The Trojan War in the absence of Helen

Hector seated

The Trojan War, as recounted by Homer, is a beautiful love story of Paris and Helen set against the cruelty of war when Achilles dragged the dead body of Hector behind his chariot around the city. It is the kind of subject we can still recognize today. 

Recently, I had echoes of another version in which Helen never made it to Troy but stayed in Egypt instead. One of the sources was Herodotus’ book "Histories". 

At first, I dismissed the information, mostly because Homer’s account was so familiar. When Heinrich Schliemann discovered the walls of Troy and Priam’s gold treasury in the late 19^th century, the history of Troy and the Trojan War came back alive. 

Herodotus, a native of Halicarnassus, is described as ‘The Father of History’. He was an intrepid traveler, very inquisitive about foreign lands and customs. He journeyed widely around the Mediterranean, as far south as Elephantine on the first cataract of the River Nile and as far north as the Black Sea. He visited southern Italy and eventually settled in Thurii on the Gulf of Taranto. He may well have spent time in Cyrene and even in Babylon. 

Herodotus

This Greek historian lived in the 5^th century BC (he died in 425 BC), roughly three hundred years after Homer. Both men relied on the world around them and on the sources that were available to them.

During his stay in Egypt, Herodotus spoke to the priests of the Temple of the “Foreign Aphrodite”, meaning Astarte. They said that Helen arrived in Egypt with Paris after a severe storm had blown their ship off course. The couple was brought before the pharaoh in Memphis, who condemned Paris for taking Helen away from her husband, whether by force or not, and seizing treasures from Sparta. He granted Paris three days to leave the country to return to Troy,  but he kept Helen in Memphis. 

Questioning the priests further, Herodotus was informed about the Trojan War as told to them directly by Helen's husband, Menelaus. 

What happened was that after the abduction of Helen, the Greeks sent their forces to support Menelaus. The Spartan king and his delegation were received at Troy’s Palace, where they demanded the return of Helen and the stolen treasures. The Trojans responded that neither Helen nor the treasure was in their possession, but was held in Egypt instead. Obviously, the Greeks refused to believe them and laid siege to Troy. They fought each other for ten years, and all that while Helen waited in Egypt. 

When Troy fell, and there was still no trace of Helen, Menelaus sailed to Memphis. After giving the pharaoh a true account of what had happened, he was reunited with Helen, 'having suffered no evil’, and the stolen treasure was restored. 

This looks like a happy ending, but it was not. Menelaus got cross because contrary winds pinned him down in Egypt for a long time. As an offering to the gods, he took two Egyptian children, whom he offered in sacrifice. This act of disrespect turned the friendship of the Egyptians into hatred. Menelaus was pursued but managed to escape to Libya with Helen and his ships. What happened afterwards, the priests did not know. 

Herodotus was not the only one to suggest that Helen never went to Troy but stayed in Egypt during the Trojan War. 

Euripides

There was Euripides, who in 412 BC wrote his play "Helen", in which Helen is taken to Egypt by the gods. The Helen who accompanied Paris to Troy was an eidolon, a spirit-image or likeness, cursed for her infidelity by the Greeks and Trojans alike. Meanwhile, the real Helen spent the ten-year siege of Troy in Egypt! 

It is noteworthy that Euripides was born ca. 480 BC, meaning that he was 55 years old when Herodotus died in 425 BC. He definitely must have known Herodotus’ travel history and the details of his encounters. Euripides may well have given his own twist to Herodotus’ tale of Troy. 

A similar eidolon image is introduced in Stesichorus' account. This lyric poet, who lived from around 630 to 555 BC, antedates both Herodotus and Euripides. The story goes that Stesichorus was blinded because he slandered Helen, but recovered his eyesight after writing her praise. 

Helen’s eidolon image may have been introduced by Homer or Hesiod, who reached his peak in popularity around 700 BC. 

In his "Histories", Herodotus believes that Homer knew of this eidolon version keeping the real Helen in Egypt, but that he decided not to use it, preferring the more epic poetry. 

Troy walls

Interpreting this ‘eidolon’ in today’s world is very difficult. We may think that Paris believed in ghosts since, according to this story, nobody in Troy had ‘seen’ Helen. It is clear that, in antiquity, the gods played an important role in daily life. Before the outbreak of the Trojan War, Paris had built a reputation for making fair decisions, away from outside influences. For that reason, he had been appointed by Zeus to choose which of the three goddesses was the most beautiful: Athena, Aphrodite, or Hera. He elected Aphrodite, the goddess of love. In return, Aphrodite brought Helen, the most beautiful mortal, into the life of Paris, and they fell in love. The fact that Helen was already married to Menelaus, king of Sparta, and had a daughter, Hermione, did not bother Aphrodite. To alleviate the pain of Paris being separated from his beloved Helen, the goddess introduced Helen's eidolon. 

That leaves me with Alexander cherishing the Iliad to the point of keeping it at his bedside. His copy had annotations made by Aristotle, which indicates that the Iliad was well studied and discussed by both men. It is unthinkable that Aristotle was not aware of  Helen’s eidolon substitute in Troy, and this goes for Alexander as well. However, I assume that Alexander’s fascination with the Iliad was mainly because of Achilles' heroics. 

Plato, more than a philosopher

Plato is a highly fascinating figure. Not only was he a student of Socrates, but he also taught Aristotle, who, in turn, passed his knowledge on to young Alexander. 

Plato, born in 427 BC, received the best education of his time. Although we know him mainly as a philosopher, he was educated in martial arts and horse riding, besides mathematics and music, painting, and drawing. 

When about the age of twenty, he encountered Socrates teaching on the Agora of Athens, and he realized that philosophy was a more worthy goal to pursue. 

Socrates hardly wrote anything down. We know him from Plato and Xenophon, who are not always in agreement. Socrates preferred talking, or rather asking questions, to the point of embarrassing and irritating his audience. 

Plato followed his master until the Athenians executed him on the charge of impiety in 399 BC. He then left Athens and traveled to other philosophical centers, such as Megara and Syracuse in Sicily, and later to Egypt and Cyrene. He became a student of Pythagoras, Euclid, and Heraclitus, and concentrated on the religion and metaphysics of Egypt. 

Before the Museum of Alexandria was founded, the center of knowledge was in Heliopolis, where priests studied philosophy, astronomy, and theology. Many Greeks, like Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, and Solon, consulted the Library that contained the history of Egypt going back thousands of years. For us, Egypt's ancient history is lost in the mists of time… How much was (still) available in Plato’s days? Probably far more than we can imagine. 

In the 380s BC, Plato returned to Athens, where he started the Academy. The philosopher educated his followers in a shrine of olive groves, sacred to the Greek hero Academos, and called it, therefore, Academia. Plato’s school would continue to thrive till the early 6^th century AD when it was shut down by Emperor Justinian. This Byzantine emperor was determined to erase paganism for good and impose Christianity instead to regain control over the Western Roman Empire. 

Plato is best known for his Dialogues and his Letters. He contributed hugely to our Western culture and religion, although few people realize his impact on monotheistic religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. He was the first philosopher to mention and underscore the soul's immortality. For that reason, his work was not destroyed but accepted by the Christian religious leaders. Plato also stressed the importance of ‘objective truth’ in order to live well. 

As a result of the recent advanced imaging diagnostic techniques to read the carbonized papyri from Herculaneum (see: Reading the papyrus scrolls from Herculaneum), scholars have discovered more details about Plato’s life, of which very little is otherwise known. By virtually realigning the bits of burnt papyrus, they were able to restore the continuity of the text and obtain more information. 

The scroll revealed that Plato was sold into slavery on the island of Aegina, south of Athens, either in 404 BC when Sparta conquered the island, or in 399 BC upon the death of Socrates. It was previously and erroneously accepted that this event took place while he resided at the court of Dionysios of Syracuse in 387 BC. 

We also learned more about the final hours of Plato. While battling a fever, he listened to flute music played by a Thracian slave girl. He was still very lucid as he had the strength to criticize the girl’s lack of rhythm. A perfectionist to the end? 

Plato died in 348/347 BC, and it is now understood that he was buried in the garden of his Academia of Athens. This is very telling since the Academy is considered the world’s first university, which he founded next to the Mouseion. 

Deciphering the papyrus scrolls is a lengthy process that may well require many more years. Who knows what more we will learn?

Antipater and Alexander

Antipater first emerges from history at the side of Philip, when he became King of Macedonia after his brother Perdiccas died fighting the Illyrians. 

From what could be established, Antipater was a Macedonian nobleman, born circa 399 BC. In his younger years, he must have accompanied King Philip (see: Macedonia Forged by Philip) during his campaigns to impose and improve the power of Macedonia. We actively see him from 346 BC onwards, aged 57. 

When Philip ended the successive Sacred Wars in 346 BC (see: Philip’s campaigns east and the Fourth Sacred War – Macedonia forged by Philip II - 11), a delegation from Athens arrived in Pella to negotiate the peace terms. After the usual diplomacy, they reached an agreement. Philip, however, didn’t trust the Athenians and sent Antipater, Parmenion, and Eurylochus to Athens to repeat his terms of peace. This is where Antipater is mentioned by Arrian for the very first time. 

During the Battle of Chaironea in 338 BC, when Alexander commanded the left flank with his cavalry, facing the Sacred Band, he was probably assisted by both generals Parmenion and Antipater. To seal the ensuing Common Peace, i.e., the League of Corinth (see: High stakes at Corinth), with the Athenians, Philip sent an official embassy led by nobody less than Alexander in the company of Antipater and Alcimachus. They carried the ashes of those Athenians who had fallen during the battle. 

The above clearly shows how much Philip trusted Antipater. It is known that the king formed a clique with Parmenion, Antipater, and Attalus, who were also bound by several intermarriages. 

Antipater’s private life is little known except that he produced an impressive number of children. His recorded sons were Iollas, Cassander, Pleistarchus, Philip, Nicanor, Alexarchus, and Triparadeisus. His daughters Phila, Eurydice, and Nicaea all married generals in Alexander’s army. 

After Philip’s assassination in 336 BC, Antipater and Parmenion, still devoted to their king, supported Alexander to be elected as his heir. However, the neighboring Thracians and the Greek states in the south had doubts about accepting the rule of this young king and revolted. Alexander had no choice but to confirm his kingship from the onset and attacked the troublemakers both north and south. 

As soon as he had established Macedonian control, he turned his attention to his Asian campaign and left Pella in 334 BC. He made sure to leave half of his troops in the capable hands of his regent Antipater, who became Hegemon. Besides this heavy responsibility, which included handling the finances of the military and the navy, he was headmaster of the School of Pages. 

On top of his own army, Antipater had the power to summon the militia of the Greek city-states. He must have managed the situation with excellence because he gathered a large number of infantry and cavalry, despite Alexander’s constant demand for reinforcements. Antipater’s troops were needed when he had to face Sparta’s revolt in the Peloponnese. 

The first group of reinforcements was already mentioned in 332 BC while Alexander was in Memphis, and some 500 mercenaries and 500 Thracian cavalry joined his lines. From Arrian, we know Alexander sent the funds needed to enlist or hire such recruits. When the king was in Susa, he sent a certain Menes back to become the new governor of Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia. Menes received 3,000 talents in silver with instructions to transfer as much money as Antipater needed to cover his war expenses against Sparta. The general made good use of it because he emerged victorious in the decisive battle at Megalopolis, just north of Sparta. 

Antipater was, unfortunately, seriously criticized by Olympias, who liked to interfere in all matters. After several years, it must have become challenging for Alexander to make sense of either version of the facts. A mother’s love is mighty, and the image of the once-trusted commander was eventually blemished. Even if Alexander wanted to dismiss Antipater, he had nobody to replace him – not until a year before his death. Alexander decided to send Craterus to replace Antipater as the new regent in Macedonia. The regent-to-be was sent back home at the head of those veterans no longer fit for service. 

Alexander called (or summoned) Antipater to come to Babylon, but the old general ignored the order and sent his son Cassander instead. That is a bizarre decision because Cassander was not his favorite. Whether Cassander forced his father to accept to let him go or if it was by mutual agreement in case of the poison complot is true, we’ll never know. We will remember that Antipater’s son, Iollas, was Alexander’s cupbearer then. 

Alexander left no heir or successor when he died in 323 BC. As a result, each of his generals claimed a part of this empire. As a matter of fact, Antipater took control of Macedonia. This, however, did not mean peace as Antipater got involved in the Lamian War. The Aetolians, a tribe south of Thessaly, decided to help the Athenian general Leosthenes defeat Antipater. Leosthenes managed to corner Antipater, but luckily Craterus came to the old general's aid, and the Siege of Lamia was thus broken. The war proper ended a year later, in 322 BC, during the Battle of Crannon, when Leosthenes was killed. 

Antipater died in 319 BC at the blessed age of eighty. Upon his deathbed, he left his realm to Polyperchon and not Cassander. The arrogant Cassander deeply resented this, and Macedonia was the scene of bitter fights between Polyperchon and Cassander for the next decade. But that is another story altogether. 

It is quite astonishing to note how much Antipater accomplished in his later years. From the time of the Sacred Wars that ended in 346 BC until he died in 319 BC, he lived through some twenty-five turbulent years. In our modern world, this is the time for retirement. Amazing!

The Pharaonic Race as opposed to the Race of Marathon

The story of the race of Marathon went down into history in 490 BC when the messenger Phidippides ran from the Battlefield of Marathon to Athens to announce the Greek victory over the Persians – a distance of some 42 kilometers.

The legend involving Phidippides takes the meaning of Marathon one step further as Herodotus tells us that the brave man after stopping at Athens, ran all the way to Sparta to ask for their army support and join the Greek fight against the Persians - a total of 240 kilometers.

In the days of Plutarch, who lived 46 to 119 AD, the above legend blended with that of the messenger who left from Marathon after the battle.

Whatever the truth, it is the race from Marathon to Athens that was revived for the first modern Olympic Games that were held in Athens in 1896, and that is usually contemplated when talking about a marathon. Unlike the modern running contests, the Race of Marathon was a sole and unique event.

To my greatest surprise, I recently learned that Pharaoh Taharqa, who ruled Egypt from 690 to 660 BC, designed a 100-kilometer-run for his soldiers to improve their physical condition and make them ready for battle against the Assyrians.

[Picture from World's Marathons]

An inscription to that effect was discovered in 1977, and the itinerary ran through the desert. Starting from the Sakkara Fayoum Oasis next to the Pyramid of Sakkara, the road led to the Pyramid of Hawara also at Fayoum, and onwards to the pyramids of Chefren, Elleshet, and Dahshour, to reach Memphis, and to end again at the Pyramid of Sakkara.

This ancient Egyptian marathon is also revived today to create a contemporary competition in the same historical setting. The annual race is open to individuals wishing to run the entire distance but also to 2-5 persons relay categories in which each runner has to run at least 10 kilometers. Today’s athletes enjoy the support of their coaches and are provided with food and drinks, and other necessary services along the road. This year’s Pharaonic Race will be held in November, still in the desert heat.

Alexander at Thermopylae

Nothing much is left of this once so highly strategic pass. All we can see today is a flat rather fertile plain gently sloping down from tall mountain walls to the sea at the distant horizon.

Hard to imagine that it was here that the historical Battle of Thermopylae took place in 480 BC between Leonidas of Sparta and King Xerxes of Persia. For two full days Leonidas, the leader of the Greek city-states, was able to pin down the Persians at this pass until he was betrayed by a local resident who guided the enemy troops behind the Greek lines – a tactic that was to be used repeatedly by Alexander during his eastern campaigns. When Leonidas realized that he was trapped, he dismissed the bulk of the Greek army and fought a last stand with his 300 Spartans.

This act of bravery can only have fired Alexander’s imagination, especially considering that for him this battle took place less than 150 years earlier. Meanwhile, other battles had been fought here like the one his father led on his way to Chaironeia two years before and in which Alexander took part.

Today there is nothing to remind us of Alexander’s (or Philip’s) passage at Thermopylae, only a memorial monument erected in honor of the Spartan King Leonidas. The centerpiece is a most splendid modern statue of Leonidas in classical style carrying the famous inscription “Come and take them”, i.e. the words addressed by the Greeks to Xerxes who demanded their surrender. On either side of Leonidas runs a relief depicting battle scenes ending on the right-hand side with a marble figure of Taigetos, representing the highest mountain in the Peloponnese, and on the left-hand side the personified Evrotas, a river of Laconia. This monument stands pretty much at the edge of the old coastline that follows the adjacent modern highway.

It is here at Thermopylae that Alexander, after the murder of his father, summoned the members of the Amphictyonic Council, basically responsible for managing the oracle of Delphi. With their pledges of support, he can rally northern and central Greece to his cause – a minor detail in his later campaigns but a very important one in these early days of his kingship.

Thermopylae, meaning literally Hot Gates, is named after the hot springs that bubble up near the historical pass. The hot springs are still working today and it is quite exciting to sample the hot water temperature as the soldiers of Leonidas and Alexander must have done. What a rewarding way to get in close touch with the past.

Why cleaning pays off

The National Archaeological Museum of Florence housed a marble statue that was labeled as representing Queen Leda of Sparta as a Roman copy from the 1^st century AD of the original Greek created around 300 BC.

[Before and after cleaning/restoration. Credit: Friends of Florence]

However, the statue was pretty dirty and it was decided to clean it and carry out the necessary restorations. Well, the authorities were in for a surprise since the statue turned out to be Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love sculpted in splendid white marble from Paros.

The restoration revealed that the head, although antique, does not belong to the body of the statue and is made from a different material. At some point, probably in the 18^th century, the arms were added as was customary at that time to embellish broken antique statues. Also previous restorations and repairs were removed and replaced with the same types of materials used in antiquity. Another close study found original traces of paint on her robe and red ocher and gilding in her hair.

An old photograph dating from the late 1800s shows that the statue stood in the garden loggia of the Museum and that is where it probably accumulated most of the dirt.

From atop her beautifully carved 19^th century wooden base, it now shines again upon the visitors to this lovely museum. See also: A splendid Collection of Greek Bronze Masterpieces and Greek art at its best in two separate exhibitions).

Greek theaters had moveable stages!

We thought that by now we knew everything about Greek theatres – well, not so!

Recent architectural research has led to believe that there was a moveable wooden stage in ancient Greek theatres. This has been determined in three separate theatres in the Greek Peloponnese: first in Messene, and later also at Megalopolis and Sparta.

Skanotheke plan of the Messene Theatre (scale 1 : 500), Inset: Skanotheke of east parodos. Adapted from R. Yoshitake, The Movable Stage in Hellenistic Greek Theatres. New Documentation form Messene and Comparisons with Sparta and Megalopolis, AA, 2016/2, p. 120, fig. 1 and 2. Credit: Associate Professor Ryuichi Yoshitake

Ancient Greek theatres were bowl shaped with seating around the circular orchestra and at the open end an open stage. After 31 BC, under Roman influence, the stage was elevated and decorated with columns and statues and all sorts of reliefs. Romans often reused and refurbished original Greek theatres but also built the semi-circular model of their own where this back stage was automatically attached to the seating area.

After excavations started in 2007, the research team from Komamoto University discovered three stone rows and a kind of storage room beside the stage of Messene’s theatre. When a similar feature was found in Megalopolis and Sparta as well, they started questioning the function of these elements. Their conclusion was that the stone rows would have supported wooden background picture panels that could be wheeled into place and that the storage room would have held them when not in use.

This image shows the reconstruction of the wheeled wooden skene of the Messene Theatre. The wooden stage building (front) is drawn by solid lines, and the hypothetical scene building (back) by gray lines. Adapted from R. Yoshitake, The Movable Stage in Hellenistic Greek Theatres. New Documentation form Messene and Comparisons with Sparta and Megalopolis, AA, 2016/2, p. 123, fig. 6. (drawing by K. Oyama). Credit: Associate Professor Ryuichi Yoshitake & K. Oyama

The Greek theatres had a proskenion, i.e. a one-story building placed on the stage and that functioned as a stage background. Behind this proskenion was a two-story skene that was used as a dressing room for the actors but also as an extra stage background. Now the question arose whether these buildings were made of stone and fixed or made of wood and moveable. They opted for the latest and since moving the massive construction of proskenion and attached skene is highly improbable, they concluded that each building was rolled out separately, each using its own set of two stone rows to move along in and out of the storage room.

Ancient literature indeed mentions rotating devices, but the finds at Messene seem to confirm that they existed as early as the Hellenistic period although we still don’t know what they really looked like.

The research team of Komamoto University in Japan has even come up with two drawings explaining their theory – see above.

The Battle of Eurymedon

The Battle of Eurymedon is quite a revelation, for I never heard of it before. I drove along this river on my way from Aspendos to Selge, not knowing that an important fight had taken place here about one hundred years before Alexander marched through this area (see: Selge welcomed Alexander).

After all, my lack of information may not be so surprising as this battle occurred near the end of the Delian League. This was an alliance of various Greek poleis that took shape shortly after the Persian invasion of 480-479 BC and ended at the same time the Peloponnesian War did in 404 BC and which was mainly fought between Athens and Sparta.

The Delian League obviously takes its name from the island of Delos, where the league’s treasury was kept and where the members met on regular set occasions. It is common knowledge that this league was created to take revenge for the Persian invasion of Greece. Still, it also aimed to liberate all the Greeks under Persian domination and guarantee the freedom of the Greek cities.

  

Towards the end of the Delian League, the Athenian statesman Cimon was instrumental in creating Athens’ powerful maritime empire. He was the hero of his time after fighting at the Battle of Salamis. It was a small step to be promoted Admiral and lead the fleet of the Delian League with 300 triremes, of which 200 were Athenian. This was in 466 BC when he set out along the Carian and Lycian coasts to expel the Persian garrisons and to bring those liberated cities into the league.

After taking Phaselis, he set sail for the Eurymedon River, today’s Köprülü River, to annihilate the 200 ships' strong Phoenician fleet that had occupied the river together with several reinforcements from Cyprus. This was Cimon’s most famous battle, and his victory here proved to be definitive. In this phase, he seems to be a precursor of Alexander!

It would have been nice to know where exactly this battle took place, although the mouth of the river near Aspendos sounds to be favorite.

Hellenica Oxyrhynchia by P.J. McKechnie and S.J. Kern

Repeated references in previous reading material (e.g. The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition by CA Robinson and Xenophon, The Persian Expedition) and the historical background of the papyri dump discovered at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, led me to pick up this book, Hellenica Oxyrhynchia with an introduction, translation and comments by P.J. McKechnie and S.J. Kern (ISBN 0-85668-358-2).

 

The authors have brought together the first publications by B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt in 1908 with those made on later fragments. They are a collection of different copies of the same document written by the same unknown author.

The most recent fragments are kept at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and these are also the oldest papyri dating to the late first century AD. The so-called Florence Fragment was discovered in 1934 and is relatively small; it is kept at the Istituto Papirologico in the University of Florence and is dated to the late 2nd century AD. The principal papyrus is the one discovered by the above-mentioned British explorers in 1906, consisting at first of about 230 fragments that are dated to the late first or early second century AD. It is, however, possible that further portions of this Hellenica Oxyrhynchia will be discovered and identified in the future.

The fragments generally cover the history of Greece between 409 and 407 BC on one hand and 396 to 394 BC on the other. These papyri are a continuation of Thucydides’ history and pick up where Xenophon’s ‘Hellenica’ begins. A serious effort is made, thanks to the authors of this edition, to clarify the endless wars between Athens and Sparta about politics and power, combined with the warring and bribing of the Persians, who were experts in setting up one party against the other. The tale is fragmentary because the papyri are only fragments, but all the available Greek texts (reproduced on the left page) are given with a parallel translation in English (on the right-hand page); these texts are further commented upon in detail, including remarks and findings made in works of earlier authors.

The major question, i.e., the name of the author, remains unanswered. Pros and cons are being discussed, ranging from Xenophon, Theopompus, and Cratippus to Dionysus of Halicarnassus, Daimachus of Plataea, and Ephorus – to name only a few.

Captivating, highly interesting, and making you want to dig out the subject further.

More information about the papyri of Oxyrhynchus can be found in my previous story “Get involved with Oxyrhynchus” and in my comments on Peter Parsons’ book “City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish”.