Alexander the Great: Poisoned?

[Peter1469]

Alexander the Great: Poisoned? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mystery-of-alexander-the-greats-death-solved-ruler-was-killed-by-toxic-wine-claim-scientists-9054625.html) After conquering much of the known world by about the age of 30, Alexander pulled back from the impassable Hindu Kush and went to Babylon for some much deserved R&R. There at the age of 32, on or about June 1, 323 BCE, one of the greatest Captains in military history fell ill, developing a fever and becoming unable to speak or walk, a state that got progressively worse until his death 12 days later.

Until now historians largely ruled out poisoning, as the commonly used poisons at the time, like arsenic, would have acted much faster. But new research breathes life back into the assassination by poisoned wine theory.


Dr Leo Schep, a toxicologist from New Zealand’s National Poisons Centre says it is impossible that poisons such as arsenic were to blame - as cited in some theories - as death would have come too fast.


Instead, in his new research, Dr Schep argues that the most likely culprit was Veratrum album, a poisonous plant from the lily family also known as white or false hellebore.
Often fermented by the Greeks as a herbal treatment for inducing vomiting, importantly, it could account for the 12 days it took for the leader to die.


It would also match an account of Alexander the Great’s death written by ancient Greek historian Diodorus, who said he was struck with pain after drinking a large bowl of unmixed wine in honour of Hercules.



Had he lived, would Alexander have continued to conquer? His armies were beat up and tired. Where would have have gone next? To the west, into what is now Europe? We will never know.

[Codename Section]

I read a lot on ancient generals. I thought the movie being about his personal life was a huge disappointment. The assault on Tyre would have been awesome to see on the big screen, but instead I got to see bullshit puppy eye shit.

Anyway, his estate didn't really reward any one person besides his eunuch so I'm not sure what the motive was.

[Max Rockatansky]

Had he lived, would Alexander have continued to conquer? His armies were beat up and tired. Where would have have gone next? To the west, into what is now Europe? We will never know.

We will never know, but it is a curiosity what he would have done. From the map below and a cursory rereading of his conquests, it appears Alexander was returning and consolidating his conquests rather than seeking new territories.

The poisoning theory is interesting. It's not an uncommon end for kings and queens to end up poisoned for one reason or another.

http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130405103815/spartacus/images/4/48/Map_Alexander.jpg
http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130405103815/spartacus/images/4/48/Map_Alexander.jpg

[Peter1469]

I read a lot on ancient generals. I thought the movie being about his personal life was a huge disappointment. The assault on Tyre would have been awesome to see on the big screen, but instead I got to see bullshit puppy eye shit.

Anyway, his estate didn't really reward any one person besides his eunuch so I'm not sure what the motive was.


It is said that Alexander said to the question who should rule? - the one who can hold it. Likely b.s. since Alexander was unable to talk.

[Peter1469]

Alexander was consolidating his power and empire. He had wanted to push over the Hindu Kush and claim the rich lands beyond. It was the first geographical feature that stopped him. But hey, the highest mountains on earth, what do you want?

Now refer to your cool map- Alexander had plenty of space to expand- and he was only 32. He could have waited 10 years to consolidate and then get bored. To the east he could push north into the Caucuses. In the center he could have pushed north of Anatolia into the great plains beyond. And in the West he could have pushed through the Balkans opening Europe to him (or the great plains mentioned above). Had he decided to become a maritime power, the entire Mediterranean basin lay open to him.

But reality sets in. Alexander drank so much, it is likely that he wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, poison or no poison.


We will never know, but it is a curiosity what he would have done. From the map below and a cursory rereading of his conquests, it appears Alexander was returning and consolidating his conquests rather than seeking new territories.

The poisoning theory is interesting. It's not an uncommon end for kings and queens to end up poisoned for one reason or another.

http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130405103815/spartacus/images/4/48/Map_Alexander.jpg
http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130405103815/spartacus/images/4/48/Map_Alexander.jpg

[Peter1469]

Just think of a modern Europe with a Greek centric history rather than a Roman centric one.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just think of a modern Europe with a Greek centric history rather than a Roman centric one.

That definitely would have changed everything. Funny how history works and the courses it could have taken.

[Peter1469]

That definitely would have changed everything. Funny how history works and the courses it could have taken.

Although the Greeks would have had to evolve from its phalanx tactics to something more like the legionary tactics once went after the Gauls.

[Max Rockatansky]

Although the Greeks would have had to evolve from its phalanx tactics to something more like the legionary tactics once went after the Gauls.

Evolve tactics, yes, but they could have come up with something different to fight European tribes. He died before moving to conquer Arabia. A Greek-based Middle-East and Southwest Asia would have certainly changed history even if he never ventured west of Adriatic Sea. At some point, Alexander's empire would have crossed paths with the Carthaginians and the Romans, but if his empire had been able to stabilize, the odds would have favored the Greeks.

Alexander understood the importance of assimilation. This attitude might have influenced any contact with the Carthaginians and the Romans.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html

In the spring of 324, Alexander held a great victory celebration at Susa. He and 80 of his close associates married Persian noblewomen. In addition, he legitimized previous so-called marriages between soldiers and native women and gave them rich wedding gifts, no doubt to encourage such unions.

Little later, at Opis he proclaimed the discharge of 10,000 Macedonian veterans to be sent home to Macedonia with general Craterus. Craterus' orders were to replace Antipater and Antipater’s to bring new reinforcements in Asia. But the army mutinied hearing this. Enraged Alexander pointed the main ringleaders to his bodyguards to be punished and then gave his famous speech where he reminded the Macedonians that without him and his father Philip, they would have still been living in fear of the nations surrounding Macedonia, instead of ruling the world. After this the Macedonians were reconciled with their king and 10,000 of them set out for Europe, leaving their children of Asian women with Alexander. In the same time 30,000 Persian youth already trained in Macedonian manner were recruited in the army. Alexander prayed for unity between Macedonians and Persians and by breeding a new army of mixed blood he hoped to create a core of a new royal army which would be attached only to him.


But Alexander will never see this happen. Shortly before beginning of the planned Arabian campaign, he contracted a high fever after attending a private party at his friend's Medius of Larisa. As soon as he drank from the cup he “shrieked aloud as if smitten by a violent blow”. The fever became stronger with each following day to the point that he was unable to move and speak. The Macedonians were allowed to file past their leader for the last time before he finally succumbed to the illness on June 7, 323 BC in the Macedonian month of Daesius. Alexander the Great, the Macedonian king and the great conqueror of Persian Empire, died at the age of 33 without designating a successor to the Macedonian Empire.

[Codename Section]

Although the Greeks would have had to evolve from its phalanx tactics to something more like the legionary tactics once went after the Gauls.

Yes, but by the time he died, his generals and followers were already wanting to carve their own piece of the pie. Greeks didn't have a concept of "holiness" associated with their state that Rome did.

To hold an empire you have to have a good myth. Rome had that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some cracks were showing in Alexander's hold, but it's only a guess whether or not it would have held together if Alexander had named an heir to whom all the generals had sworn loyalty.

One thing that has provided the United States stability over the past two centuries is a respected and orderly transition of power. That hasn't always been the case in several states, nations and empires with chaos often the result. It's the reason monarchies were always so uptight about an heir to whom all the dukes, barons and such would swear loyalty upon passing of the King or Queen. The wars in those cases were where that order of succession had failed.

[Codename Section]

Egypt and Rome both outlasted us. They had order but they also had tradition. Traditions hold people longer than fear.

Hell, I'm antistatist but Rome was the SHIT.

[Max Rockatansky]

Egypt and Rome both outlasted us. They had order but they also had tradition. Traditions hold people longer than fear.

Hell, I'm antistatist but Rome was the SHIT.

Since we're still here, I don't see how you can say they "outlasted us". While they had traditions, they also adapted to the situation. Having a common history, a common language and common practices does help bring people together. This doesn't mean the history of other people, other languages or other practices a bad. They can often be useful in "the melting pot". For a people to survive, it's as important that they adapt as it is for them to have a common bond.

[Codename Section]

Since we're still here, I don't see how you can say they "outlasted us". While they had traditions, they also adapted to the situation. Having a common history, a common language and common practices does help bring people together. This doesn't mean the history of other people, other languages or other practices a bad. They can often be useful in "the melting pot". For a people to survive, it's as important that they adapt as it is for them to have a common bond.

We're not going to last as long as Rome. We're already displaying Caligula and Nero level stupid.

[The Xl]

We're not going to last as long as Rome. We're already displaying Caligula and Nero level stupid.

America will fall when the elite are ready for one world government.

[Max Rockatansky]

We're not going to last as long as Rome. We're already displaying Caligula and Nero level stupid.

The world has been and continues to change faster than in the days of the Caesars. I do not see the US collapsing like the Roman Empire. If anything, we'd be more like the British Empire; important, but not as important as we once were. I also do not see "Caligula and Nero level stupid" since the US government is far more restrictive to leadership than Rome under the Caesars.

[Peter1469]

Yes, but by the time he died, his generals and followers were already wanting to carve their own piece of the pie. Greeks didn't have a concept of "holiness" associated with their state that Rome did.

To hold an empire you have to have a good myth. Rome had that.

Exactly. One of Alexander's more accomplished generals, Seleucus, established the Seleucid Empire and they merged the phalanx with legionary tactics on the flanks and heavy cavalry to exploit enemy weakness.

[Peter1469]

Some cracks were showing in Alexander's hold, but it's only a guess whether or not it would have held together if Alexander had named an heir to whom all the generals had sworn loyalty.

One thing that has provided the United States stability over the past two centuries is a respected and orderly transition of power. That hasn't always been the case in several states, nations and empires with chaos often the result. It's the reason monarchies were always so uptight about an heir to whom all the dukes, barons and such would swear loyalty upon passing of the King or Queen. The wars in those cases were where that order of succession had failed.

The Bodled: hence the poison.... :smiley:

[Mister D]

Exactly. One of Alexander's more accomplished generals, Seleucus, established the Seleucid Empire and they merged the phalanx with legionary tactics on the flanks and heavy cavalry to exploit enemy weakness.

The Seleucids turned out to be a paper tiger though at least when war with Rome came.

[Peter1469]

The Seleucids turned out to be a paper tiger though at least when war with Rome came.

I am not so familiar with that. Was it a wealth issue? The land under the Selecids isn't the most productive.

[Alyosha]

Ohhh, go away for a few days, almost die, miss Alexander thread. :(
Peter1469

why don't you make cool threads when I am well?

[Peter1469]

I am an inconsiderate dick? (Just ask my ex-wife).

Hope you are feeling better.

The thread isn't dead, feel free to discuss our dead hero, Alexander.


Ohhh, go away for a few days, almost die, miss Alexander thread. :(
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)

why don't you make cool threads when I am well?

[Alyosha]

I personally felt that he was poisoned by Bagoas. Qui bono as the Roman's say. He got the most out of the death when it happened. Had Alexander had sons he would have gotten nothing.

The generals knew whomever was in charge got a power play on his hands and the wife got shit out of his death.

[Mister D]

I am not so familiar with that. Was it a wealth issue? The land under the Selecids isn't the most productive.

I'm sure Roman resources played a role but when it came down to it a Macedonian style army, while more flexible and balanced than a Roman army, required a skilled commander to use properly. The Roman army was designed in such a way that it required less tactical skill. That's the short of it. I think Alexander would have won at Magnesia or Cynoscephalae but they were crushing Roman victories over the Macedonian phalanx.

[Codename Section]

I'm sure Roman resources played but when it came down to it a Macedonian style army, while more flexible and balanced than a Roman army, required a skilled commander to use properly. The Roman army was designed in such a way that it required less tactical skill. That's the short of it. I think Alexander would have won at Magnesia or Cynoscephalae but they were crushing Roman victories over the Macedonian phalanx.

Romans had discipline and strength of will. Look at what happened with Hannibal. Everyone was wiped out in that legion and they got another one up and running and ready to go--not to mention angry.

I love Rome.

[Mister D]

Romans had discipline and strength of will. Look at what happened with Hannibal. Everyone was wiped out in that legion and they got another one up and running and ready to go--not to mention angry.

I love Rome.

That's where not just will but resources come into play. The thing is, the legion typically got the better of the more balanced Macedonian force.

[Peter1469]

I personally felt that he was poisoned by Bagoas. Qui bono as the Roman's say. He got the most out of the death when it happened. Had Alexander had sons he would have gotten nothing.

The generals knew whomever was in charge got a power play on his hands and the wife got shit out of his death.

Very interesting theory- although legally not relevant, what was the motive?

[Peter1469]

I'm sure Roman resources played a role but when it came down to it a Macedonian style army, while more flexible and balanced than a Roman army, required a skilled commander to use properly. The Roman army was designed in such a way that it required less tactical skill. That's the short of it. I think Alexander would have won at Magnesia or Cynoscephalae but they were crushing Roman victories over the Macedonian phalanx.

I agree. The phalanx is deadly when used properly. But if you can crack it, the only thing that happens next is a massacre.

[Alyosha]

Very interesting theory- although legally not relevant, what was the motive?

He was the Eromenos of two kings, and Alexander left him money he would not have gotten as he grew older and was passed off to the armies. Perhaps the love was waning already.

Who else benefited more from Alexander's death at that point in time?

[Peter1469]

He was the Eromenos of two kings, and Alexander left him money he would not have gotten as he grew older and was passed off to the armies. Perhaps the love was waning already.

Who else benefited more from Alexander's death at that point in time?

Until now I had not put credence in the poisoning story.

[Mister D]

I agree. The phalanx is deadly when used properly. But if you can crack it, the only thing that happens next is a massacre.

True. I agree but I think the phalanx's real role was as a pivot for the cavalry on the flanks. The cavalry was the decisive arm in an Alexandrian army. That said, yes, if the phalanx can keep the legionary formation to its front it has an advantage. If their flank gets turned it's all over...fast. You can't a real sense of that from Total War which was one thing I didn't like.

[Mister D]

This made me think of the old games I used to play. I had to play solitaire because this was SUPER nerdy.

https://www.gmtgames.com/p-46-great-battles-of-alexander-deluxe.aspx

http://www.gmtgames.com/living_rules/AncientWorldv2.2.pdf

https://www.gmtgames.com/p-53-caesar-the-civil-wars.aspx