Alexander's Companions Like Each Other

————————

* It took some years before the Successors started using the title “King” (Basileus). Antigonos Monophthalmos was the first, if I remember right, around the same time Alexander IV was murdered by Kassandros—and he didn’t claim the title himself. It was given him by Athens. Up to that point, they’d all simply called themselves “governors” and/or “regents.” Even if they might have been privately considering how to become kings in their own right, the charisma of Macedonian kingship belonged to the Argeads. Getting rid of Alexander IV (quietly), then Olympias’s murder of Philip III Arrhidaios and Hadea Eurydike left no Argeads. Then Alexander’s empire could become “spear won” territory.

[wishesofeternity]

... Ancient sources tell us nothing directly about the personality, character, world view or even the appearance of the daughter of Neoptolemus (Olympias) as her wedding entourage set off over the Pindus Mountains in the direction of her new kingdom. However, based on what is known about her life and background, we can speculate about her views and circumstance as she began her public career.

Though only in her mid- to late teens, this young woman had already experienced a great deal. While still a young child, she had seen her father lose sole control of his kingdom. A possibly tense period of uncertain duration followed in which he and his brother shared rule. Then her father Neoptolemus died, leaving his children in what may well have seemed the sinister guardianship of their uncle. Probably soon after that, her uncle married her sister. Shortly before Olympias’ betrothal, the Illyrians invaded her country. Frontinus (2.5.19) reports that Arybbas sent the non-combatants as refugees into Aetolia, while he and whatever army he could gather withdrew to the mountains in order to utilize guerrilla tactics against the much larger invading force. Presumably Olympias and her sister would have endured the danger of the invasion and the uncertainty of evacuation. More recently yet, Olympias had made the long journey to Samothrace. Even before her entry into Macedonia, Olympias had dealt with political intrigue, physical danger, and the loss of her most powerful protector, and had traveled to two different foreign territories. Her life began, much as it would end, in uncertainty and danger.

Despite her early entry into the world of power politics and violence, as my comparison and contrast of the two kingdoms should have implied, the society Olympias would encounter in Macedonia, though likely much less alien to her than that of Thebes or Athens, would have been different from her previous experience. Philip’s court was certainly richer and more cosmopolitan than that of Arybbas, or at least it became so soon after her arrival. Military activity and success mattered more in the Macedonian court. The climate and terrain around Pella and Aegae, the Macedonian capitals, was much milder than that of Olympias’ homeland. Philip had more power over the Macedonians than her uncle did over the Molossians. As we shall see, Philip already had several wives and children (and may have had concubines in residence, as well). Despite the fact that Olympias had grown up in a court that was itself not without intrigue, the level of complexity that she would encounter in the court of Philip would be far greater than that of Arybbas (although Olympias would surely have been warned to expect the presence of the other wives).

It is particularly difficult to assess Olympias’ probable attitude toward her coming marriage. Literature written by Greek women stresses the pain and loss of identity the break between the world (family and friends) of a young unmarried girl and a bride occasioned. Olympias’ distance from the land of her birth could have exacerbated this feeling. However, since her father was dead, her mother may have been, and we do not know how well she got on with her uncle and how comfortable she was at his court, we cannot tell whether she would have been glad to leave.

What we do know is that she brought her pride in her lineage with her. Hers was a more prestigious marriage than that of any previous Aeacid woman and, if her wedding were indeed held at a major Macedonian festival, her nuptials were more elaborate and public than those of previous Molossian royal women. Olympias’ Aeacid descent would continue to be a support and source of identity to herself and both her children.

In her subsequent career, Olympias consistently pursued her son’s and then her grandson’s political interests, tending to regard any check on their power, the prominence of any other figure, as a threat to them. Herself the product of a relatively weak monarchic system, she regularly attempted to create a situation which enabled both her male kin and herself to act more absolutely. This response was probably instinctive, certainly not at first a conscious plan or policy, though it would become one. Olympias was, like Philip, a person with a knack for seeing the possibilities for exploitation in a situation. Even early on in her Macedonian career, she demonstrated that. If Olympias the young girl was anything like Olympias the mature woman, then she would have been aware of many of the dangers and complications awaiting her, but she would not have been fearful and she would not have been timid.

- Elizabeth Carney, Olympias: Mother of Alexander the Great

[planet-gay-comic]

Kings and Their Lovers

Male Kings and Their Homoromantic or Erotic Relationships from Antiquity to Modern Times History offers numerous examples of male rulers who had homoromantic or erotic relationships with other men. These connections were often complex and influenced by cultural, societal, and personal factors. Here are some remarkable examples:

Antiquity

Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) The Macedonian king and famous conqueror had a particularly close relationship with Hephaestion, his childhood friend and confidant. Plutarch described Hephaestion as "Alexander's lover." After Hephaestion's death, Alexander was inconsolable and ordered a nationwide mourning. The Persian eunuch Bagoas is also mentioned in ancient sources as Alexander's lover.

Emperor Hadrian (76–138 AD) The Roman emperor is known for his passionate relationship with the young Greek Antinous. When Antinous drowned in the Nile, Hadrian was devastated. He had his lover deified, founded the city of Antinoopolis, and erected statues of Antinous throughout the empire. These actions testify to Hadrian's deep affection and grief.

Middle Ages

Richard the Lionheart (1157–1199) Richard I of England had a close relationship with Philip II of France. Contemporary chroniclers described how the two kings "ate from the same table and drank from the same cup every night" and "slept in the same bed." Although the exact nature of their relationship remains disputed, such reports suggest a very intimate connection.

Edward II of England (1284–1327) Edward II had an intense relationship with Piers Gaveston, which chroniclers of the time described as excessively intimate. Later, he developed a similarly close relationship with Hugh Despenser the Younger. These connections led to political tensions and ultimately contributed to Edward's deposition.

Modern Times

James I of England (1566–1625) James, also known as James VI of Scotland, had several close relationships with men. Particularly notable was his connection with George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. In letters, James called Villiers "my sweet child and wife" and "my dear Venus boy." This correspondence indicates a passionate and intimate relationship.

Louis XIV of France (1638–1715) Although the Sun King is primarily known for his female mistresses, there are indications of intimate relationships with men. The Duke of Saint-Simon reported in his memoirs of several homosexual affairs at court, including one between Louis and his brother Philippe, Duke of Orléans.

Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712–1786) Frederick had close relationships with several men, particularly Hans Hermann von Katte in his youth. Although Frederick married, the marriage remained childless and distant. Instead, he surrounded himself with a circle of close male friends and confidants.

Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886) Known as the "Fairy Tale King," Ludwig II had close and presumably romantic relationships with several men. Particularly well-known are his connections to Richard Hornig, his stable master, and Paul von Thurn und Taxis. Ludwig's homosexuality was an open secret during his lifetime and contributed to the accusations that led to his dethronement.

Modern Era

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (1868–1918) Although later married, the last Russian Tsar had a close relationship as a young man with his cousin, Prince Nicholas of Greece. In letters, he described their "special friendship" and the "wonderful nights" they spent together.

These examples show that same-sex relationships among rulers were not uncommon. The nature and perception of such connections varied greatly depending on the cultural and historical context. While some relationships were lived relatively openly, others remained hidden due to societal norms and political implications or were only hinted at in documentation.

It is important to note that modern concepts of sexual orientation and identity cannot be directly applied to historical figures. Many of these rulers would not have identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual, as these terms did not exist in their time. Their relationships must be understood in the context of their respective culture and time.

Nevertheless, these historical examples offer important insights into the diversity of human relationships and show that same-sex love and affection existed even at the highest levels of power.

Text supported by GPT-4o, Claude AI

Image generated with SD1.5. Overworked with inpainting (SD1.5/SDXL) and composing.

[fatehbaz]

"From a deep history perspective, Ottoman rule in Iraq — the land of ancient Babylonia — was a political oddity," writes Faisal Husain in Rivers of the Sultan: The Tigris and Euphrates In the Ottoman Empire. "In its millennia-long history, Iraq was never ruled from Istanbul before the sixteenth century… among the most distant imperial capitals to ever govern Babylonia for any considerable stretch of time were Persepolis and Antioch in the second half of the first millennium BC. But Achaemenid and Macedonian rule in Iraq pales into insignificance compared to what the Ottomans accomplished from the sixteenth century, ruling from a far more distant capital and for a far longer span."

Of central concern to the Ottomans were control and management of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. [...] Challenges posed by the environment are nothing new, though; earlier societies had their own environmental issues to resolve. For the Ottomans, the two major rivers of Iraq were essential for building a sustainable political order, which would benefit not only Istanbul and Iraq, but also other parts of their empire. Indeed, many empires have sought to conquer or spring from that region. In 1534, Sultan Suleyman (the Magnificent) seized Baghdad during his war with the Persian Safavids; thus began Iraq's long Ottoman history.

---

"Before his departure from Baghdad in March 1535, Suleyman I personally ordered officials to do everything necessary to secure the river crossings," writes Husain. This directive included everything from building bridges to developing trade routes across Iraq and building infrastructure to support the use of the rivers. Traffic police kept the bridges secure and controlled foot and boat traffic while collecting tolls. 

The scale of the Ottoman project was enormous and, "following the Ottoman unification of the Tigris and Euphrates, the largest fortresses along the rivers — Aleppo, Diyarbakir, Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra — received considerable financial support from Istanbul to improve their communication infrastructure." [...]

---

When building the river infrastructure, the Ottomans took into account the history of the region and local hydrologic traditions. According to Husain, "The Ottoman state fashioned itself as the guardians of the traditional wisdom of society — tried and true laws, values, and procedures. A traditional posture called for Ottoman intervention in water management to follow the example of ancient rulers and thus preserve the 'natural' order of things."

While there were numerous practical reasons for this, there seems also to have been a political incentive, as seventeenth century Ottoman travel writer Evliya Celebi noted on his 1656 visit to Baghdad. "The land of Iraq is more prosperous than it was in the age of the caliphs," he wrote. Husain argues that the point Celebi is making here is that Istanbul's local legitimacy depended partially upon creating a smooth connection with Iraq's "glorious past".

Irrigation was also a major part of the Ottoman's political ideology, known as the "circle of justice". This concept links economic prosperity with good governance and social justice; for the Ottomans, Iraq's waterways were essential to wealth creation as well as political and social harmony.

---

All text above by: Usman Butt. In a book review of Faisal H. Husain’s Rivers of the Sultan: The Tigris and the Euphrates in the Ottoman Empire. Published online in Review - Books and Review sections at Middle East Monitor on 28 March 2022. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[darylelockhart]

Never mind Cleopatra – what about the forgotten queens of ancient Nubia?

by Yasmin Moll, University of Michigan

Jada Pinkett Smith’s new Netflix documentary series on Cleopatra aims to spotlight powerful African queens. “We don’t often get to see or hear stories about Black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them,” the Hollywood star and producer told a Netflix interviewer.

The show casts a biracial Black British actress as the famed queen, whose race has stirred debate for decades. Cleopatra descended from an ancient Greek-Macedonian ruling dynasty known as the Ptolemies, but some speculate that her mother may have been an Indigenous Egyptian. In the trailer, Black classics scholar Shelley Haley recalls her grandmother telling her, “I don’t care what they tell you in school, Cleopatra was Black.”

These ideas provoked commentary and even outrage in Egypt, Cleopatra’s birthplace. Some of the reactions have been unabashedly racist, mocking the actress’s curly hair and skin color.

Egyptian archaeologists like Monica Hanna have criticized this racism. Yet they also caution that projecting modern American racial categories onto Egypt’s ancient past is inaccurate. At worst, critics argue, U.S. discussions about Cleopatra’s identity overlook Egyptians entirely.

In Western media, she is commonly depicted as white – most famously, perhaps, by screen icon Elizabeth Taylor. Yet claims by American Afrocentrists that current-day Egyptians are descendants of “Arab invaders” also ignore the complicated histories that characterize this diverse part of the world. A relief depicting the Nubian Kandake Amanitore in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. Sven-Steffen Arndt/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Some U.S. scholars counter that ultimately what matters is to “recognize Cleopatra as culturally Black,” representing a long history of oppressing Black women. Portraying Cleopatra with a Black actress was a “political act,” as the show’s director put it.

Ironically, however, the show misses an opportunity to educate both American and Egyptian audiences about the unambiguously Black queens of ancient Nubia, a civilization whose history is intertwined with Egypt’s. As an anthropologist of Egypt who has Nubian heritage, I research how the stories of these queens continue to inspire Nubians, who creatively retell them for new generations today.

The one-eyed queen

Nubians in modern Egypt once lived mainly along the Nile but lost their villages when the Aswan High Dam was built in the 1960s. Today, members of the minority group live alongside other Egyptians all over the country, as well as in a resettlement district near the southern city of Aswan.

Growing up in Cairo’s Nubian community, we children didn’t hear about Cleopatra, but about Amanirenas: a warrior queen who ruled the Kingdom of Kush during the first century B.C.E. Queens in that ancient kingdom, encompassing what is now southern Egypt and northern Sudan, were referred to as “kandake” – the root of the English name “Candace.” A comic inspired by the story of Amanirenas. Chris Walker, Creative Director, Lymari Media/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Like Cleopatra, Amanirenas knew Roman generals up close. But while Cleopatra romanced them – strategically – Amanirenas fought them. She led an army up the Nile about 25 B.C.E. to wage battle against Roman conquerors encroaching on her kingdom.

My own favorite part of this story of Indigenous struggle against foreign imperialism involves what can only be characterized as a power move. After beating back the invading Romans, Queen Amanirenas brought back the bronze head of a statue of the emperor Augustus and had it buried under a temple doorway. Each time they entered the temple, her people could literally walk over a symbol of Roman power.

That colorful tidbit illustrates those queens’ determination to defend their autonomy and territory. Amanirenas personally engaged in combat and earned the moniker “the one-eyed queen,” according to an ancient chronicler of the Roman Empire named Strabo. The kandakes were also spiritual leaders and patrons of the arts, and they supported the construction of grand monuments and temples, including pyramids. A pyramid of Kandake Amanitore amid the Nubian pyramids of Meroe. mtcurado/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Interwoven cultures and histories

When people today say “Nubia,” they are often referring to the Kingdom of Kush, one of several empires that emerged in ancient Nubia. Archaeologists have recently started to bring Kush to broader public attention, arguing that its achievements deserve as much attention as ancient Egypt’s.

Indeed, those two civilizations are entwined. Kushite royals adapted many Egyptian cultural and religious practices to their own ends. What’s more, a Kushite dynasty ruled Egypt itself for close to a century.

Contemporary Nubian heritage reflects that historical complexity and richness. While their traditions and languages remain distinctive, Nubians have been intermarrying with other communities in Egypt for generations. Nubians like my mother are proudly Egyptian, yet hurtful stereotypes persist. Hafsa Amberkab, right, and Fatma Addar, Nubian Egyptian women who compiled a dictionary, show off a Nubian lexical chart near Aswan in upper Egypt. Khaled Desouki/AFP via Getty Images

Today, some Black Americans embrace Cleopatra as a powerful symbol of Black pride. But the idea of ancient Nubia as a powerful African civilization also plays a symbolic role in contemporary Black culture, inspiring images in everything from cosmetics to comics.

Egyptian voices

Researchers do argue about Cleopatra’s heritage. U.S. conversations about her, however, sometimes reveal more about Western racial politics than about Egyptian history.

In the 19th century, for example, Western interest in ancient Egypt took off amid colonization – a fascination called “Egyptomania.” Americans’ fixation with the ancient civilization reflected their own culture’s anxieties about race in the decades after slavery was abolished, as scholar Scott Trafton has argued.

A century later, a 1990s advertisement for a pale-colored doll of queen Nefertiti sparked debate in the U.S. about how to represent her race.

Nefertiti’s bust – one of the most famous artifacts from ancient Egypt – is on display at a German museum. Egypt has called for the artifact’s return for close to a hundred years, to no avail. Even Hitler took a personal interest in the bust, declaring that he “will not renounce the queen’s head,” according to archaeologist Joyce Tyldesley. The famed and fought-over bust of Queen Nefertiti. Francis G. Mayer/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

Even today, contemporary Egyptian perspectives are almost absent in Western depictions of ancient Egypt. Only one Egyptian scholar is interviewed in the new Netflix series’ four episodes, as he himself notes, and he is employed not by an Egyptian university, but by a British one.

For many Egyptians, this lack of representation rehashes troubling colonial dynamics about who is considered an “expert” about their past. The Netflix series “was made and produced without the involvement of the owners of this history,” argues the Egyptian journalist Sara Khorshed in a review of the series.

To be sure, there is anti-Black bias in Egyptian culture, and some of the social media reaction has been slur-filled and racist. Educating people about the stories of Nubian queens like Amarinenas might be a way to encourage a more inclusive understanding of who is Egyptian.

Yet I believe Egyptians’ frustrations about portrayals of Cleopatra also reflect long-standing concerns that their own understandings of their past are not taken seriously.

That includes Black Egyptians, like my mother. When I asked her if she planned to see the Cleopatra series, she shrugged. She already knows that queen’s story well from its many portrayals on screen, whether in Hollywood films or Egyptian ones.

“I will wait for the series on Amanirenas,” she said.

Yasmin Moll, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.