Following on from my previous post, despite everything, I still have in my mind the question of what a de-mythologised Alexander would look like if he came among us today.
In this respect, one name sticks firmly with me: Ernest Hemingway.
Like Alexander, Hemingway was a man of genius – for military, read literary. And like Alexander, Hemingway lived a larger-than-life life: bull fighting, war reporting, sailing, big game hunting, drinking… he did it all and more: airplane crashes, multiple marriages, and somehow, cats (in place of Bucephalas), lots of cats, and even - possibly - two religious conversions.
As for Alexander: he too liked to hunt, and drink; he never flew in an aeroplane (except in the Alexander Romance. Kind of) but was injured multiple times on his expedition to the east; he took religion very seriously and was married three times (slightly different circumstances to Hemingway but let’s not quibble).
If you believe the Alexander historians, the end of the conqueror’s life was marred by a mind gone wild: suspicion, fear, megalomania. All caused by the way he had lived. Hemingway’s life took its toll on him as well, leading to his suicide in 1961.
I love Hemingway’s books. If I met him I’d probably be scared stiff. Same with Alexander. What a sight it would be, though! Two masters of their art, madly passionate, capable of being as tender as they were cruel; dangerously blazing suns.
image: I found this photograph of Hemingway on a blog called, appropriately enough, The Art of Manlinesshere
“Those who persist in seeing Alexander as a reincarnation of Achilles, as an irrational youth on a heroic quest for fame and immortality, have been taken in by the myth-makers who shaped the Alexander legend.” Waldemar Heckel The Conquests of Alexander the Great
Waldemar Heckel
Reading this passage, I can only be very grateful indeed that Waldemar Heckel has, in all likelihood, never heard of a blog and social media account called The Second Achilles.
Also, what would a de-mythologised Alexander look like?
I suppose the answer to that question largely depends on which elements of his life you regard as mythical and which as real. With that said, is it even a question worth asking? For even if you achieved 100% success in stripping away the mythical elements, the passage of time means you’d never know it. And even if you did, Alexander’s story, as presented to us by the ancient historians, is incomplete. We know many of his deeds, but certainly not all, and we have too little idea of his thought.
‘The Second Achilles’ title notwithstanding I would never want to be taken in again by the myth-makers. I definitely was early on in my Alexander career but I have moved beyond that now and am happy to have done so.
But neither would I want to sour my interest in Alexander by considering him, after a point, unknowable. Rather, I would like to read, write, and think about him while holding who I believe to be the real Alexander and the mythologised Alexander to be in tension with each other. Now, I have to admit, I haven’t yet thought this through so feel free to tell me I have it all wrong!
I am going through a phase, it seems, of posting to my Alexander Instagram page - not just images, but short posts to go with them, as well. Not everyone uses Instagram, so for as long as this phase continues, I will start posting my favourite posts to the blog as well. I will edit them (as lightly as possible) for clarity and to remove any typos or other mistakes that I come across.
Last week, I deactivated my Twitter account. In doing so, I ended well over a decade’s use of the bird app. I don’t feel any joy in having finally quit it, and I know I will miss no few of the people I followed there, but the ridiculous X saga convinced me that I didn’t want to be part of Elon Musk’s games any more. I haven’t turned my back on micro-blogging altogether: I created a Threads account when it started, and so can be found there @thesecondachilles.
As I think about Twitter now, it seems funny that the X business - of all things - should have been what did it for me. I guess faith tends not to fall after the first attack but only after repeated blows, at which point, the slightest touch can destroy it.
In the end, this is what happened with the Macedonian army. Their faith in Alexander’s expedition was undermined, ironically, by their constant success. It overwhelmed them to the point where, instead of believing that they could overcome any odds, the thought of facing yet more danger broke their spirits.
By the bye, if Arrian is to be believed the Macedonian army did not actually mutiny at the Hyphasis. He says that the men either moaned about their position or swore (to one another?) that they would not continue. Hearing about this, Alexander convened the meeting with his commanders that ultimately led to the withdrawal. The army, therefore, did not say ‘no further’ to their king.
The Mutiny/Turning Back at the Hyphasis River Arrian 25:1-26:1-2
Image: A still from Alexander (2004) taken from a clip of the film on YouTube
Life has been a little ‘busier’ than I would have liked over the last week or so, and as a result I haven’t been able to focus on one topic to write about. So, instead of writing nothing, I will let this post be a bit of a catch up one.
For some time now, I have been aware of some big gaps in my knowledge of ancient Greece. If I divide them up into their periods, this is where I am at:
2000 - ?? BC Minoa. Well, I have heard of Knossos, but that makes me think of Arthur Evans more than anything else 1600 - 1200 BC Mycenae. Troy! Achilles! Um, and not much else. 1200 - 750 BC The Greek Dark Ages. I couldn’t tell you a thing about this period. Given its name, I guess not even scholars know that much, but there must be something to be said 750 - 490 BC Archaic Greece. What was going on in this period? It begins with Homer, Hesiod and Sappho but afterwards?? Does it even begin and end on the dates above? 490 - 323 BC Classical Greece. My knowledge here is a little fragile. I know names and major events but I have never studied the period properly 356 - 323 BC In respect of Alexander, of course, I know this period pretty well!
So, you see, I have a lot to learn. It’s unforgivable that I haven’t addressed this before now, but once upon a time I was happy just to dwell in Alexander’s age. When I ran out of things to say there, I should have moved on to these other periods rather than doing what I did, which was nothing.
Well, spilt milk and all that, and there is nothing like the present. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have recently been really getting into historical documentaries on YouTube. A few days ago, I discovered a lecture series given by Donald Kagan in 2008. I don’t know much about Kagan but he was a talking head on one of the other docs that I watched so I am guessing he was a pretty authoritative figure in the field. Anyway, the series is 14 videos long and covers the period from Minoa to The Battle of Chaeronea.
Here is the first lecture:
I recommend it to you. I found it very informative and enjoyable to watch. I am looking forward to writing about some of the things I learn.
***
On 2nd June (this year), the Disney+ Twitter account promoted the front cover of the latest Empire magazine. Here it is:
As soon as I saw it, an excellent joke occurred to me, so I tweeted:
Sadly, my comic genius was roundly ignored by a cruel and uncaring world and my tweet failed to go viral. Disney’s Star Wars productions have been a bit hit-and-miss. Andor and Rogue One were absolutely brilliant while Obi Wan Kenobi (the final duel excepting) was disappointing. The less we say about VII, VIII, and IX the better, while the more we say about The Bad Batch will never be enough. The Mandalorian has veered between ace and mystifying in some of its narrative choices. I am sure, though, that whatever Ahsoka turns out to be, Rosario Dawson will give it the full beans, just like she did in Alexander.
Thinking about Alexander, and Dawson’s depiction of Roxane, what was Oliver Stone thinking about, anyway? I guess like Peter Jackson with Arwen in The Lord of the Rings films he just wanted to create a strong female character to off-set, if only slightly, the otherwise male dominated film. Yes, we had Olympias, but her historical placement in Macedon limited her participation in the story. There were other women present (e.g. Thaïs) but only in very minor roles. Thinking about Dawson’s bedroom scene with Colin Farrell (Alexander) she was certainly a strong character. Kind of a shame, then, that we didn’t see too much else of her but then, I guess, the real Roxane didn’t have that much of a public role, either.
I was listening to a podcast the other day that mentioned a quote by the great writer, G. K. Chesterton. It was, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”. I began thinking about that in relation to Alexander. Why did he fight? The ostensible reason for his invasion of the Persian Empire was to take revenge on Persia for invading Greece. At no point in his ‘war of revenge’, however, did he seek to oppress Persians. Anyone who opposed him was, of course, liable to be killed, but Alexander was something of a pragmatist. When it suited him to do so, he was quite happy to work with his erstwhile enemies. I haven’t seen Chesterton’s quote in context, but I imagine that when he talks about soldiers loving ‘what is behind’ them, he is thinking of home and hearth. As I think about it now, I am not so sure that Alexander did anything out of love for Macedon, much less the wider Greek world. He fought to prove himself better than anyone else, even his ancestors, Achilles and Herakles. So, in a sense, Alexander did fight for what - or rather, who - lay behind him.
I started writing this post last weekend. When I returned to it today, I had to amend some of the text to bring it up-to-date. I hope it all flows seamlessly now! Also, since the weekend, I have started a new Twitter account. I have my personal one (@secondachilles), but because it is a personal account, the content is made up of a lot of my interests. Nothing dominates because that would probably bore readers. However, I want to talk about Alexander more, so that’s why I created the new account. If you use Twitter and would like to follow me, my ‘handle’ is @flameofmacedon.
As the end of May approaches, we get ready to say our annual goodbye to Alexander. Following a short illness, the Macedonian king died on 10th/11th June* 323 BC.
What do I mean by ‘short illness’? And what exactly happened?
As to the first question, I will break it down.
‘Short‘: According to Arrian, Alexander died at least nine days after falling ill during a drinking party**. Plutarch has the illness lasting for eleven days. Justin is not specific but indicates that at least six days passed before Alexander succumbed. Unfortunately, the relevant portion of Curtius’ history is missing so we don’t know what he says. As for Diodorus, while he covers Alexander’s death, he doesn’t say how long he was ill for.
‘Illness‘. What happened to Alexander? All we know for sure is that he fell ill during the aforementioned drinking party. The reason for his illness is unknown. In the years following Alexander’s death, poisoning by Antipater was alleged. Did he do it? Well, maybe, but then maybe Antipater’s enemies in the Wars of the Successors blamed him in an attempt to undermine him and his son Cassander’s cause.
Ever since those first allegations, people have proposed different reasons for Alexander’s untimely demise. Every so often, a scholar, a doctor, or someone in-between suggests another cause. None have ever been fully accepted, however, because Alexander’s symptoms, as described in the sources, do not completely fit one illness or intervention.
What happened? All the sources (excluding Curtius) agree that Alexander fell ill at a party hosted by his friend Medius. In regards Arrian and Plutarch, while both agree that the king fell ill after drinking, they disagree on how long he had been drinking for. Arrian seems to suggest that Alexander fell ill after drinking through the evening and into the night, whereas Plutarch says that he drank all night and the following day before falling ill. Both agree that the fever started by the end of, or almost immediately after, Alexander left Medius’ party.
Both Justin and Diodorus claim that Alexander was struck down in pain during the party. Plutarch, however, denies that this happened. He says that it is a later embellishment of ‘certain historians’. Arrian doesn’t address this issue. Presumably, he would agree with Plutarch.
Now, you may think that 25th May is a little early to be thinking about something that won’t happen until nearly two weeks into June, and it is. The reason Alexander’s death is on my mind at the moment is that I had got it into my head that it is about now that Medius’ fatal party took place. Having had a look at the sources, I don’t know why I thought that. I expect I was just misremembering what I had read long ago. Looking at the chronology I wrote out for The Second Achilles a few years ago, I note that at any rate, Peter Green suggests that the party took place on 29th/30th May. I suppose I could have delayed writing this until the start of June but I already leave until tomorrow too many things that could be done today, so why add to the tally.
Anyway, having mentioned that we are approaching the season of Alexander’s death, what next? Just put the information to one side and get on with life? Or, do something with it? And if the latter, what? I don’t know, so I will think about that and see if I can come back to it in another post.
* I have written this as an absolute but I should acknowledge that some scholars propose different dates for his death ** His timeline becomes a little vague right at the end when he refers to events without saying when exactly they occurred; i.e., during the nine days already mentioned, or thereafter?
When I pressed publish for yesterday’s post, the option to add tags appeared. Let’s see if it works today.
A few weeks ago, I came across this image of Alexander by Andy Warhol. Although I am not a big fan of modern art, this one touches me.
Alexander the Great by Andy Warhol (found on Twitter)
I like that Warhol has taken an old image of Alexander: …
Bust of Alexander (Pinterest)
… and done something new with it while at the same time keeping the original image at the heart of his work.
If I may go into lit. crit mode, Warhol’s print seems to me to be the art equivalent of a film that remains true to the spirit of the book it is adapting rather than one that simply uses elements of the book to create what is essentially a new work. I dislike it when the latter happens as it is disrespectful to the book and author. Filmmakers who are tempted to go down this path should just create their own story rather than misuse another.
With that in mind, we might ask what does the original bust tell us and how does Warhol’s print stay true to it?
The original bust presents the iconic image of Alexander: his leonine hair, gentle faraway gaze, and slightly parted lips. Strength, dreaminess and motion - key elements of his character - are all present here.
In like fashion, Warhol draws out elements of Alexander’s character through his use of colour.
For example, the red background in the top left image puts us in mind of blood, war, and danger — key elements of Alexander’s life. The darkness of Alexander’s bust hints at the more savage elements of his character.
The white background of the top right image suggests purity, the purity of his relations with women, his generosity to friends, and the respect he gave those of his enemies who fought nobly. The yellowness of his hair and head also puts me in mind of the Argeads’ connection to Herakles.
The blue background of the bottom left image gives it a certain mysterious air. Alexander is a mysterious person to us. The Alexander we ‘know’ is the Alexander of the Romans and his soldiers (even if they are as high ranking as, say, Ptolemy). He is not the Alexander who lived. At least, not completely.
The purple-pink background of the bottom right image suggests royalty, and maybe even Alexander’s priestly role (I’m speaking here as a Catholic where purple is a marker of ecclesial rank).
Those are some of my thoughts. Do let me know yours. There is just one thing left now, and that’s to say if you would like to know more about Warhol’s Alexander, visit the my art broker website. It’s a fascinating article. Right, let’s hit publish and see if I can tag the post.
This post is a bit of an experiment as I am writing it on my tablet’s WordPress app to see how it comes out.
Today (18th May 2023) is Ascension Day. How can The Second Achilles mark it? There’s only on way, of course.
‘Roman d’Alexandre en prose’ (‘Talbot Shrewsbury book’), Rouen 1444-1445
This medieval illustration shows Alexander the Great ascending (see what I did there) thanks to four griffins and bait comprising of two unfortunate dogs. What is the purpose of Alexander’s flight? This from medievalists.net:
One of the famous trips that Alexander the Great makes is his (attempted) journey to heaven. Since Bucephalus does not have wings, Alexander has to resort to some griffins that happen to live nearby. The birds are tied to a chariot with a piece of meat spitted on the top of a lance as bait (in the church of St. Peter and Paul in Remagen, Germany, he is depicted hoisting two puppies). While the unfortunate griffins think they are constantly flying towards the meat (or the puppies), they carry Alexander up, so that he may see for himself if that place, ‘where the sky touches the earth’, is really the end of the world. It is extremely cold up in the air, he describes in a letter to his mother Olympia; and as he approaches the heavens, he encounters a figure and, heeding his warning, he returns to earth and lands somewhere seven days’ journey from his camp. But the journey is not entirely wasted, since Alexander gains a glimpse of the entire world below.
Recently, I have got really into historical documentaries on YouTube. There are some great ones hidden away there. One in particular that has impressed me is a doc. about the Vergina excavations, which uncovered what is believed to be the final resting place of Alexander’s father, Philip II.
The documentary follows Manolis Andronikos, the archaeologist behind Vergina’s discovery. Watching Macedonia: A Civilization Uncovered was a treat, yes because of its content but also because it was the first time I had seen actual footage of the tombs (and, for that matter, Andronikos). I highly recommend this video to you. The video quality isn’t the greatest - it has suffered a bit having been, I guess, recorded off the television onto VHS, but it is easily watchable. The only discordant note was at the end when the narrator said that Andronikos had many more years of excavation work ahead of him. Sadly, he died just a couple of years after the documentary was made. What a legacy to leave behind, though!
Writing this post and inserting the image and video went very smoothly. WordPress organises each paragraph into blocks. A new one begins whenever you press Return. However, I can’t see how to press Return and stay in the same block. I just about managed it for the credit and final note by going into the HTML code. It hasn’t come out perfectly, though. I also can’t see where the option to write tags for the post is (if it exists), so there are a couple of things to work on.
First of all, I must apologise as my posting has become a bit erratic in the last few weeks. I’ve missed two or three Sundays and, except for what was just a ‘supplementary’ post not made up for it during the week. I just haven’t been able to give the blog the time I have wanted in order to write what’s on my mind. Mea Culpa.
Rather than write nothing again, since there are things on my mind, I have now sat myself down (as I write these words it’s currently 4:15pm on 8th May 2023) with a cup of tea and will just write, write, write until I have to leave my desk at 5pm.
Coronations Past and Present So, there was only one news story in Britain this weekend - the coronation of Charles III. Last Friday, I took a walk round Parliament Square, Horseguards Parade, and along The Mall to get a taste of the atmosphere. Parliament Square was full of tourists passing this way and that. In Horseguards Parade I saw a man speaking to someone on his phone (I think he might have been live streaming himself) moaning about the iniquity of monarchy. He seemed to believe that Charles has far more power than he actually does, which is to say, none. I suppose the King could be said to have what we call nowadays ‘soft power’ but it really isn’t the same thing. On The Mall I saw all the truly dedicated fans of royalty and spectacle camped out and ready for the processions on Saturday. The atmosphere on The Mall was a happy one. If you spent all your time on social media, you’d think that the people of Britain were frustrated left-wing republicans. In the real world, they are quite different.
After returning home, I got to thinking about Alexander and the idea of coronation. When he became king of Macedon, it doesn’t look like he had one. At least, none of the sources say that he did (excluding Curtius. We don’t know what he said of Alexander’s accession as we are missing the first two books of his History of Alexander). Given that the Macedonians liked their kings to be as much like them as possible, I guess that even if he had had one, it would have been nothing like Charles - full of grandeur.
We know from the reliefs of him that the Egyptians regarded Alexander as their pharaoh, but did he have a coronation there? Again, we aren’t told. Alexander only spent a few months in Egypt so maybe there would not have been enough time to organise one. And again, when he became Great King, no coronation is ever mentioned. You could say Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela was really his coronation at Great King of the formerly Persian Empire.
King Charles III at his Coronation
Meaning My favourite part of Charles’ coronation was his investiture - the point when he was given various garments and objects that symbolise different aspects of his kingship. I wrote about this in a blog post for my British Catholic Blogs blog here. I love the idea of things having a meaning beyond what they actually are, or are used for.
As I mention in that BCB post, we live in a world that has rejected meaning. I say ‘we’ but I really mean Britain. This may or may not apply to other Western nations and beyond; I am not qualified to say. That aside, Alexander, by contrast, lived in a world that was heavy in meaning. It is why he had Aristander on hand to read the omens and portents. What do you think it would be like to live in a world where the most random events could be taken to mean something good or bad? I’m tempted to say it would be quite scary but I suppose for the ancients it was quite normal. The reason I say scary, though, is because although the omens could benefit you, they could also lead to something as bad as torture or death. At the very least it is all a haphazard way to live. My one consolation is that when I look at the bad omens that Alexander received in his last days - as related by Curtius - I am pretty sure that the latter is doing a fair bit of retconning in order to show Alexander in as bad a light as possible.Well, it is nearly 5pm so I had better stop. I hope this post finds you well, and I look forward to writing again soon!
Credit King Charles III at his Coronation: Sky News
I am not one for surprises, but one kind that I do enjoy is finding Alexander in the wild. By this I mean in books that aren’t about and have nothing to do with him.
Case in Point: I’m currently reading The Four Men by Hilaire Belloc. In it, four men - strangers to each other and all based on Belloc himself - walk together from East to West Sussex. Along the way, they start talking about a pub named The Washington Inn. (By the bye, I am very happy to report that it appears this pub still exists (Apologies for the second parentheses but I should add that The Four Men was published in 1912). It is called The Frankland Arms today, and its website can be found here).
According to a character named The Sailor, the Washington Inn is famous for its beer. It is so famous that various famous personages have searched for it, including Alexander. The Four Men is subtitled ‘A Farrago’, which would explain why the Sailor says that it was in search of the Washington Inn’s beer ‘that Alexander fought his way to Indus’, and died following his failure to find it. Well, it’s as good a reason for his death as many of the other theories out there.
While writing this post, I had to use Google to see if the Washington Inn was still extant. I found out thanks to this digital marketing company’s website. I know this is a blog about Alexander the Great, but if you are at all interested in Sussex, Hilaire Belloc, or beer, this blog post of theirs will definitely be of interest to you!
This time last week, I let my diet go for the day and tucked into my Easter Egg. Happiness was mine. Ironically, I was even happier on Monday after resuming my more sensible eating regime. How could it be? Well, in the six or so months since I started watching the calories alongside doing my daily exercise (which I have been able to do more and more of following my hip operation in November) I have lost over two stone. I like my selfies more these days, and appreciate no longer filling out my shirts when I put them on.
The Post That Got Away But that’s enough of me, what about Alexander the Great? Well, I should first apologise for not posting anything last week. I did mean to, and began writing a post, but I started it too late in the day to finish. Despite thinking about it a lot during the week, the moment had gone and I never picked it up again.
Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra in the film of the same name (1963)
Queen Cleopatra Late last week, Google Alerts notified me of two interesting projects coming to Netflix. The first, which will start streaming on 10th May, is a docu-drama about Cleopatra VII. It is titled Queen Cleopatra. The second is a docu-series about Alexander himself.
Over the last few weeks, I have tried to keep my Alexander Facebook page active by posting to it every Friday. Two days ago, however, I knew that if I posted about Queen Cleopatra some people would get annoyed. Why? Because the actress (Adele James) playing her is black, and there is no evidence in the historical record for this being Cleopatra’s ethnicity. I tried to circumvent this by referencing in my post how it would make people angry. I thought that if I highlighted this possible response it might make people think twice before being so predictable. Of course, it didn’t work; though I am pleased to say that I have not yet had to warn anyone about their behaviour or ban them*.
If you would like to read the post and its replies, you can do so here. My view of the Queen Cleopatra docu-series was and remains this: if the filmmakers chose Adele James to play the last Ptolemaic queen because they felt simply that she was the best person for the role or they wanted to use Cleopatra’s story to say something, for example, about the world today, fine. Actually, that’s laudable. If they chose her because they think Cleopatra was black, however, then potentially we have a problem - for the reason mentioned above.
The Queen Cleopatra trailer appears to reveal the filmmakers’ position. You can watch it on YouTube here. It is that they think Cleopatra was indeed black (or, as it is written in American-English, Black). Now, that’s not very encouraging. However, we must be cautious - and charitable. It’s in the nature of trailers to be spicy so as to get you to watch the film or programme. Perhaps Queen Cleopatra itself will be more nuanced: for every person who says, ‘Cleopatra was this’, there will be another to say, ‘Actually, she was that.’
* in between writing this post and publishing it I did have to warn someone. Oh well. Two days was a good run
Adele James as Cleopatra in Queen Cleopatra (2023)
A Look at the Trailer I’d like to highlight a few points in the trailer that I disagree with or which have made me think.
Firstly, (0:04) the narrator states, ‘There was a time long ago when women ruled with unparalleled power.’ I would very much like to know when that was. It certainly wasn’t in first century BC Egypt.
Secondly, a talking head tells us (0:44) that Julius Caesar wanted ‘to be king to Cleopatra’s queen’. Well, Caesar certainly behaved like he wanted to be a king but I have to say I have a hard time believing that he ever saw Cleopatra as his equal, which sounds like the implication here.
Thirdly, Cleopatra is made to say (0:55), ‘There is no Rome without Egypt’. Actually, this line is quite intriguing. My first reaction was to dismiss it: By the time Julius Caesar came knocking on Cleopatra’s door, Rome was by far the more powerful state. However, I am aware that Egypt provided a lot, if not most of, Rome’s grain. It therefore was a country of vital importance to the latter’s well-being. Unfortunately, I don’t know when Rome’s reliance (if such it was) on Egypt’s grain began. Maybe it was before Cleopatra’s time, hence her confidence. Either way, there’s nothing wrong with showing Cleopatra being proud. Rome was a whippersnapper compared to Egypt, after all.
Fourthly, and here we come back to Cleopatra’s ethnicity. A talking head states (1:22), ‘it’s possible she was an Egyptian’. I mean, in that she was born in Egypt she certainly was. But that is probably not what they mean as another talking head (1:27) adds, ‘I remember my grandmother saying to me, “I don’t care what they tell you in school, Cleopatra was Black.”‘ I bow to no one in my love of grandmothers and their wisdom. However, even I know not to take everything they say as gospel. As I mentioned above, there is simply no evidence to support this grandmother’s view. If Queen Cleopatra acknowledges this, the programme will be doing its work well; if it doesn’t, it will, to paraphrase Mr Knightly, have done badly.
Related Material When I read my Google Alerts, I did a search to see if I could find any more info about Cleopatra’s ethnicity - preferably from a reputable source. In doing so, I came across this article on the Oxford University Press’s website. I like its headline: Cleopatra’s true racial background (and does it matter?) In a way, it doesn’t matter at all but it certainly does if someone takes a position for which there is no justification.
To Watch or Not? So, will I watch Queen Cleopatra? Of course! And for the reason I mentioned above about trailers purposefully being ‘spicy’. The only way to find out what the programme is really saying is to watch it. I admit I am not very confident but that’s irrelevant. Fairness demands a viewing.
Alexander @ Netflix As I mentioned above, Netflix are also making a series about Alexander. You can read about it here. Please try to forgive Deadline’s faux pas in calling ancient Macedonia a city. They are but a humble entertainment website and cannot be expected to be able to research basic facts. More seriously, though, Netflix have a big job on their hands if they are going to improve upon, say, Michael Wood’s In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great.
Thinking Aloud How does someone mistake a country for a city, anyway? To be fair, the writer is probably thinking of the Greek city-states. And if he is rushing to finish his article, he may forget to double check that what applies to the rest of ancient Greece also applies to Macedon. It is a bad mistake to make but an easy one. To quote Warnie Lewis in Shadowlands, ‘there it is’ so let’s move on.
To Conclude These are my thoughts. Please feel free to let me know yours. One thing that has occurred to me in the writing of this post is that the OUP article I linked to was written in 2010. I wonder if any new evidence about Cleopatra’s ethnicity has come to light since then. If you know of any, please do mention it!
PS One last thing: This blog has had the same travel theme since I created it over ten years ago. I’m thinking about replacing it. If you know of any other WordPress themes that might suit The Second Achilles, I’d love to hear your suggestions.
The Second Achilles 