Alexander the Great in Firdawsi's Book of Kings(blogs.bl.uk)
blogs.bl.uk
Alexander the Great in Firdawsi's Book of Kings
https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2022/10/alexander-the-great-in-firdawsis-book-of-kings.html
11 comments
> it’s quite hard to know exactly what happened back then! For instance, the Greeks would never admit that Alexander was the son of the King of Persia and grandson of Philip. Yes, it’s unlikely but it’s not implausible…
Given that we know about Alexander's parentage from multiple contemporary sources, the idea that a pro-Persian epic poem written 1300 years later is plausible when it tells us something different is not very sensible.
What's probably going on is a bit of retconning to resolve two contrary ideas. On the one hand, by the time Ferdowsi was writing, several hundred years of Arab rule in Iran had made stories about Alexander (who the Arabs thought was pretty awesome) popular. On the other hand, Persians remembered that Alexander had conquered an ancient Persian empire. (We know the pre-Islamic Sassanid Persians hated Alexander.) How do you reconcile this in a patriotic Persian poem?
Solution: make it so Alexander was secretly Persian! (I have no idea whether this was Ferdowsi's innovation or something that had evolved over a few centuries of storytelling prior to Ferdowsi coming along.)
There's a nice discussion of the background to this (including why Ferdowsi did things like refer to Alexander as "Caesar of Rome") here https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/20f0yh/historic...
Given that we know about Alexander's parentage from multiple contemporary sources, the idea that a pro-Persian epic poem written 1300 years later is plausible when it tells us something different is not very sensible.
What's probably going on is a bit of retconning to resolve two contrary ideas. On the one hand, by the time Ferdowsi was writing, several hundred years of Arab rule in Iran had made stories about Alexander (who the Arabs thought was pretty awesome) popular. On the other hand, Persians remembered that Alexander had conquered an ancient Persian empire. (We know the pre-Islamic Sassanid Persians hated Alexander.) How do you reconcile this in a patriotic Persian poem?
Solution: make it so Alexander was secretly Persian! (I have no idea whether this was Ferdowsi's innovation or something that had evolved over a few centuries of storytelling prior to Ferdowsi coming along.)
There's a nice discussion of the background to this (including why Ferdowsi did things like refer to Alexander as "Caesar of Rome") here https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/20f0yh/historic...
> On the one hand, by the time Ferdowsi was writing, several hundred years of Arab rule in Iran had made stories about Alexander (who the Arabs thought was pretty awesome) popular.
Indeed, it's sometimes overlooked in the West that much of the Middle East and Southwest Asia consider their cultures at least in part descended from Greece, much as Europe and places like the US consider Greece the starting point of their cultures. And that's mainly because of Alexander. So you see some of the same stuff there that you see in Europe with Greek (and, by the transitive property, Roman) history, not seeing Alexander so much as a conqueror who defeated them, but rather as a vital part of the fabric of their history and society, as the British celebrate their Roman ruins rather than being angry or ashamed of them despite the Romans being, at one time, foreign conquerors, and even freely tie major cultural founding-myths to Rome (e.g. King Arthur), much as the Aeneid ties Roman culture to Greek.
Indeed, it's sometimes overlooked in the West that much of the Middle East and Southwest Asia consider their cultures at least in part descended from Greece, much as Europe and places like the US consider Greece the starting point of their cultures. And that's mainly because of Alexander. So you see some of the same stuff there that you see in Europe with Greek (and, by the transitive property, Roman) history, not seeing Alexander so much as a conqueror who defeated them, but rather as a vital part of the fabric of their history and society, as the British celebrate their Roman ruins rather than being angry or ashamed of them despite the Romans being, at one time, foreign conquerors, and even freely tie major cultural founding-myths to Rome (e.g. King Arthur), much as the Aeneid ties Roman culture to Greek.
I wonder how much of that is an effect of the English being conquerors themselves. (Normands and Saxons.)
I forgot almost all of the movie but the portrayal of the Gaugamela is breathtaking. They could do better job with Persian equipment.. but Alexander's cavalry action was awesome to see. Also it showed well just how terrifying phalanx advance was. I was reading Xenophon recently and I thought it did awesome job showing why most other troops just ran when confronted with that.
Xenophon is awesome reading. I really hope there will be a film of it at some point.
> If you haven’t seen “Alexander,” staring Collin Ferrel and Angelina Jolie, you may really enjoy it.
That’s interesting, because Alexander is the one movie I truly regret not having left during the break. I found it boring, incoherent and in parts (especially Angelina Julie’s parts) really annoying. But to be fair, I watched it with German synchronisation. Perhaps that is to blame.
That’s interesting, because Alexander is the one movie I truly regret not having left during the break. I found it boring, incoherent and in parts (especially Angelina Julie’s parts) really annoying. But to be fair, I watched it with German synchronisation. Perhaps that is to blame.
Give it another go. It’s an example of filmmakers deciding to forego formula in favor of respect to the original material.
It does jump about a lot— and it might help me that I’m really familiar with the history. For instance, it is probably better if you already know that Aristotle trained Alexander and his military commanders—otherwise you might be wondering why Aristotle is featured so heavily.
And they have a number of short scenes to communicate important vignettes in his life—like his conquest of Egypt is only referred to obliquely.
Also, I thought Angelina Jolie’s role as Olympias was awesome. All the family dynamics were pretty well represented! Even Alexander’s love of his horse Bucephalus… like, there were some great scenes in there.
It does jump about a lot— and it might help me that I’m really familiar with the history. For instance, it is probably better if you already know that Aristotle trained Alexander and his military commanders—otherwise you might be wondering why Aristotle is featured so heavily.
And they have a number of short scenes to communicate important vignettes in his life—like his conquest of Egypt is only referred to obliquely.
Also, I thought Angelina Jolie’s role as Olympias was awesome. All the family dynamics were pretty well represented! Even Alexander’s love of his horse Bucephalus… like, there were some great scenes in there.
It was not an especially good film by any stretch. It is rare to find a fan. Hokey male posturing, celebrating vicious violence as now historical whimsy, cartoon opponents, plus some bad direction, script, editing, and acting. Literally generic. I don't know anyone who liked it, and certainly no one who would ever watch it again. You're quite safe. I would add in its defence, like so so many films released, there is a decent film in there dying to get out, if only the editor had their way. Colin Farrell was 'hurt' by the lack of audience and box office response.
The british library is walking distance from Euston and Kings Cross, if you ever have time, pop in there. I did once and I had my breath taken away. You can just go in for free and in 5 minutes see incredible stuff. I remember handwritten letters by Galileo and Michelangelo and a 1000 years old Quran. Just there to go in and see.
If this interests you, I highly recommend Dan CArlin's Hardcore History podcast [1], specifically his King of Kings series dealing with the notable Kings of Persia. Episode 3 deals with Alexander specifically.
Something Dan said has really stuck with me. He says that science is less interesting. If you don't invent a light bulb, someone else will. It's inevitable. Science can of course impact history (eg the development of the atomic bomb) but a lot of other events could go either way and it dramatically changes history.
IIRC Cyrus (one of the great Persian kings in that podcast) ordered the rebuilding of the Temple Mount and probably singlehandedly saved Judaism from extinction. Had that died then would we have had Christianity and Islam?
The Battle of Marathon was the major turning point that allowed the Greeks to survive and obviously go on to impact the Romans and really the rest of Europe. How different would history have been if the Persians had won and Europe had become Persian?
[1]:https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
Something Dan said has really stuck with me. He says that science is less interesting. If you don't invent a light bulb, someone else will. It's inevitable. Science can of course impact history (eg the development of the atomic bomb) but a lot of other events could go either way and it dramatically changes history.
IIRC Cyrus (one of the great Persian kings in that podcast) ordered the rebuilding of the Temple Mount and probably singlehandedly saved Judaism from extinction. Had that died then would we have had Christianity and Islam?
The Battle of Marathon was the major turning point that allowed the Greeks to survive and obviously go on to impact the Romans and really the rest of Europe. How different would history have been if the Persians had won and Europe had become Persian?
[1]:https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
Good point. It's true that the edict from Cyrus which helped Jews return and rebuild was a pivotal moment. However, the prophet Isaiah prophesied that the Jews would get to return and rebuild before the Persians ever conquered the Babylonians. God lets bad things happen and crazy rulers create chaos, but even in the midst of the most unlikely of scenarios, when he wants something crucial to happen he makes sure it happens against all odds. The prophet Daniel served the court under both Babylon and Persia, and when he was serving the Babylonians he prophesied about 4 kingdoms which we now identify with Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. He even details the fragmentation of the Greek empire! The rest of the world was taken off guard by each of these empires, whereas God was giving advance notice that he not only knew what was coming, but could harness these whirlwinds of conquest for his purposes to usher in the Messiah and spread the news about him easily thanks to the upcoming extensive Roman roads.
https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/the-messianic-time-table-acco...
https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/the-messianic-time-table-acco...
Definitely interesting to consider how single events have shaped history. Another is the destruction of the library at Alexandria, which was supposedly done by accident, against orders. Had that not been destroyed would we be substantially further ahead now?
There is another thread that attempts to explain history as more closely “deterministic”. And over long time periods this seems reasonable. CF guns germs and steel.
There is another thread that attempts to explain history as more closely “deterministic”. And over long time periods this seems reasonable. CF guns germs and steel.
> Another is the destruction of the library at Alexandria, which was supposedly done by accident, against orders. Had that not been destroyed would we be substantially further ahead now?
I doubt it made much difference to progress. Having knowledge locked up without the culture that made it is not that helpful.
On the other hand, the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols had far reaching impact. Not only were the books destroyed (supposedly the river ran black with the ink of all the books tossed into it) but the populate was massacred (after which the river ran red with blood).
This had a profound effect on the Arab/Muslim world that I think is still felt to this day.
I doubt it made much difference to progress. Having knowledge locked up without the culture that made it is not that helpful.
On the other hand, the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols had far reaching impact. Not only were the books destroyed (supposedly the river ran black with the ink of all the books tossed into it) but the populate was massacred (after which the river ran red with blood).
This had a profound effect on the Arab/Muslim world that I think is still felt to this day.
It still amazes me that over 2,000 years later we have the direct writings of Julius Caesar of his various campaigns. I believe these texts are still used heavily in teaching Latin because the language is so clear. Obviously there's bias involved in his accounts but they still represent an extraordinary first hadn account of Roman conquests.
Dan Carlin has an episode on what he calls the Celtic Holocaust, the conquest of Gaul (ie modern day France). It's called this because it's estimated a third of the population was killed in the process. From a historical perspective, Caesar also could've lost here, which again would've massively changed history. There would be conquering and settling of Britannia without Gaul. And Britannia was important for many Roman emperors after that (eg Constantine, who converted Rome to Christianity, was proclaimed emperor by his troops in modern day York).
Anyway, part of what drove the Roman psyche with Gaul was that early in Roman history (the 4th century BCE IIRC), Rome was sacked by the Gauls. It's why we don't have much history before this and why the origins of Rome are shrouded in mystery and legend (ie most view the tales of Romulus and Remus as apocryphal at best).
But historians make the case of why conquering Gaul was so important to Rome. I was reminded of this when you mentioned the conquest of Baghdad. The damage can be well beyond the loss of culture or literary works.
Dan Carlin has an episode on what he calls the Celtic Holocaust, the conquest of Gaul (ie modern day France). It's called this because it's estimated a third of the population was killed in the process. From a historical perspective, Caesar also could've lost here, which again would've massively changed history. There would be conquering and settling of Britannia without Gaul. And Britannia was important for many Roman emperors after that (eg Constantine, who converted Rome to Christianity, was proclaimed emperor by his troops in modern day York).
Anyway, part of what drove the Roman psyche with Gaul was that early in Roman history (the 4th century BCE IIRC), Rome was sacked by the Gauls. It's why we don't have much history before this and why the origins of Rome are shrouded in mystery and legend (ie most view the tales of Romulus and Remus as apocryphal at best).
But historians make the case of why conquering Gaul was so important to Rome. I was reminded of this when you mentioned the conquest of Baghdad. The damage can be well beyond the loss of culture or literary works.
My understanding is that Julius Caesar could have lost that war but there is little chance that Rome wouldn't have submitted Gaul in the end.
Current Spain and Portugal's territory required from Rome no less than 190 years of wars. Romans kept going on submitting a few tribes there every year for two centuries.
A sort of "proof" of this assertion is that Rome, in the end, conquered all territories around the Mediterranean Sea and far beyond. Of course, the course of events are by nature unpredictable but I find it reasonable tosay that the odds for a long term victory of Gaul were slim.
However, but that was much earlier, the two Punic wars against Carthage were much more existential threats to Rome.
Current Spain and Portugal's territory required from Rome no less than 190 years of wars. Romans kept going on submitting a few tribes there every year for two centuries.
A sort of "proof" of this assertion is that Rome, in the end, conquered all territories around the Mediterranean Sea and far beyond. Of course, the course of events are by nature unpredictable but I find it reasonable tosay that the odds for a long term victory of Gaul were slim.
However, but that was much earlier, the two Punic wars against Carthage were much more existential threats to Rome.
I was listening to his other series about the Mongols, and in the first episode, he talks about how over time, great figures become revered and their atrocities lessened. For example, Genghis Khan killed 20-50 million people, which would be insane to think about today (and any leader who did so would be vilified, like Hitler) but because he is so removed from today, people think what he did was Great. So too with Alexander.
For those who bring up the positive effects of such a figure (Alexander spread Hellenism, Genghis created the Pax Mongolica), Carlin said that these were not intended by such figures but simply happened as a result of their statecraft. Alexander for example did not expressly conquer peoples in order to spread Hellenism, he did so because he was expected to as being the son of a king.
People simply have a recency bias as a default cognitive effect. One day, Carlin says, someone will also write about the positive effects of the Third Reich, just as they write about Alexander and Genghis, once all the people who might have been affected have died off.
For those who bring up the positive effects of such a figure (Alexander spread Hellenism, Genghis created the Pax Mongolica), Carlin said that these were not intended by such figures but simply happened as a result of their statecraft. Alexander for example did not expressly conquer peoples in order to spread Hellenism, he did so because he was expected to as being the son of a king.
People simply have a recency bias as a default cognitive effect. One day, Carlin says, someone will also write about the positive effects of the Third Reich, just as they write about Alexander and Genghis, once all the people who might have been affected have died off.
If you're interested in historical fiction, I'd highly recommend Mary Renault's The Persian Boy. The book is all about the interaction between Hellenic and Persian cultures and the influence they each had on the other. She does a great job of making ancient cultures seem real and current without making them feel artificially modern.
I came across a russian translation of Shahnamah several years ago, that was published in 1950-60s, and it's in rhyming verses unlike most other Western translations that mostly resort to prose approximations.
Amazing experience, I even remember cross-referencing certain passages in Tajik edition to try to get some idea of original rhyming and rhythmic techniques mentioned by the translators (I don't know the language, but since it was written in Cyrillic I could get at least a general idea how it sounds).
For whatever reason I stopped right before the Iskandar (Alexander the G.) parts, have to get back to it someday.
Amazing experience, I even remember cross-referencing certain passages in Tajik edition to try to get some idea of original rhyming and rhythmic techniques mentioned by the translators (I don't know the language, but since it was written in Cyrillic I could get at least a general idea how it sounds).
For whatever reason I stopped right before the Iskandar (Alexander the G.) parts, have to get back to it someday.
I’m just finishing up reading Dominic Sandbrook’s, “Adventures in Time:Alexander the Great” with my 12 year old. Great fun and an incredible tour. Once we’ve done, we are going to watch the “Trial of Alexander the Great”. I know the verdict but I won’t add a spoiler:
https://classicsforall.org.uk/news-and-events/events/moot-tr...
https://classicsforall.org.uk/news-and-events/events/moot-tr...
One of the most mind blowing things from my studies of Alexander and his crew was what happened to the people left behind in Bactria, the Indo-Greek kingdom, and Greco-Buddhism. The influence on that region was very interesting and unexpected!
Frank L. Holt's books on the subject are really interesting, "Into the land of bones" in particular.
Philip Freeman’s biography of Alexander the Great is my favorite. Well researched and draws heavily from both Plutarch and Arrian.
+1 to Freeman's book on Alexander. Ghost on the Throne by James Romm is a good sequel to any bio/general book on Alexander. What happened in the aftermath of his death is arguably just as interesting, and had profound impact on history.
if you’d like to learn more, Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox is a great historical biography
Mary Renault, a historian of Alexander, wrote a series of three historical novels about his life, starting with Fire from Heaven.
Peter Green wrote an excellent, if depressing, biography.
Some years ago, the National Gallery of Art had a very interesting exhibit on Alexander.
Some years ago, the National Gallery of Art had a very interesting exhibit on Alexander.
Does Alexander rate as mediocre as Machiavelli was on lasting impact?
Not at all, his impact was huge. He brought Greek philosophy and culture to India. His conquest founded the Ptolemaic dynasty of Greeks that ruled Egypt through to the Roman era and Cleopatra. Establishing Greek hegemony over the entire Middle East opened up access to the philosophy, mathematics and learning across the region. This stimulated scientific and mathematical developments that changed the way we saw the world. Greeks studying and working in Alexandria developed mathematics and philosophy, including calculating the circumference of the earth. It also became a centre of religious development, the Septuagint was compiled there. He changed the region from isolated cultural bubbles that occasionally rubbed violently against each other into a world with far ranging intellectual and commercial interests.
Furthermore, without Greek rule in Egypt there would have been no Rosetta Stone, hence it's questionable as to whether anyone could have learned to read hieroglyphs, leaving mute a huge swathe of that country's enormous history.
Lasting impact? The destruction of the Persian empire, the establishment of Hellenistic kingdoms/culture in the Levant and Egypt, apparently a huge inflation from dumping the Persian treasure on the market. Given that the New Testament has come down to us in Greek, I'd say that there was some lasting impact.
Even a quick glance at the number of sub-headings on the Wikipedia article on the Hellenistic Period shows his conquests had wide impact. [0]
Alexander was no Ozymandias.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period
Alexander was no Ozymandias.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period
You can find blue-eyed communities all the way to Indian himalaya (ie Malana is probably the eastern-most place).
Nepali kukri knife is estimated to come from modified sword of his armies. Things like this scattered all over whole area they went through.
Nepali kukri knife is estimated to come from modified sword of his armies. Things like this scattered all over whole area they went through.
Greco-Buddhism too [0]. There is also a hypothesis that the strengthening of the Silk Road from those conquests led to Indian representatives being sent to the West which "may have helped prepare for the ethics of Christ" [1].
> Buddhist gravestones from the Ptolemaic period have been found in Alexandria in Egypt decorated with depictions of the dharma wheel, showing that Buddhists were living in Hellenistic Egypt at the time Christianity began.[16] The presence of Buddhists in Alexandria has led one author to note: "It was later in this very place that some of the most active centers of Christianity were established."[14] Nevertheless, modern Christian scholars generally hold that there is no direct evidence of any influence of Buddhism on Christianity, and several scholarly theological works do not support these suggestions.[17][18] However, some historians such as Jerry H. Bentley suggest that there is a real possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity.[19]
> It is known that prominent early Christians were aware of Buddha and some Buddhist stories. Saint Jerome (4th century CE) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin"; it has been suggested that this virgin birth legend of Buddhism influenced Christianity.[20] The early church father Clement of Alexandria (died 215 AD) was also aware of Buddha, writing in his Stromata (Bk I, Ch XV): "The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sarmanæ and others Brahmins. And those of the Sarmanæ who are called 'Hylobii' neither inhabit cities, nor have roofs over them, but are clothed in the bark of trees, feed on nuts, and drink water in their hands. Like those called Encratites in the present day, they know not marriage nor begetting of children. Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha (Βούττα) whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours."[21]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity
> Buddhist gravestones from the Ptolemaic period have been found in Alexandria in Egypt decorated with depictions of the dharma wheel, showing that Buddhists were living in Hellenistic Egypt at the time Christianity began.[16] The presence of Buddhists in Alexandria has led one author to note: "It was later in this very place that some of the most active centers of Christianity were established."[14] Nevertheless, modern Christian scholars generally hold that there is no direct evidence of any influence of Buddhism on Christianity, and several scholarly theological works do not support these suggestions.[17][18] However, some historians such as Jerry H. Bentley suggest that there is a real possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity.[19]
> It is known that prominent early Christians were aware of Buddha and some Buddhist stories. Saint Jerome (4th century CE) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin"; it has been suggested that this virgin birth legend of Buddhism influenced Christianity.[20] The early church father Clement of Alexandria (died 215 AD) was also aware of Buddha, writing in his Stromata (Bk I, Ch XV): "The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sarmanæ and others Brahmins. And those of the Sarmanæ who are called 'Hylobii' neither inhabit cities, nor have roofs over them, but are clothed in the bark of trees, feed on nuts, and drink water in their hands. Like those called Encratites in the present day, they know not marriage nor begetting of children. Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha (Βούττα) whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours."[21]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity
"There are no less than fourteen copies "
=>
"There are no fewer than fourteen copies "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less
> Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there's been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it's not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule. ...
> Despite the rule, less used of things that are countable is standard in many contexts, and in fact is more likely than fewer in a few common constructions, especially ones involving distances (as in "less than three miles"), sums of money (as in "less than twenty dollars"), units of time and weight (as in "less than five years" and "less than ten ounces"), and statistical enumerations (as in "less than 50,000 people")—all things which are often thought of as amounts rather than numbers. ...
> Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there's been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it's not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule. ...
> Despite the rule, less used of things that are countable is standard in many contexts, and in fact is more likely than fewer in a few common constructions, especially ones involving distances (as in "less than three miles"), sums of money (as in "less than twenty dollars"), units of time and weight (as in "less than five years" and "less than ten ounces"), and statistical enumerations (as in "less than 50,000 people")—all things which are often thought of as amounts rather than numbers. ...
"No less than" is idiomatic [1]. It means "impressive number". People don't use "no fewer than".
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20less%20than
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20less%20than
Beyond that, the best source I know is Life of Alexander by Plutarch. It reads beautifully (even if it could probably benefit from some modern editing). Highly recommended! https://lexundria.com/plut_alex/1-77/prr
I suppose the point of the OP is that—it’s quite hard to know exactly what happened back then! For instance, the Greeks would never admit that Alexander was the son of the King of Persia and grandson of Philip. Yes, it’s unlikely but it’s not implausible…