alexander the great was poisoned?

[fleaza]

i just read a book by paul doherty titled alexander the great: death of a god

it provides a very real portrait of alexander that other sources fail to provide. for one, it depicts alexander as a genius in whatever he did. he never forgot past wrongs and all those were stood up against him always died. parmenio is an obvious example. philotas wasnt popular with the companions so when alexander came up with weak evidence of conspiracy and had him executed. fearing reprisal from parmenio alexander sent assassins and had him killed in susa/ecbatana(i cant really remember).

craterus spoke out against alexander in india, voicing the opinion of the army and refusing to go on further. he mysteriously died later on. also, the march through the gedrosian desert may have been a purge. alexander didnt take lightly to people stamping on his pothos, his deep unquenchable desire to conquer. instead of going through the normal accepted route he had to take his army through the desert. its said that only 15000 of the original 70000 survived which is probably his way of punishing his soldiers for mutiny while fruther increasing his glory.

now this cant have been not noticed. opposition to alexander rapidly shrunk. ptolemy, being the cunning man that he is, decided to act upon it. ptolemy has shown to be a traditionalist macedonian who looked on alexanders persianisation with disapproval. when alexander asked the companions for help when his army mutinied he was met with silence. it was also clear from the fact that alexander was replacing his macedonian armies with persian ones. persian phalanx had been developed and alexander was adding it to the army. not only that but he also retired his veterans and even if he didnt mean it, its clear that the macedonians became uncomfortable. there were riots where the army cried out in protest against alexanders decisions where alexander handed his soldiers over to be executed at the hands of persians.

alexander was growing increasingly suspicous of antipater. alexanders summoning antipater to babylon was a thinly disguised death sentence. antipater sent his son instead: cassander. it is said that cassander was often beaten by the king in babylon. it shows that there was definite hostility between alexander and antipater who was firmly established in macedonia with his own army. so what antipater mustve done, to protect his hide, is to assassinate alexander. how could he have killed alexander without infiltrating the tight security? thats where ptolemy comes in.

ptolemy was head of security. the food that was brought to alexander was first tasted by ptolemy before reaching alexander. it is then ideal that ptolemy be a part of the assassination because poisoning alexander wouldve actually impossible without his cooperation. so at medius's private drinking party ptolemy mustve poisoned alexander with arsenic. arsenic was the prime assassins tool for centuries because it was tasteless and fatal. the symptoms include a shock of pain after drinking it, diarea and generally is very similar to fever. it is said that alexander cried out in shock some time into the party. that wouldve been arsenic. also, arsenic has been known to have persevative effects where people who die from arsenic dont decompose. alexanders body was said to have been just as whole as if he had been alive and some could swear he had been breathing. in the intense heat of babylonian summer, his corpse, should it have died of fever, wouldve started decomposing very soon.

there is further proof of ptolemys coalition with antipater. egypt was of crucial strategic importance. the companions would never have handed it over to ptolemy without a fight yet history suggests that he got it quite easily and without fuss. how can such a thing be possible unless antipater, who was a major power at that time, have had a hand in it?

what do you think? ptolemy-assassin of alexander the great? i didnt give full details because i seriosuly cbf going through the book listing the sources of information nad whatnot. if you read the book it is much more persuading and detailed. i just gave a brief outline.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, to address one tenet of your post, in every Alexander treatise I have read, all the authors seem to agree that there was a reasonable chance that Gedrosia March may have been a punishment of Alexander for his army's disobedience. Alexander, however, did not realise just how bad it was going to be. He meant for it to be as a harsh punishment, and yet not quite as an event consubstantial to the most bloody of his battles in India (which were indeed bloody, along with the hefty disease & poisonous wildlife toll).

It would be unlikely that he would butcher his comrades, his long-time veterans who were by then the absolute best soldiers in the world. If any other reason dropped out of periphery of his mind, at the very least Iskander could have recognised the value of a solid, both in skill and loyalty, soldier. Therefore, Iskander seems to have miscalculated.

Later on in his life, Alexander's megalomania, but mostly his blatant and repulsive absolutism was what turned people away. He became a despot of Stalinist proportions, and the fact one of his philosopher-companions reasoned that Alexandros' decisions were just and right merely because Alexander thought/said so, was not comforting at all. His unpredictable nature and mood swings were coupled with his penchant for binge-drinking which only spiralled into further excesses. With all this volatility, his insufferable despotism was the spark that ignited it and propelled it into an explosion which harmed others in turn. In his last years, most of his close companions did not consider him quite mentally sound at all. He was a mentally sick man. His proclamation of divinity was irrational to the degree that to this date, there is no consensus on what were his motives - other than pure irrationality that is.

All this turned people against him, and that may have led to his death. Assassination that is. You mentioned arsenic. Not a bad choice, but I have seen strychnine mentioned as well. Strychnine cannot be tasted in the un-watered wine, and there are several other factors that cause it to be the prime culprit of Iskander's death. Strange coincidences. I forgot them mostly by now, but you can find the full explanation of this hypothesis in most books concerning the great emperor. Basically, Alexander already had a fever, but strychnine is what killed him.

At the same time, malaria is a splendid choice, even more so given the fact that Alexander went to the marshes of Mesopotamia to scout them for reasons related to his planned conquest of Arabia, which is documented by his biographers. He went there, and soon after that, fell with a fever. Well, what a coincidence, eh?

In any case, it is said that his death, while it was a sombre and disappointing affair, was nevertheless a great relief, a sigh of release. IMHO, like the breakup of USSR. The dictatorship was gone, and that was a relief - everyone was free. But at the same time, the nostalgia for the days of a greater Russia, a time when it was a power to be reckoned with - mixed feelings.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Lol, another esoteric tl;dr debate few people are going to read

I am all for the discussion, as it can be quite enlightening, but I do realise how few will read this, especially posts other than theirs, which is what makes all this sad. The thread is great, but not how people will utilise it.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm lurking this if it make you feel better.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I'm lurking this if it make you feel better.

Does lurking mean reading all the posts?

Oh well, what is the difference? Perhaps more people should voice their opinion about Iskander's death - the point of this thread.

[DaciaJC]

Later on in his life, Alexander's megalomania, but mostly his blatant and repulsive absolutism was what turned people away. He became a despot of Stalinist proportions, and the fact one of his philosopher-companions reasoned that Alexandros' decisions were just and right merely because Alexander thought/said so, was not comforting at all.

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

[antisocialmunky]

Does lurking mean reading all the posts?

Oh well, what is the difference? Perhaps more people should voice their opinion about Iskander's death - the point of this thread.

We can only endlessly debate since no one will ever know. Flip a coin or pick whichever on your like better because they are both equally likely.

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

Yeah, he wasn't very creative with the names I suppose. Atleast he didn't start rename all the regions they were in to the same thing.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

Heh, I like that comedy troupe, but they are perpetuating yet another popular stereotype: Iskander's main weakness was his megalomania. Not really. It was his tyrannical, despotic, heavy-handed, bloody, and irrational rule at his last years that turned everyone against him. Seriously, everyone was relieved when he died. Not a good sign, hmmm-ah? (+10 if you get the reference )

[kekailoa]

Actually, I just read a book called Alexander the Great Failure, and I liked how the author wasn't kissing up to Alexander like everyone else. I guess kind of the opposite of what the OP's author was talking about...

[Aemilius Paulus]

I liked how the author wasn't kissing up to Alexander like everyone else

Odd that you say so. I never saw a serious book with the author not tempering the sweet approval of Alexander's early genius with bitter criticism or more accurately, bitter shaming, of Iskander's late "dementia". Every serious book usually starts of with a positive, yet sometimes scolding (Alexander's brashness and impatience) tone and then gets progressively darker - all of which was the reality with Alexandros.

And why in the bloody heck did the Horrible Histories claim "Iskander" is Turkish? It is not. It is Arabic, and I use it to reflect the double nature of Alexander. Alexandros the Greek hero is a shining legend of Hellenic greatness - the most heroic, epic tale of the glorious conquest of an empire to rival anything else. Achilles is the individual of mythology, a single warrior, yet no one greater there is than him. But Alexander is the creator of a Greek global hegemony, the wildest wet dream of the local nationalists - which are quite active these years in Greece.

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

[Vasiliyi]

I read the argument and rebuttal at work and I find it quite interesting, but i dont think Ill be adding anything to this arguement, as my knowledge on Alexander is limited. Dont want to end up getting flamed.

[kekailoa]

Odd that you say so. I never saw a serious book with the author not tempering the sweet approval of Alexander's early genius with bitter criticism or more accurately, bitter shaming, of Iskander's late "dementia". Every serious book usually starts of with a positive, yet sometimes scolding (Alexander's brashness and impatience) tone and then gets progressively darker - all of which was the reality with Alexandros.

And why in the bloody heck did the Horrible Histories claim "Iskander" is Turkish? It is not. It is Arabic, and I use it to reflect the double nature of Alexander. Alexandros the Greek hero is a shining legend of Hellenic greatness - the most heroic, epic tale of the glorious conquest of an empire to rival anything else. Achilles is the individual of mythology, a single warrior, yet no one greater there is than him. But Alexander is the creator of a Greek global hegemony, the wildest wet dream of the local nationalists - which are quite active these years in Greece.

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

Well, to explain, most authors tend to display Alexander as the best thing since sliced bread, but corrupted by the influences of the east and his own personality defects. (At least in my experience). Also, most people who have read a little of history but not extensively tend to bathe Alexander in a golden light also, without looking at the whole picture. I dislike how much how authors and novice historians make Alexander out to be the most amazing historical figure ever. Not to say his accomplishments were not amazing and incredible (all but impossible for anyone before or after), but there was, like you said, a powerful dark side to Alexander and while of course you can recognize his talent and prowess, to really understand him you have to examine the while picture, not just the pretty stuff. A lot of authors, in my opinion, tend to gloss over that to continue the image of the golden Alexander.

[Dutchhoplite]

Errr...the death of Craterus wasn't that mysterious. He was defeated and killed in battle by Eumenes in 321/320.

Sorry, no dark conspiracy theory here.

[HunGeneral]

Well I think I can't add to much to this debate: I might know some things about Alexanders history and his life, but I'm not sure about the theories about his death.

I remember to have heard of many version:
- a plaque he could have caught from birds - some sources mention Alexander and his escort witness birds (eagles I think) fall out of the sky dead with no apperant reason. They could have taken a closer look at the bird corpses and cath a desiase that way.

- Poisioning: something similar to what fleaza wrote.

- A mix of alcohol and overexhausting himself: all the wounds from India and the heavy drinking tipycal for Makedonians could have had dire consequances on Alexanders health. There are also theories that the poisioing (if there was any) only increased these effects and huried up the unaviodeable.

- Some also speculate that Alexanders impatience also had a part in it: if he only became sick then he didn't rest but kept prepearing for the invasion of Arabia and ordered his doctor to increase the ammount of his medicine (a root native in Makedonia - poisionous even in relative small amounts). All this lead to was Alexanders body simply giving up.


About Ptolemy: I suspect if there was a plot in the background then he might have taken part in it. Even in thoose days there were rumours of Ptolemy beign a bastard (illegimate) son of Philippos II. If he really believed these rumours then he considered the throne as his rightfull heritage and might not have hesitated to get rid of Alexandros. He also stole the corps of the conqueror to secure his claim on the throne of Aegyptos - I think such a man would be willing to do anything to gain what he wants. (But that is just my speculation)

[spanakoryzo]

Well,I'm not a historian of any kind but I did have the chance to examine Alexander's death in "History of Medicine" course,during my 1st cemester at uni.The professor focused mostly on the fact that no known disease can account for the symptoms ascribed to Alexander's ailment.We were presented with either a rare combination of 3 (!!!) different pathologies all occuring at the same time (malaria,overexhaustion,swamp fever etc.) and/or considerable medical foul-play.All together doctors today don't have a solid clue as what actually took place - despite of fanciful TV conjectures.I guess that leaves ample space for murderous intentions - from a pathologist point of view.Sorry for my poor use of english...

[Andronikos]

From what I read about Ptolemy, he wasn't murderer or usurper. He agreed with reign of Philipos Arrhidaios and than Alexander IV, he believed that Alexanders empire cannot be maintained and wasn't interested in wars to control this empire, he was interested only in Egypt although he didn't miss a chance to conquer former Egyptian territories or move borders of his kingdom. After unsuccessful campaign of Perdikas to Egypt he brought wheat and meat to his soldiers and refused to be titled a king claiming that he was only a satrap of Egypt. There are more examples of his generosity and unselfishness and he doesn't fit into the portrait of murderer. If only this wasn't the reason, the relief how AP claimed.

[Atraphoenix]

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

I confirm that it is really true İskenderun means "of Alexander" in old Turkish, it just changed to "İskenderin" in modern Turkish. Arabic "Iskenderiye" with phoenic notation IPA TR: ıskɛndɛru:n ARB: ıskɛndɛri:jɛ... (correct me if mistaken with IPA)

[Andros Antonius]

I confirm that it is really true İskenderun means "of Alexander" in old Turkish, it just changed to "İskenderin" in modern Turkish. Arabic "Iskenderiye" with phoenic notation IPA TR: ıskɛndɛru:n ARB: ıskɛndɛri:jɛ... (correct me if mistaken with IPA)

Is that all based on his Persian name?

And I doubt Ptolemy was really responsible, but who knows. I always thought that poison was one of the main accepted causes of death, aside from the actual fever. Anyway, I haven't read up on Alexander in years but it's an interesting topic.

[Atraphoenix]

Is that all based on his Persian name?

And I doubt Ptolemy was really responsible, but who knows. I always thought that poison was one of the main accepted causes of death, aside from the actual fever. Anyway, I haven't read up on Alexander in years but it's an interesting topic.

AFAIK all derived from old Persian, Skandar or Iskandar.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

Well, Alexander was a conquerer, the greatest of all times, and a certain ambivalence is the nature of all conquest - one side gets the fame and the other one the grief.

I have often thought of what would have happened if the Great had stopped in Babylon, leaving Iran alone. There would have been a truly different empire. A cohesive Makedonian empire that would have been much stronger than the successor states. But knowing where to stop requires great wisdom, and going to the extremes in every aspect was a central trait of Alexander's character. If he had stopped, he would not have been the Great as the greatest of all times, just a mere Frederick II. Who's great enough in my opinion, and more successful in the long run, but with just that Alexander could have never been satisfied. He wanted everything, and yes in that regard his death was a relieve. Empires take time, the slower they grow, the longer they last.

[antisocialmunky]

Perhaps Alexander became ill and then everyone decided to poison him so it would just look like he got sick and died.

[The General]

Empires take time, the slower they grow, the longer they last.

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

[Megas Methuselah]

...he brought wheat and meat to his soldiers and refused to be titled a king claiming that he was only a satrap of Egypt. There are more examples of his generosity and unselfishness and he doesn't fit into the portrait of murderer. If only this wasn't the reason, the relief how AP claimed.

Almost sounds like we're talking about that power-mungerer, Caesar.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

Hmm, this requires an unambiguous definition of "continuity". What is it? late Byzantine Empire and Roman Republic differed far too greatly. What defines a continuing institution? One may say the government, the fact that the Byzantine considered themselves Romans. Hence the name of Byzantium - Nova Roma. Constantinople was the unofficial, popular name.

That is splendid, but what shall we make of Charlemagne's Empire? Or that of Otto I? What is the difference between Holy Roman Empire and that of the Byzantines? Both considered themselves as the continuation of Rome.

Or if you truly wish to make a farcical argument, then why not consider the Tsardom of Russia? After all, Ivan III, the Grand Duke of Muscovy married Sophia Paleologue. And she was the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Konstantinos XI Palaiologo. This and the fact that Moskva was the only remaining major (the Southern Slavs in the Balkans were subdued by the Ottomans) Eastern Orthodox capital made Kremlin adopt the "Third Rome" doctrine. Basically, Russia was the heir of Rome, even though it was in a rather more religious context. "Tsar" entered the Russian usage, derived from "Caesar".

Next, Mehmed II, the vanquisher of the Byzantines, was likewise not immune to self-flattery. After his momentous conquest, he self-styled himself as a "Caesar" (Kyiser) of the Romans (Rum). Evidence aplenty exists that he did aim to conquer Rome itself, but then he was killed. It is regrettable that the subsequent Sultans did not care for the significance of their past conquest as much, or to be accurate, at all.

All throughout history numerous figures and nations have claimed themselves the continuation of Rome, so a definition is needed. Otherwise, Russia has not too shabby of a claim that it was the third manifestation, third continuation of the fabled Roman Empire. That is obviously a nationalistic, pompous pretence, but without a valid definition of what constitutes as "continuation of an empire", the claim is as good as any.

[antisocialmunky]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

I don't want to start this debate but ERE was more of a continuence in institutions directly created by the Roman Empire rather than the same Roman Empire. More of a Rome In Name Only which everyone knew and talked behind their backs about. You could argue that the attempt at reconquering the Empire was the death of the Roman Empire when that failed because it was at there point, the Byzantines went their own way and gave up on the past.

EDIT:
Whoops, looks like someone already started it lol.

[Atraphoenix]

Next, Mehmed II, the vanquisher of the Byzantines, was likewise not immune to self-flattery. After his momentous conquest, he self-styled himself as a "Caesar" (Kyiser) of the Romans (Rum). Evidence aplenty exists that he did aim to conquer Rome itself, but then he was killed. It is regrettable that the subsequent Sultans did not care for the significance of their past conquest as much, or to be accurate, at all.

.

-Yes, he claimed.
-His death is still under discussion between historian but there is a tendency on assassination.
-Rome? Italy was lucky when Gedik Ahmed Pasha decided to conquer Otranto not the Rome itself.
After Otranto fell, Turks attacked Vieste, Lecce, Taranto and Brindisi even some historians claims plans were made to evacuate Rome... His death ceased reinforcements to Otranto.
So it is quite logical he was assassinated by poison like Alexander because ; if I were in his shoes I would march to Rome.
What if he conquered Rome and Europe accepted him as Roman Emperor?
I am sure he would not have less influence than Holy Roman Emperors...
Rome has already passed her prestige that even un-romans desired to have that title.

Before Rome, Greeks Successors claimed themselves as the true successor of Alexander.
They were so serious that they even killed his own son and mother as they see them a threat on their claims.
Just powerism, mates... nothing else..

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What if he conquered Rome and Europe accepted him as Roman Emperor?
I am sure he would not have less influence than Holy Roman Emperors...

There's no way they could have accepted a muslim as a kind of inheritor to Rome. No.

[moonburn]

if he was like napoleon fallowing alexander´s teachings he would have "officially" converted to christianity to bring peace

or if we wanna put it in other terms the muslims of those times had far greater humanity then the christians so for the peasents they would probably accept it fairly well since their lifes would somewhat improve (being a slave in the ottoman empire was better then being a serf in a christian kingdom back then)

as for alexander what i find interesting is that i heard/read somewhere that kraterus means the strongest in greek so when alexander said that his empire went to the strongest could he actually mean the captain of the infantry (???)

[fleaza]

Errr...the death of Craterus wasn't that mysterious. He was defeated and killed in battle by Eumenes in 321/320.

Sorry, no dark conspiracy theory here.

woops i was talking about the dude that spoke out against alexander the great at the mutiny. not the diadoch that died fighting eumenes.

i thought the muslim religion glorified iskander, turning him into a great holy force that swept through asia purging it of the evil that was persia. im prtty sure thats what the muslims turned him into. the parthians turned iskander into a douchebag and then the reverse happened during the muslim conquest on something hundred AD.

ptolemy could have been rejecting kingship and acting all nice towards alexander because it will give him a good image. he wanted to have no kings and have makedonia ruled by all the diadochs, not by a king. he settled on aridaus and alexander IV because no one supported his kingless empire. if i was a cunning fox and i wanted to keep myself unsuspected, i wouldve done exaclty what ptolemy had done. he knows his politics.

the author i got all this info from maintains an objective view on alexandros throughout. he ackowledges the magnitude of his achievements that no one except maybe genghis khan might be able to match but he also reveals all the aspects of alexandros that is...displeasing to say the least. through his book i got a much better understanding of the character.

i discount the theory that alexander died of a fever. it was said that his body did not decompose after death. if he had afever he mustve decomposed. contrary to the fact that he became a god, he was not. his body wasnt holy and wouldve started deccomposing if he died. arsenic is an excellent preservent.

and when i realised that we will nver know for sure i kinda felt sad...

[Atraphoenix]

We have Lenin, also babies mummified in ancient Anatolia, mesopotamia, even in middle asia, no comment on egypt. Were they all poisioned with arsenic?
Plus Egyptians were masters of it.
so by claiming his corpse was not decomposed we cannot claim he was poisoned with arsenic.