jeannereames

[jeannereames]

What would you think of a (historical) anime about Alexander? Would you consider watching it?

There actually is one! Reign, the Conqueror, from the late '90s, 10 episodes. Created by the same person who did Aeon Flux.

I have seen it (although only the 6 episodes released at the time in the US), although I don't own copies of it. First it was hard to get, then expensive.

It's...weird, and creative. Fun, if you remember it's not even trying to be especially historical. Very loose, with lots of fantasy elements. I understand it was later released as a movie that combined the episodes.

More on it: IMDb entry

Anime News Network entry

I'm by no means any sort of anime expert, but I collected ATG fiction (and film) for a while for a website Beyond Renault. Ergo, I've chased down all sorts of fun and unusual things.

Another weird one, Sam Heughin, of Outlander fame, before he was ever cast for that, played a young Alexander in a TV movie that was, apparently, shot, or at least some of it was, but was never shown. Just the little I've heard about it makes that probably a good thing. LOL Here's a little sample, with imaginary "Leto" who apparently becomes his girlfriend. THIS is about as queer as it gets (a very fit Hephaistion and ATG, both half-undressed, go at fisticuffs over something unclear).

#asks #Alexander the Great #Anime Alexander the Great #Reign the Conqueror #Alexander the Great fiction #Alexander the Great on film

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr Reames,

Let me start by saying that DWTL Is one of the best novels I've ever read and I can't thank you enough for writing it. It was a pleasure to read such a great characterization of Hephaistion. Also, thank you for running this interesting blog, every new entry is a discovery!

Regarding my question: you've mentioned in a prior ask that Hektor was implied to be a "favorite" as well. Can you tell me which are these sources? I've tried to do my own research but I'm not and expert and It shows ahahah.

Thank you! I'm so glad you enjoyed it, and like my version of Hephaistion. :-)

As for Hektor as a possible favorite: that comes solely from the description of Hektor's death in Curtius (4.8.7-9). He's described as being in the flower of his youth and dear to Alexander for a short while: eximio aetatis flore, in paucis Alexandro carus.

Carus means "dear one" or "beloved," but context determines whether or not it would have a romantic/sexual implication. It's not like eromenos, where the romantic/sexual overtones are clear. Given the additional description of him being in the flower of his youth, that sorta implies he was a little more than just a bosom buddy.

But it is up to interpretation. We don't find Hektor, or his death, even mentioned in Arrian, nor in any other sources. Without Curtius, we wouldn't know Parmenion had three boys. It happened while the army was in Egypt. He died from exhaustion (and possibly water in his lungs) from an overloaded boat capsizing in the Nile. (Alexander gave him a magnificent funeral.)

#Asks #Hector son of Parmenion #Parmenion #Hektor son of Parmenion #Alexander the Great #favorites of Alexander the Great #Alexander's possible boyfriends #Alexander in Egypt

[jeannereames]

Dead Boy Detectives?

Not when I can watch octopodi!

(I probably will watch the other later.)

I have a certain select group of animals I'm fascinated by: peacocks, octopodi, cheetahs, quetzales, elephants, any and all whales & dolphins. Cats. That's just a few. But wave a documentary about octopodi in front of me and, yeah, skip everything else to watch that!

#mysteries of the octopus #Youtube

[jeannereames]

Hi! I was reading your pinned post and realized that you were a professor at PSU! I’m currently an archaeology/ancient mediterranean studies student here, so that’s pretty cool. Anyways, I was just wondering if you knew about any on going research projects going on regarding Alexander the Great (or anything related). May it be digs, archival work, research- I’m super interested in this area of history and wanna get involved!! Sorry if this is a long shot but I wanted to ask. Thanks!

Hello, there, fellow Nittany Lion!*

Yes, I got my PhD from Penn State and taught there for Religious Studies and Classics both as a lecturer back in the late 1990s.

As for digs, there is one at Pella, but it's already filled out for this season. But keep an eye on it; I believe next season may be the last? I've got a former student who'll be there this year (and perhaps next).

Dig at Pella via AIA

Pella Urban Dynamics Project (U. Mich)

Keep an eye on the AIA (Archaeological Institute of America) site for other opportunities in Greece.

Also, message me if you would, so I have your actual name and email, and I'll keep you in mind if I hear of other opportunities. Let me know who you're studying with at PSU (Mark Munn?). Dr. Munn has digs of his own, and TBH, when it comes to experience with archaeology, any dig will give you some experience.

You should also look into summer programs offered through the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. They've had Macedonia-centric programs in the past. One, in fact, got tanked by Covid. So bookmark that site and, in fact, explore it thoroughly, if you're not already well familiar with the ASCSA.

(Spelling out some of these acronyms for those unlikely to recognize them.)

--------

* For the unintiated wondering what the heck a "Nittany" Lion is ... it's a (mountain) lion that lives on Mt. Nittany, of course. *snort* Penn State (located in State College, PA) nestles in "Happy Valley" which lies between (low) mountain ranges, and one of these is "Mount Nittany." It's actually an extremely lovely place, but also one of the few I had SERIOUS allergy problems for my entire 8 years there. Pollen counts are crazy.

#American School of Classical Studies in Athens #Pella Urban Dynamics Project (U. Mich) #Pella Greece #ancient Macedonia #ancient Pella #Alexander the Great #archaeology in Greece #archaeology in Northern Greece #Penn State #asks

[jeannereames]

And Alexander Wept for Hephaistion....

If you don’t mind, I wanted to ask, you said something along the lines of: by the time Alexander was coming closer to his death, he had recovered from the grief of Hephaistion’s death (if I’m remembering this correctly; I’m so sorry I have a fuzzy memory) how long do you think he mourned Hephaistion?

------------------

This was an ask via message, so putting it here to reply publicly, as it may be of interest to others.

First, however, I want to mention a pair of articles I wrote many years ago now, but which are still valid:

“The Mourning of Alexander the Great,” Syllecta Classica 12 (2001), 98-145.

“Some New Thoughts on the Death of Alexander the Great,” with Eugene N. Borza (lead author), The Ancient World 31.1 (2000), 1-9. (I wrote the last 1/3 of it.)

The first, in particular, is an in-depth analysis of Alexander’s behavior after Hephaistion died. I’m still rather proud of it, as it brings together two quite diverse fields: bereavement + Alexander studies. If I had a critique for it now, it’s that I didn’t analyze the stories inherent in the primary sources, but that also wasn’t my intention in writing it. I specifically say that I do not plan to pick apart which reports of Alexander’s behavior are likely authentic and which aren’t. My goal was to evaluate all of them in terms of possible evidence of pathological bereavement, according to the (then) DSM III-R (et al.).

TL;DR version of the article: Alexander’s mourning was NORMAL and followed recognized patterns, if one allows for the loss of someone extremely close, a spouse/similar.

Yes, there were complicating factors. BUT he did not go crazy with grief.

Unfortunately, this article is far less known than the “An Atypical Affair” article on Alexander and Hephaistion’s relationship. That’s too bad, as the “His grieving was extreme!” persists among even some of my colleagues, never mind those outside the field of Macedoniasts. (It’s also admittedly possible that they were simply unconvinced by my arguments, but in that case, one usually cites and says so.)

If I could put a giant blinking neon light on one of my earlier articles to get it more attention, that would be the one I’d point to.

The second article—or my 1/3rd of it anyway—deals with the possible effects of deep mourning on the immune system of adult males of Alexander’s age group. Yes, according to some limited research, it does have an impact that increases susceptibility to infectious disease. Add his poor overall physical health after all those battles (and Macedonian-style symposial drinking), and he was just too spent to fight off the typhoid or malaria or whatever fever disease got him.

Ergo, he died roughly 8 months after Hephaistion. We don’t have a date for the latter’s death, but sometime in October or November of 324 BCE is the window. Alexander died June 10th, 323 … or possibly a day or so later if he were in a paralysis too deep for his breathing to be ascertained. (As per Gene’s part of the article.)

The dating is important, as it affects where he (probably) was in his mourning process.

Mourning follows a somewhat predictable pattern, and one of the biggest mistakes made by those unfamiliar with human mourning is to underestimate (often by a lot) just how long mourning takes … even perfectly normal, healthy mourning.

For a major loss, main mourning takes up to a year. No joke. That’s why bereavement counselors try to keep the bereaved from making any permanent decisions within that year. They’re still very much being buffeted by the winds of grief, even if they want to pretend they aren’t. But even after the year anniversary—and marking it with some sort of formal ceremony helps!*—mourning continues off-and-on (sometimes really intense for a few hours or even a few days) for up to 5 years. Again, no joke. Some bereavement studies experts don’t really consider a person truly recovered (note I never say “over it”) for as long as 10 years.

Additionally, ANY deep loss triggers mourning; it doesn’t have to be death. A divorce will result in mourning, even if the people in the marriage wanted to divorce. It’s still a “death” of sorts. Moving some distance away, graduation, and retirement can all set off mourning. This surprises people, that mourning can attach even to “happy” circumstances. Anything that includes an ending will set off mourning, albeit it may not be that intense.

But THE #1 and #2 most devastating losses are the loss of a child and the loss of a spouse/spouse-like figure. Period.

So, a slight correction to the question, I didn’t say he’d recovered from his mourning, but that he was beginning to emerge from the deepest parts of mourning.

What do I mean by that? There are (roughly) 3(-4) major phases of mourning. The speed at which we pass through these varies, dependent on the type of death and our closeness to the deceased. (The first article goes into that in more depth.)

Shock phase, which is typically anywhere from a few days to about 2 weeks.

Deep mourning phase, where the bereaved must come to terms with the loss. The bereaved cycles through a series of stages (not the best term) and, more importantly, struggles with certain TASKS of mourning (as per Worden). Again, the length of this phase can vary, but for serious losses, it can take up to 8-9 months, with the worst of it usually hitting 3-6 months. There is an intense focus on the deceased and the bereaved person may want little to do with new people and vacillate between wanting to talk a lot about the deceased or wanting to give away all their stuff because it’s too painful. Anger, bargaining, depression, self-blame … all are typical of this phase. It’s INTENSE. It really does take months, and people routinely underestimate it.

Re-emergent phase, where the bereaved begins to take an interest again in the external world, may make new friends and new plans that don’t involve the deceased. The deceased is far, far from forgotten, but the bereaved is learning to live without the dead person.

Continued bereavement would be a fourth phase past the one-year anniversary, where the bereaved will still experience grief, sometimes very intense when triggered by a particular memory, a birthday, or anniversaries. But the overall “worst” part of mourning is past.

Finally, especially in the deepest part of mourning, the depression felt by the bereaved is on par with clinical depression, but (except for rare cases) the bereaved absolutely should not take or be prescribed antidepressants as these interrupt the mourning process.

Yes, it hurts like hell but one can only go through, not over, around, or under. Through.

In some cases, however, bereavement becomes “complicated,” resulting in what’s referred to as pathological bereavement, by which I mean only not normal (I wouldn’t even say abnormal). Sudden death (as with Hephaistion) IS one factor that can complicate mourning, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to full-blown pathological grief. In the article, I evaluate all Alexander’s listed behaviors and explain why my final conclusion is that his bereavement was sharp, but not pathological.

Alexander’s behavior in the last few months showed aspects of the third phase. He was planning (or probably returning to planning) his next campaign and thinking about improvements to the city of Babylon apparently with the intention of making it his eastern capital. Yes, he was also planning Hephaistion’s funeral, but the other two things were new and show re-engagement.

So Alexander’s mourning had not ended before he died himself, only shifted. Even if he’d lived another 5 years, he’d still have experienced bereavement off and on.

Remember, grieving takes TIME. More time than you expect.

If you know someone going through grief, especially for a family member, beloved, or very close friend … give them space. Let them cry. Encourage them to talk about the lost person if they want to, but don’t force it if they don’t want to. Don’t argue with their theology/beliefs about death or their gallows humor, but also don’t shove your theology/beliefs about death, or your gallows humor, onto them. Read the room.

MOST OF ALL, JUST BE PRESENT. It matters less what you say than that you’re there. They may not even remember what you say later; they will remember you showed up.

—————-

* In fact, world cultures that have traditional, one-year anniversary ceremonies routinely show better outcomes for mourning individuals.

#asks #Alexander the Great #Hephaistion #Hephaestion #death of Hephaistion #death of Hephaestion #Mourning of Alexander the Great #bereavement #mourning #tasks of mourning #stages of grief #Alexander the Great's grief #alexander x hephaestion #alexander x hephaistion

[jeannereames]

Peter S. Beagle is a true gem. As are his books. I have them right next to Tolkien in my personal library. That's how highly I regard his genius. As for his mastery of phrasing, he's better.

I've never heard anyone who's met him say a bad word about him. I aspire to that sort of reputation. Kindness is a high compliment.

I've met him in person btw and he's a fucking sweetheart

[ID: Text-intensive Twitter thread from the Shapeshifters chest binders Twitter account in reply to a post by artist and author Ursula Vernon. Vernon says, A non-zero number of you apparently did not know that The Last Unicorn was a book before it was a movie. It is by Peter S. Beagle. It is made of spun glass and fairytales and iron knives and there are individual lines that I would give my lungs to have written. Shapechangers replies, I saw him every year at NYCC for several years straight, bought something at his table, asked him to sign it, and we spoke. He remembered me from year to year, no small feat at that con. He remembered which stories he'd told me. One year I came back with a different gender on. He squinted at me a bit and said thoughtfully, "I've seen you before in this place." All I had to say was, "last year you told me the story about the inoshishi." And his face cleared, and he leaned in with a grin and told me about a German guitarist who he traveled with, twice. Who transitioned between the first and second time, so he'd gotten to meet this person all over again on the second round. It was a wonderfully kind way to let me know that everything was fine. I was fresh out of the closet and I needed that, and maybe he could see it. The Last Unicorn is the best book in the world and I will defend it and its author til I die. the end. /end ID]

I don't usually talk about celebrities; artists, when I do, and I'm keenly aware that one needn't be a good person to be a hell of a heartwrenching artist. But Peter S. Beagle has written a few of my favorite things in the world, he's an excellent singer and filker, and this Twitter thread was dreadfully important to me. I don't want it going away as Twitter becomes Shitter, because it's so often bad news, isn't it? It's important to me to share trans joy.

#Peter S. Beagle

[jeannereames]

Bonus: Firefox is the (more or less) direct descendant of Mosaic, the first web browser that showed images. I have used it since it WAS Mosaic in the early/mid-1990s, and I will always prefer it. Sometimes old dogs don't need to learn new tricks. ;-)

Getting really sick of all the "There's No Place Like Chrome" ads on youtube. There's Firefox. Firefox saves your passwords. Firefox autofills things if you want. Firefox also does things that Chrome doesn't like allow adblockers, and it does not mine your data and sell your information for advertising purposes. Google is really trying to push people to use Chrome so they can take as much data from users as possible in order to make as much money as possible and it's borderline sinister.

Anyway, download Firefox.

#Mosaic = Firefox #I HATE Chrome #I hate Explorer even more

[jeannereames]

I'll never understand why some people think they can be doctors, but wouldn't want their doctor to wire their house. Or they think they can read a history book and know history better than a history professor...but then won't let me fix their car after reading a book about it ....

Expertise is, like, A THING, folks.... Intellectual expertise is no less a form of expertise than the trades, or a professional degree.

Got reblogged by Seanan McGuire again; can safely assume my notes will be a nightmare of people accusing me of being a lazy, incompetent, distracted, inhumane doctor, assuming they notice I’m a doctor. May take a week off.

People will simultaneously describe all the elements of the current US medical system that lead to burnout in service of making the very few shareholders very rich, and then pretend that doctors aren’t also profoundly negatively affected by it, and then decide the system is also actually our fault.

[jeannereames]

You already wrote it like twice lol so I apologize for bringing it up again… but if you were to rewrite the final scene of Rise once more but from Philippos’s POV… what would you envision his final thoughts to have been when he’s killed? Or, I'm not sure if he would have even been capable of having any by that point, but, for imagination's sake really :)

Below are my thoughts about Philippos’s mindset at the time.

Before I get to that, for anyone wondering what the asker is talking about, my website for Dancing with the Lion has several “out-takes” (scenes cut from the novels), plus a few scenes (and one short story) that take place in the c. 10 months between book 1 and book 2.

Among these is a rewrite of Rise's last scene, originally done in Alexandros’s head, seen from Hephaistion’s POV. (Click image)

(Fair warning, and it probably goes without saying, but while the first set can be read after finishing Becoming, the second set should wait until you’ve finished Rise, as they naturally contain spoilers.)

So, first, at the parade’s start, Philippos would still be irked with Alexandros after their quarrel over (ironically) Pausanias. He said they’d continue the discussion later, after telling Alexandros his choices were about managing difficult personalities, especially when they’re about to be away from Macedon for some years.

Ergo, at the start of the parade, he would’ve been thinking about how to get through to his idealistic child that sometimes full justice must take a back seat to avoiding interminable blood feuds. He’d probably also have been hoping he’d live until Alexandros was more mature. He’d not be thinking assassination, of course. They’re about to embark on a serious military campaign to Persia, and Macedonian kings often died with their boots on. He’s in his mid/late 40s, his leg is lame and he’s not as fast as he used to be. He could fall in battle.

This isn’t overly morbid. These are pretty normal thoughts (ime) for parents of teens, and Alexandros is still, effectively, a teen, even if he just turned 20. You just hope the inevitable blunders of adolescence are none so bad they die before the neurons in their frontal cortexes finish fusing. Not that the Greeks understood adolescent neurology, but they certainly understood teenaged hotheadedness. And Alexandros (and the real Alexander) were more hotheaded than most. After all, how many times did his own bravery almost get him killed?

So that would’ve been on Philippos’s mind in the immediate aftermath of their quarrel, but it wouldn’t be the first time—I’m sure it was a well-worn grove of worry—so he’d have kicked it off once the parade started. After that, right up until the moment he was stabbed, he was having a great morning. It was truly his triumph. That’s the irony of his death … and why Pausanias picked that event.

Historically speaking, it seems he was stabbed in the back, or perhaps from the side, so I doubt he saw it coming—or who stabbed him. Now, we get into a bit of speculation and back to my fictional take. I wrote it so that he died almost immediately. Pausanias was a soldier, and even with a cloak in the way, he could find the heart fairly accurately, I think. (Whether this was true in history, we don’t actually know. The historical Philip may have taken a few minutes to die if Pausanias was off target by an inch or two.)

In any case, the heart is delicate. A direct wound by arrow, sword, spear, knife, bullet is almost always fatal without immediate medical intervention, due to extreme bleeding into the chest cavity. Ergo, shock takes over in under half a minute, more like 15-20 seconds.

In the novel, in those, let’s say, 20 seconds, Philippos was able to call his son’s name, and would have seen Alexandros turn and call him Pappa, reaching for him. The surprise on his son’s face would tell Philippos he wasn’t involved. Philippos would know he was a dead man, so I think it would matter to him that Alexandros wasn’t behind it.

I don’t say in the novel, but Pausanias could have whispered something in his ear at the end. I describe him as right behind the king, one hand on his elbow. Alexandros thinks he’s helping to hold his father up (not realizing the other hand had the knife). And, again, as a soldier, Pausanias would have twisted that knife, once it went in, to be sure, even if he’d hit off center, that it would do maximum damage. Then, of course, he’s off like a shot, shoving Philippos at Alexandros.

Philippos was probably still conscious enough to feel his son grab him and hear him shout, “Get him!” But after that, shock would’ve kicked in and he’d have lost consciousness. He’d look dead to Alexandros (and be as good as).

In reality, the brain still survives for a few minutes even after the heart stops. He’d no doubt have had the “life flashes before your eyes” experience. He might have felt fury at Pausanias, but largely, I think, for interrupting his plans. I suspect his main concern would be the safety of his son and of his kingdom. At the approach of death, things pare down to the most basic and most important. I doubt that included Pausanias except peripherally (probably to Pausanias’s dismay, if he knew).

So that’s my take on what Philippos probably thought at the end.

#asks #Philip of Macedon #assassination of Philip of Macedon #Dancing with the Lion #DwtL #Alexander the Great #historical fiction #ancient Macedonia #Pausanias

[jeannereames]

Do the people who think that Jews are not an oppressed group know that the word “ghetto” was created specifically for us?

#also a little knowledge of HISTORY helps....

[jeannereames]

Reading the Wikipedia articles of most Ptolemaic kings, there's a note right at the beginning: "Numbering the Ptolemies is a modern convention. Older sources may give a number one higher or lower. The most reliable way of determining which Ptolemy is being referred to in any given case is by epithet (e.g. "Philopator")".

I did not find a similar note in articles about the Argeads, Seleucids, or any other Hellenistic dynasty, for that matter, even if their members generally had epithets. This made me look into the list of Ancient Macedonian monarchs, as it occured to me that, besides Alexander the Great, I could not name a single pre-Alexander monarch with an epithet! The only ones I could find were Alexander I the Philhellene and Amyntas II the Little.

Hellenistic monarchs seem to have had all sorts of colorful epithets - Soter, Nicator, Epiphanes, Euergetes, Philopator. Even Macedonian kings had them, but most post-Alexander - Poliorketes, Gonatas, Keraunos. Is there a reason why the Macedonian monarchs from the Argead dynasty do not generally have epithets for which they are known?

Tl;dr answer: as the world widened and certain names became increasingly repetitive in ruling families, epithets were an easy way to separate them. The “numbering system” is recent and largely European. It was retrofitted to the medieval and ancient worlds when writing histories about these eras (and sometimes non-European regions too, such as Japan and China).

Epithets, or “nicknames,” became useful when identifying individuals outside their usual sphere of reference, especially if there might be more than one famous person from (say) Macedon named “Alexandros.”

Thus we get the most famous Alexander (III) Magnus/Megalexandros [the Great]/Alexandros ho Anikētos [the Undefeated], but also Alexandros (I) ho Philhellenas [the Philhellene]/Alexandros ho Khruseos [the Golden]. The first name listed for each is the one used by posterity, the latter was the name used in their own lifetime. So no, Alexander III was not called “the Great” until a while after his death. 😉

Identifying Individuals in Ancient Greece

We find a two- or three-tiered identification system:

Given Name

Father’s name in the genitive = [son/daughter] of ____ (patronymic)

Place of origin (also in the genitive = “of ____”)

The first two are all-but-universal, and the third is a common addition, but may be omitted in cases where the place of origin can be assumed. “Place of origin,” however, can vary. It may be a city-state/nation, or within a city-state, the phratry (clan) or tribe.

So, if you were to travel from, say, Eretria (on Euboia Island) to Athens, you’d identify yourself: Myron Apollodorou Eretrias = Myron, son of Apollodoros, of Eretria. You wouldn’t get specific about a phratry because you’re not home. Nobody cares.

Just like when I travel to Greece, I rarely say, “I’m from Omaha.” I usually just say, “I’m from the States,” and if they ask which state, I add “Nebraska”—which solicits confused looks. LOL If I were to begin with “I’m from Omaha,” they’d really be confused! It’s only inside the US that I say I’m from Omaha, Nebraska. Inside Omaha, I may give my neighborhood. So that’s a good referent as to how specific they might get, and under what circumstances.

Another fun fact: it was typical (if not absolute) for the first son to be named for his paternal grandfather, the second for his maternal grandfather, and then by various other male relatives. So, for instance, Perdikkas III, the first of Amyntas III’s sons to have a son, named the boy Amyntas. Ergo, Philip named Alexander for his elder brother, who didn’t live long enough to marry and procreate. Yet, again, it’s not absolute (unlike in Greece today); e.g., Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes; Aristobulos, son of Aristobulos … Alexander (IV), son of Alexander (III).

As for women, they’re identified by father or husband (or son or brother). It’s much rarer to see a place identifier, in part because women were assumed not to travel much. We get exceptions: the famous Aspasia, Perikles’s mistress, was identified (in Athens) as “from Miletos.” Also, in royal marriages. So, Olympias was daughter of Neoptolomos, of the Molossoi (ruling clan of Epiros): Olympias Neoptolomou Molossou.

When we get to these upper-class families, with their clan designations, we get closer to what, today, we’d call a “surname.”

Athens had several aristocratic clans, but the most famous/notorious were the Alkmeonidai, of which Kleisthenes, Perikles, Alkibiades, and Plato were all members (some via their mothers). Another Athenian example were the Philaidai (Miltiades and Kimon).

These aristocratic families took their name from a mythical forefather: e.g., Alkmaion, great-grandson of Nestor (yes, from the Iliad). This pattern was true all over Greece, not just Athens. These are largely the descendants of the old kings (basileis) and nobles (aristokratoi) of the Greek dark age/archaic age (e.g., Late Iron Age).

But in some areas, royal families persisted, such as Epiros, Macedon, and Sparta, who also kept the royal clan designation: Molossoi (Epiros), Temenidai (Macedon), Agiadai and Eurypontidai (Sparta). Thessaly’s main cities also has a semi-ruling royal family, such as the Aleuadai of Larissa, traditional allies of the Macedonian royal house.

While you’ll often see me refer to the Macedonian royal family as “Argeads,”* the clan name they’d have used was “Temenidai,” as they believed themselves to be descendants of Herakles (and thus, Zeus) through his great-great-grandson Temenos. Outside Macedonia, however, they’d use “Makedonon” (of Macedon). We find Alexander referred to on an ancient Roman bust (the Azara Herm) as Alexandros Philippou Makedonon

Non-royal Macedonians would use Patronymics (+ origin place), so Hephaistion is identified in Arrian as Hephaistion Amyntoros Pellais (Hephaistion, son of Amyntor, of Pella). Krateros, however, is identified only by his patronymic in our texts (the most common pattern), so we’re less clear on where he was from: Krateros Alexandrou (Orestidis?).

In the pre-Philip/Alexander era, it’s usually possible to untangle Macedonian kings by patronymic if employed, but even that doesn’t always work. The first Alexandros (I) was the son of an Amyntas and so was the second, Philip’s older brother. Fortunately, we find them referenced in such a way that we usually know who’s meant.

Usually.

Yet take the fragment from Anaximines (FGrH 72 F 4) that says simply “Alexandros” created the Pezhetairoi (Foot Companions).

Um… WHICH ONE?! Arguments have been made for Alexander I (Wrightson), Alexander II (Greenwalt), and Alexander III (various).

Welcome to the Wild, Wild West of ancient history. We write entire articles arguing “which Alexander” because the ancient sources didn’t identify him beyond a single name.

In any case, once Macedonia emerged onto the “world stage,” so to speak, it became critical to find better ways to identify the various Successor kings (Diadochi) of the Hellenistic era. All the more so as they frequently reused names (Ptolemies) or alternated (Seleukos/Antiochos). Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy isn’t very meaningful! Epithets became an easy way to identify which Ptolemy.

——————

* “Argead” is a modern usage for reasons I won’t go into or it’s Rabbit Hole Time about the putative Greekness (from Argos) of the Macedonian royal family. Suffice to say Alexander would be mightily puzzled to be called an Argead.

#asks #ancient royal designations #epithets for ancient kings #alexander the great #macedonian royal house #ancient greece #ancient greek naming patterns #ancient macedonia #classics #temenidae #naming ptolemies #naming seleucids #tagamemnon #royal designations

[jeannereames]

I love this. Yes, your giant brother just jumped in with you and took up half your space.

capybara

[jeannereames]

Whoo-hoo!

LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOO

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr. Reames! When you decide to read a history book on your free time - and a book completely unrelated to your area of expertise - but you know nothing about said topic, you're only interested in learning about it. How do you choose which book you'll read?

FANTASTIC question. Thank you for asking it.

Let’s Talk How to Evaluate the Quality of a Book NOT on/in Your Specialization or Field

I’m going to start with some general bullet points of advice with discussion. Then I’ll give a concrete example of a book (or set of them) that I decided not to buy after a little rummaging.

The Basics

(These may seem obvious, but a lot of folks ignore them, like they skip over reading the introduction. Always read the book’s introduction!)

Who’s the author?

Most books have, on the back cover or inside, a note about the author. Also, google the person. Do they have a professional degree or some form of special training/ experience (e.g., say, they worked on a dig)? If they’re a professor, where do they teach? (But don’t put too much on that; the state of academia today means highly respected scholars could end up in Podunk Mississippi just to find a job.)

What type of book is it and who’s the intended audience?

Is it an academic book meant for other specialists? A book intended for use as a textbook? Something marketed to general audiences: “pop” history, or creative non-fiction? These may all be well-done. Yet if I’m wanting to learn about a topic I’m not familiar with, I specifically seek out a textbook, as they're geared to teach the topic to non-specialists. They won’t go down a research rabbit hole. Specifically in ancient history, those “Companion to…” collections are great, as you get multiple experts weighing in on what they know the most about. And they're intended for interested readers but not specialists in that particular topic. Also they’re curated by an editor who IS a specialist, so you know the chosen authors are respected in the field.

When was it written?

If the publication date is 50 years ago, it’s been superseded. It might be out of date even if it’s 20 years ago—or 10. But newer is not necessarily better.

What press published it?

Princeton, Cambridge, Brill/DeGruyter, Berkeley, Peeters, Harvard, Chicago. Any would be a good sign. But the University of Oklahoma does not mean it’s a bad book. (Beth Carney’s important first monograph on Macedonian women came from UOk.) University presses can corner the market on a particular topic: Univ. of Nebraska does a LOT of native history. Also, it may not be a university press at all. Routledge is perfectly respectable, as are Bloomsbury and Penguin. For local histories or something niche, you may get publication by a historical society, not a major press at all. (I picked up a perfectly fine book about ghost stories in the city of Savannah done by the local historical society.) BUT IF IT’S SELF-PUBLISHED, that’s a big ol’ Red Flag.

Going a Little Deeper

Ask somebody you know, who IS a specialist in the field, if they’ve read the book and what they think

Depending on your personal circle, this may not be possible.

Find a review (or three)

I regularly teach my undergrads (and grad students) to look for reviews.

Look at the bibliography

Probably more important for academic books, but how long is the biblio? Yes, topics can have more or fewer publications, but it should go on for some pages. Also, is it all in just one language? Some fields may tend that way (much American history), but a well-done monograph in, say, Greek or Roman history should not be monolingual in the research.

Actually check (don’t ignore) footnotes

They tell stories. Again, this largely pertains to academic books, but you can find fun (and occasionally catty) scholarly quarrels in them. Very early in my reading on Alexander, I became fascinated by the back-and-forth in footnotes between the “Three Bs” (Badian, Borza, and Bosworth) plus Green and Hammond. BUT some red flags: 1) the author disproportionately citing themself, especially if it’s because 2) the author seems to have quarrels with a large number of colleagues. Maybe the author is just original! But sometimes that tells you their conclusions are questionable. Use your common sense.

Now, for a concrete example … as some of you know, I have American indigenous ancestry, specifically Peoria-Miami (Myaamia). While I know some things about our tribe, I’m far from an expert. On our Facebook page, one of the other members recently dropped mention of a series on the early history of Indiana, and the conflicts between settlers and natives during the French-Indian Wars—including St. Clare’s Defeat, effected by the Myaamia and led by Little Turtle (Mihshihkinaahkwa), the worst defeat [proportionally] ever suffered by American troops.

I thought, Oh, cool, maybe I should pick these up and read them in my “copious” spare time. E.g., probably years from now.

I followed the provided link, and immediately thought, This doesn’t look good. Page ran on forever, not well organized, and I had to hunt for info about the author. Although he was a retired schoolteacher, he didn’t seem to have any specific training in doing historical research; I don’t think he was even a history major in college (probably did education). Additionally, the book-covers and purchasing info made it clear all the books were self-published, and the provided text snippets contained grammar errors.

Yeah, I left that page bookless. Maybe the info in them was perfectly fine and he just couldn’t find a publisher who wanted creative non-fiction about an event most people have never heard of led by a chief with a name most can’t pronounce…. But I’m going to bet the research matched the grammar: slap-dash.

Now, that was a relatively easy one to figure out; I spent all of 10 minutes on the page. (And no, I’m not naming the author nor linking to the books, as this is an example, not an attempt to humiliate the person.) But it gives you some idea how I evaluate books in a field very far from my own specialty.

———————

* Although that said, they’re starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with new topics for Yet Another “Companion to….” Some I’ve seen would be better just sold as a collection on X topic, not “Companion to….”

#asks #how to judge a history book when you're not an expert in that topic #history #reading about history #historiography

[jeannereames]

"There is no one about whom more have written more variously." --Arrian, speaking of Alexander

(...οὐδ᾽ ἔστιν ὑπὲρ ὅτου πλείονες ἢ ἀξυμφωνότεροι ἐς ἀλλήλους... [Anab. 1.1.2])

#Arrian of Nikomedia #Alexander the Great #Alexander historians #ancient Macedonia #Stadter trans. #Classics

[jeannereames]

Order of events in novels

POLL! See below ....

Because events in my current epic/historical fantasy MIP (monster-in-progress) sometimes occur in multiple, geographically distant places, I may organize scenes slightly out of chronological sequence for thematic, framing, or other reasons. E.g., Events in Scene A at Place A occur some days/weeks after events in Scene B at Place B. But events in Scene B are not required to set up Scene A and the relative timing of each is not explicit in the narrative. I'm not sure most readers would do the math to figure it out, but...

(Please reblog)

#poll #chronology in novels #sequence of events in novels #a question for readers on their awareness of event chronology in novels

[jeannereames]

Hey Dr Reames! I've read that Pausanias of Orestis was sexually assaulted whilst at a party and that's why he killed king Philip. But how does this become common knowledge? was it recorded somewhere? or is this hearsay in trying to find motivation behind the murder? love your insight!

I've written about the murder of Philip (and Pausanias's role in it) in the two posts below. They'll probably answer your question--including to what degree (if any) Alexander or other parties were involved. (E.g., was it a matter of personal timḗ, or an assassination?)

WHO KILLED PHILIP OF MACEDON?

DID ALEXANDER KNOW IT WOULD HAPPEN?

As for how people knew the "gory details"--that owed to the fact it was (at least partly) about honor, or timḗ (τιμή). News of the rape would have been spread by Attalos on purpose to shame Pausanias. Pausanias would have gone to Philip as arbiter/judge (one of the traditional roles of a Macedonian king), for redress. Philip refused to do anything about the rape itself. He did kick Attalos upstairs (apparently) to get him out of Macedonia, where he was causing trouble. (Or that's my read on it.) Parmenion got to babysit him. Then Philip promoted Pausanias, hoping to smooth over ruffled feathers. Didn't work.

The reason for such a public murder, when it would have been easier for Pausanias to kill Philip in a smaller venue, WAS to reclaim his honor (timḗ) publicly by killing the unjust judge. Such acts required the public aspect, as the shaming had been public.

Think of what Attalos did to Pausanias as extreme Revenge Porn. The POINT was his public humiliation. Also, recall that Pausanias and his buddies BULLIED a boy to death first. That was what set off Attalos to get revenge. Pausanias was angry when he (a former beloved of Philip) was set aside for a younger, prettier model. So he and his friends harassed the other boy until he committed suicide.

The whole thing from beginning to end was quite the sordid tale. I tried to put it into context in Dancing with the Lion. It's first mentioned when the boys are at Mieza under Aristotle, in Book I, Becoming, then it all comes to a head after Alexander returns from exile, near the end of Rise.

Pausanias was not a nice person; he was a privileged bully. But that also doesn't make what was done to him just either. Philip, so deft at interstate diplomatics, failed to settle this case, and paid with his life.

#Pausanias of Orestis #Philip of Macedon #Alexander the Great #ancient Macedon #murder of Philip of Macedon #Philip II of Macedon #anciend Macedonia #ancient Greece #Classics #timḗ #honor killings in ancient Greece #tagamemnon #asks