Bronze Statue of Alexander for sale?

Believe it or nor, a beautiful bronze statue of Alexander the Great has been offered for sale. An original work from the 4th century BC, 65 cm high, exactly the size that would fit in any of our living rooms, wouldn’t it? All it takes is finding the asking price of seven million euro. Who wouldn’t be interested?

[photo Associated Press]

Well, in this case, the Thessaloniki police were interested first as it arrested two men near the town of Kavala who were trying to sell this statue for about a year. Among other artifacts, police also found two bronze heads of a boy and a young man, for which the suspects asked between 4 and 6 million euros. In comparison, Alexander was a cheap giveaway.

According to the information gathered by Costas Kantouris, writer for Associated Press, the Alexander statue appears to come from the workshop of Lysippos, nobody less than Alexander’s dedicated sculptor. Further tests at the Thessaloniki Archaeological Museum will confirm if this is an original or a contemporary copy, as Lysippos’ workshop must have produced many copies of the master’s work. As far as the boy’s head is concerned, they suggest that it was part of a larger Roman sculpture dating back to the 1st century BC.

Unfortunately, there is little or no information about the origin of the artifacts, although Turkey seems to be a plausible source.

Useless to add that I am totally flabbergasted. There are not too many statues of Alexander the Great around; we mainly have heads, and even those are pretty much damaged one way or another. The bronze statues of Alexander I know of are small ones and are not too convincing about their likeness, except the one at the British Museum (see my heading) of course, but look at this one! Any Alexander fan will recognize the great man at first glance! Wow!

Fire from Heaven by Mary Renault



Fire from Heaven (ISBN 0582101344) was one of the very first books that I read on the subject of Alexander the Great, here depicted in his early years up to his accession to the throne of Macedonia. It is a novel, of course, but it is what we call a historic novel as the entire story is based on facts that have come to us through ancient writers. Consequently, the greater part of Alexander’s life is fiction and we should not look too closely at the details, but, all in all, Mary Renault manages to describe the décor and circumstances in which Alexander grew up with a great feeling of trueness since they are interwoven with historical facts.

Although Mary visited Greece only once in her life, she manages to describe the landscape and daily life very vividly and makes you feel part of the events. It is amazing to discover that she wrote this book when she was well into her sixties (1969), to be followed three years later by the controversial Persian Boy. In her later years, Mary Renault, to be pronounced as Ren-olt, managed to create her own Greek world based on what she read in ancient literature and the details she found in statues and on painted vases about all facets of life in those days.

Whether you know about Alexander or not, you witness a vivid and lively account of daily life in Macedonia in the fourth century BC and more specifically at the Royal Court. Both Alexander’s parents show themselves each with their own character, King Philip II the womanizer but highly successful warrior and leader of the peoples in and around Macedonia; Queen Olympias with her dark furies and mysterious Dionysus rites and very possessive of her son. We witness how Alexander struggles within himself with this heritage, but also how he finds comfort in Hephaistion’s unwavering trust and devoted friendship.

Historians have a tendency to shrug their shoulders and smile pathetically when you mention this book, but it is one of the rare occasions to come so close to what could have been Alexander’s true life in his early years. The only author from antiquity mentioning anything about his boyhood is Plutarch, all the others start with Alexander’s deeds after Philip’s murder when he became King of Macedonia and set out to conquer Asia. Based on the very scarce information available, the efforts of Mary Renault are even more recommendable.

Personally, I dare say that this story is very close to the truth – at least, that is my personal opinion. When I visited Pella for the first time many years ago, I had the feeling of a déjà vu thanks to her book. It was amazing to discover how skillfully she brought the ruins to life!

Also available as e-Book.

The many wives of Philip II of Macedonia

In antiquity, women had no say at all. They had absolutely no rights and were treated as common goods, to be sold or bought, negotiated, or given in marriage at will. I always have dreams of living in antiquity, but definitely not as a woman!

But here I am confronted with Philip II of Macedonia, the womanizer – or that is how history likes to present him. I’m still fascinated by Ian Worthington’s book, presently reading the chapter about Philip’s Marriages as Policy. It starts with Philip’s wedding plans with Eurydice, previously called Cleopatra. I didn’t know that Cleopatra's father and brother had died and that her guardian was Attalus (a Macedonian nobleman), who adopted the girl as his niece. She was thus an adoptive niece and not a true relative, although from pure Macedonian blood. And then there is the plausible fact that this marriage of Philip with Eurydice, for once, was not a political move, but one of true love – at least as far as Philip is concerned, of course.

The only source to mention all of Philip’s wives and the reason for the marriages is fragments from a biography written in the 3rd century BC by a certain Satyrus, a philosopher from Aristotle’s school, which was quoted much later by Athenaeus, a writer who lived in the 2nd century AD. According to Worthington, the list/sequence is not entirely correct, but generally speaking, all of Philip’s marriages can be tied to his wars, and Worthington feels this should be the correct order. The names and sequence given by Satyrus are as follows:

- a)Audata (2), an Illyrian, who gave him a daughter Cynane;

- b) Phila of Elimea (1), sister of Derdas and Machatas, meant to secure control over Amphaxitis;

- c) Nicesipolis (5) of Pherae (when he wanted to appropriate Thessaly), by whom he fathered a daughter Thessalonike; and

- d) Philinna of Larisa (3) (also while he wanted to appropriate Thessaly), who gave birth to Arrhidaeus;

- e) Olympias (4) served to acquire the kingdom of the Molossians (Epirus), the mother of Alexander;

- f) Cleopatra (7), sister of Hippostratus and niece of Attalus, with whom Philip had fallen in love and who bore him a daughter, Europa.

Yet, this list is missing Meda of the Getae tribe, wife number (6). The figure between parentheses corresponds to the chronology that Ian Worthington (see: Philip II of Macedonia) feels is correct based on Philip’s military campaigns.

After a good twenty years of ruling and fighting, Philip managed to bring peace and unity to Greece, and he is getting ready to cross to Asia. Worthington’s theory is that Philip wanted to have one or more successors to secure the Macedonian kingship before leaving. The simple-minded Arrhidaeus is of no use, and there is too much at stake to rely only on Alexander – even if he leaves him behind in Macedonia to look after his interests and to keep a close eye on the newly signed Corinthian League. So much could go wrong while he is away!

Aside from Olympias, little or nothing is known about the other wives. They supposedly all lived at the Royal Palace of Pella, probably each in their own quarters to avoid possible (and probable) conflicts and quarreling with one another. Nicesipolis seems to have died shortly after giving birth to her daughter, and as far as the other wives are concerned, your guess is as good as mine. Justin, however, tells us that Philip had many children, of whom some died in battle and others by accident or of natural causes, but, strangely, we have so little information about them – hardly a name. As to Philip’s marriage with Eurydice, who was much younger than he, Worthington assumes that the other women may no longer be able to produce a healthy heir, or were simply too old already. And yes, let’s not forget that Eurydice was a full-blood Macedonian! We all know how Alexander reacted to this wedding!

The story becomes even more interesting when I learn that Attalus, just to be closer to King Philip, decides to adopt Eurydice as his own daughter just before the wedding takes place. To have the King as father-in-law makes him much more important, doesn’t it?

When it came to marriages, they were a high-stakes game in those days! Not only was Attalus himself married to a daughter of Parmenion, but so was Coenus, another of Philip’s generals (Parmenion’s three sons, Nicanor, Philotas, and Hector, all fought later on in Alexander’s army). Attalus and Parmenion left together at the head of the shock troops that Philip sent to Asia ahead of his own planned invasion. All these events lead us to believe that Philip pulled the strings of an entire network, arranging intermarriages among his generals. In fact, it was a whole clique, of which Alexander was unfortunately excluded – to his greatest sorrow, I dare say. Although he obviously was recognized as the official heir to the Macedonian throne – probably so since he was fourteen and Aristotle was brought to Macedonia and certainly since he carried the seal of Macedonia at sixteen while his father was fighting on the eastern front; and again later on when he successfully led his cavalry against the Theban Sacred Band at Chaeronea – he had no place in Philip’s closest entourage of which he was excluded. This may have been reason enough for Olympias and Alexander to consider murdering Philip…?

A lot of stuff to think about! So much intrigue at the court! Enough for Louis XIV to find some inspiration here, and Henry VIII with his six wives could be looked at mildly, although Philip never divorced any of his wives or chopped their heads off. What an incredible mess!

As a side note, the huge and extravagant wedding party in Susa comes to my mind, which Alexander arranged in 324 BC for about one hundred of his generals and friends to marry girls from the widespread Persian aristocracy. The idea was not exactly a new one, was it?

Immortal Alexander the Great.

This is what I’ve been waiting for, the exhibition about Alexander the Great with artifacts from the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg! The dates are set, from 18 September 2010 till 18 March 2011 in Amsterdam. Make sure to take note!

Most of us will never get all the way to Russia, but Amsterdam is not so far away and can easily be reached by train, road and even by plane. I don’t know about you, but I’m terribly excited at the very thought of seeing all these gems for myself.

When Alexander left his homeland Macedonia in the spring of 334 B.C. he most probably didn’t know how far his conquests of the Persian Empire and other countries to the east would take him, not even in his wildest dreams. Needless to remind you that he left an everlasting impact on that part of the world, Persia, Afghanistan, Bactria, India, etc. There definitely was a world before Alexander, but more so after Alexander, and it is called Hellenism.

The recent exhibition in Mannheim already showed Alexander’s legacy in that part of the world, with the Buddhism in its wake. It is rather unexpected to find yourself confronted with a Greek heritage so far away from mainland Greece and so many centuries after Alexander’s conquests!

All the details about visiting hours, admission fees, guided tours and access information can be found at Immortal Alexander the Great. Enjoy!

Philip II of Macedonia by Ian Worthington

Philip II of Macedonia by Ian Worthington  (ISBN 0300164769). So many books and so many pages have been filled with all aspects of and opinions about Alexander the Great that in the process we generally forget his father, King Philip II. What a shortcoming! Personally, I always believe that if the world had not known Alexander, we would have talked about Philip the Great instead – maybe we still should… It is exciting to read that Worthington shares this idea with me, yet who am I, for I could never have assembled all the information he did! I wouldn’t even try!

When it comes to Alexander the Great, we have a handful of writers from antiquity who made the effort to tell us about his life and conquests, and although sketchy at times, there are great authors like Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and Curtius Rufus who put down their knowledge based on contemporary sources that are lost to us today. In any case, we have a rather solid base, certainly in comparison to Philip who went into history in the shadow of his son – unfortunately.

I’m extremely impressed by Ian Worthington’s research for it is nearly hopeless to find anyone who wrote about Philip in his days or even shortly after his death. The scarce sources are very fragmentary and very much influenced by their time frame. We are lucky to have large fragments by Theopompus of Chios, who visited Macedonia in Philips days, and by Diodorus who had to rely on earlier works. The chore of literature comes from Demosthenes in Athens, who grasped every single occasion to belittle and harshly criticize Philip – even if he had to make up his own version of the events. He utterly hated Philip, so we cannot trust his opinion too much, can we? Besides, Demosthenes’ speeches were oratory and not historical, and he made sure to turn the events to his own advantage. There is Plutarch’s life of Demosthenes in which Philip is being mentioned and finally later sources like Justin, Polybius (2nd century BC) and the geographer Strabo (1st century BC/1st century AD). But in the end, Philip’s campaigns remain very vague and hard to date. Philip deserves better. Had it not been for his father, Alexander would not and could not have done what he did.

Macedonia was a poor territory where sheepherders and farmers lived in constant war with one another. Philip took things into his own hands, creating a professional army, consolidating his borders with fortified cities, fighting, bribing and cunning his enemies in such ways they never knew what to expect. He turned gold and silver mining to a profitable business, built roads and canals, received ambassadors at his court to tell them what they wanted to hear but not acting accordingly. The unification of Macedonia was a very strenuous and lengthy project that in the end paid off very well. We tend to forget that it is Philip who created the first land state in history, Greece, replacing the obsolete city-state system. With the Peace of Corinth, he finally united all his previous adversaries, including Athens into one entity. What a formidable achievement that was!

Worthington has gathered all the available details to support each step. After Philip’s assassination, Alexander has all the elements to make the next move, and that is to invade Asia.

The book concludes with a number of Appendixes where the author takes a close look at several specific issues, such as The Question of Macedonian Ethnicity (very much in the news these days!); Macedonia before Philip II; Pella (and the Royal Palace); Philip’s Apparent Divinity (very interesting since Alexander’s divinity is under close scrutiny these days); and finally The Vergina Royal Tombs (including the recent theory that Philip’s tomb might not be his).

Personally, I find this book a real jewel. There is so much information there that Worthington had to dig out from time before time it seems, with all the references to the books and articles where he found it. The book is a 2008 edition and truly contains all the latest information available.

A precious source of information for all of us who want a better understanding of Alexander!

Macedonia, my first experience

It was mid-summer when I drove over the unsafe roads of Yugoslavia, south towards Greece. Back then, in the early 1970’s only few people in their right mind would venture that deep in what was then Yugoslavia. Only one “autoped”, a highway you might think but in fact a simple two-ways road, ran through that country’s flat lands where kolkhozes still ruled over the seemingly endless cornfields – all the way some 1,300 kilometers. My expectations were running high – very high, indeed, for I was on my way to Greece - a country I knew only in my dreams but which I was going to enter now for real.

The road was long and dangerous with local trucks driving according to their own rules and always had the right of way, whatever the crazy situation they created. The camping sites were dirty, smelly, ill-kept and simple commodities like fresh water and bread were not easy to come by. The further south, the worse the conditions. Hunting for bread in Titov Veles with its Cyrillic letter signs, I had to look inside each cubicle that hardly was worthy the name “store” to see what was being offered. The looks I got in return from the locals were far from friendly, rather hostile I would say. Steadily but surely, my high hopes started to tune down…

My last night before reaching the border of my promised land, the only safe haven was inside the fenced enclosure where all the foreign travelers, probably as crazy or unconscious as I was, were herded together in front of an impersonal building labeled as Motel. They were British mainly, but with a handful of Germans, French and Dutch, I felt more or less secure, being among fellow travelers. The landscape was fascinating though, with sharp hillsides rising like dark grotesque figures against the evening sky where mysterious sunrays exploded from behind. This was Macedonia, the land of Alexander the Great and I wondered if ever he had been in this forlorn corner and if he could have seen this…

My hopes and ideals about Greece plummeted dramatically that night. What would the next morning bring? I felt very much pressured to leave here as soon as possible, as if ancient ghosts were on my heals. The narrow road twisted uncomfortably between the high menacing cliffs on either side and at last I arrived at the tacky border outpost, nothing more than a handful of gloomy ran-down buildings. My heart sank in my shoes. Dear Lord, what if Greece was going to be like this? Had I risen my hopes to an impossible height? Had I imagined an ideal country, a perfect land? It seemed my dreams about Alexander the Great, Athens, Mount Olympus and Delphi with all their Hellenistic treasures were sinking away into Hades! This was horrible!

After a meticulous, lengthy and unfriendly control by the border officials, I was at long last allowed to drive on. All of the sudden, as if by magic, the entire décor changed. I was literally transposed unto another world. A smiling custom employee waved me through and a huge blue traffic sign reading “Hellas, we welcome you!” stared me in the face. If ever in my life I felt welcome, it definitely was here! Ahead of me the freshly asphalted double freeway descended gently over the rolling hills towards Thessaly, a black ribbon trimmed with pink laurel shrubs amidst the golden glow of harvested fields. I could breathe again, I could smile, I could jump for joy, for this was the picture I secretly had carried around in my mind for so many years – this was what Greece was all about, what it stood for! Wow wee!

It was as if the world had been freshly washed and I took it all in with wide open eyes. Then on my right, rose the majestic mountains culminating with mighty Olympus. The very top was shrouded appropriately in puffy clouds although the blue sky was perfectly clear otherwise, but then nobody less than Zeus, the father of all gods was ruling from up there. He needed some privacy, don’t you think so?

My first night was spent at Kamena Vourla, a small tourist town in those days but for me it was like being embraced by Aphrodite in person. The Aegean Sea was, of course, irresistible and I waded carefully like the goddess of the sea must have done rising out of the waves. It was late, the sun was gone and the first street lights along the shore hung like a shiny string of pearls in the darkness while I floated away in the protective arms of Neptune … I’ll never forget that moment in time, it was simply too unreal.

The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great in Egypt?

An endless subject of discussion and speculation, no doubt. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll stick to the conclusions Andrew Chugg made in his book, but that doesn’t mean that the questions raised by the findings on YouTube are to be brushed off lightly.

We are shown pictures from the Bahariya Oasis, about 300 km south of Alexandria, where a great number of rich graves was found that belonged to the local mixed population of Romans, Greeks, Bedouins and Egyptians. In other words, it was a good place to hide and secure the body of Alexander the Great from interference by Christians and Muslims alike. A theory like any other? Maybe so, but the fact that Dr Zahi Hawass is there in person to point out the relief of Alexander in the neighboring temple is a clear indication that we should give this theory some serious consideration. The desert is a big place and I’m convinced there are much and much more treasures hidden under its sand.

Wouldn’t it be baffling to find the remains of Alexander the Great after all these centuries? An exciting perspective, but I doubt I’ll live long enough to witness that great day!

Into the Land of Bones, Alexander the Great in Afghanistan

Into the Land of Bones, Alexander the Great in Afghanistan by Frank L. Holt. ISBN 0520279933. What a book! I even read it twice, for there is so much information in there that I couldn’t grasp it all at once.

  

The subtitle “Alexander the Great in Afghanistan” may sound a little confusing as that country did not exist in Alexander’s day, but the land and its people were very much the same. Frank Holt retells the story of Alexander’s conquests in the area. He projects them against the successive occupations by the English in the 19th century, by the Soviets in the 20th century, and by the Americans in this century. It turns out that all the armies and their leaders faced the same problems.

Alexander the Great spent three years campaigning in Bactria, as Afghanistan was called then, trying systematically to eliminate one warlord after another to see new warlords taking over behind his back as soon as he moved away. His fighting was the bloodiest ever, and he lost more men in these two years than he had since he left Macedonia seven years before.

Even the English got a taste of it when they went into the First Afghan War in 1838. Four years later, they had yet to reach their goal and only one European survived the disastrous expedition. The Second Afghan War was fought from 1878 to 1889, but the success of the British – like that of Alexander two thousand years earlier - was short-lived, and as General Roberts rightfully put it in those days: Afghanistan should be left alone.

This is quite a statement, but nobody listened. Nobody learned from Alexander’s experience (I will not call it a mistake, for what would have been right?), and nobody learned from the British either. The Soviets tried it in 1979 while the Americans entrusted the mujahideen warlords with their money and munitions for their bloody crusade. Eventually, the Afghans rebelled, the Soviets moved out, and the Taliban took over, bringing “law and order.” On 9/11, the world was taken by surprise, and another superpower landed in Afghanistan.

It is a unique experience to follow Frank Holt as he goes back and forth in time, considering Alexander’s options and scrutinizing his actions, comparing them to what the British and the Soviets did so many centuries later. The landscape has not changed, and the people have not changed. Its warlords still rule Afghanistan, and their subjects live on as they lived for centuries, attending their own business and mistrusting all foreign intrusion.

This book is as much the history of Alexander the Great as it is the history of more recent times, making it so captivating. It is definitely worth reading, although sad to realize that we have not learned anything over the past two and a half thousand years since Alexander fought there.

Also available as eBook

Seleucos Nicator, in the wake of Alexander

Here I was in Syria, visiting Apamea. The Cardo Maximus is at least two kilometers long, flanked by rows and rows of columns. Initially, there were 1200 of them, now about 400 still standing – an awe-inspiring view.

I hear that Seleucos (later called Seleucos Nicator, i.e., the Victorious) built this city and named it after his wife, Apame. During the mass wedding party that Alexander the Great organized in Susa in 324 B.C. as a symbolic fusion between east and west, between Macedonians and Persians, Apame, the daughter of Spitamenes the Bactrian, became Seleucos' bride. It seems to have been one of the few successful marriages, for she accompanied her husband on all his expeditions, even as far as India – even though traveling cannot have been very comfortable in those days.

For those who don't know, Seleucos was one of the generals in the army of Alexander the Great. Upon Alexander's death in 323 B.C., he and his fellow generals got caught up in a series of succession wars that went down into history as the Wars of the Diadochi. Those were very confusing times when every general tried to get the best or most prosperous tracts of land since Alexander had not appointed any successor (his son with Roxane, the later Alexander IV, was not born yet, and Heracles, his son with Barsine, was, in fact, a bastard son). The initial division of Alexander's Empire among his generals, in which Seleucos was appointed satrap of Babylon, lasted only a short time. Less than a year later, despite his best intentions, Perdiccas was murdered by his own generals, Seleucos, Peithon, and Antigenes, when he invaded Egypt. Ptolemy, retaining Egypt for himself, came to terms with the murderers by granting them, respectively, the provinces of Babylon, Media, and Susiana.

After that, Seleucos managed to stay more or less out of further conflicts and successive Diadochi Wars, and finally included Persia and Media in his conquests. He even made an alliance with King Chandragupta of India. The Diadochi Wars were over by now, but Alexander's generals' fierce fighting and endless greed were still causing more wars. Seleucos defeated Antigonus Monophthalmus in the Battle of Ipsus and killed Lysimachos on the battlefields of Lycia in 281 B.C. Soon afterward, Seleucos died too, assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus, son of Ptolemy I of Egypt, at one time one of Alexander's generals. Brother in arms with Ptolemy for so many years, he is killed by his son in later life. How glorious can one's life be?

If Alexander could have foreseen his own untimely death, I'm sure he would have provided arrangements for his succession. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Yet, there certainly was no room in his mind for the constant wars and futile bloodshed that unfolded.

Between all this fighting and conniving, Seleucos still found time (and money) to expand and structure his Empire. After using Babylon as his kingdom's capital, he moved it to Antioch-on-the-Orontes, today's Antakya in Turkey. He was at ease in this part of the country that he built another marvelous city further inland (initially started by his rival and enemy Antigonus Monophthalmus). He called it Apamea in honor of his wife. It thus became one of his main cities. But he didn't stop there, of course. He also built Laudetia, now Lattakia, the Syrian port on the Mediterranean, which he named after his mother (to keep things in the family), and later on, he founded Seleucia-on-the-Euphrates (named after himself!) as his Empire by then reached from the Mediterranean all the way to the Indus! Alexander's example definitely was not lost on him.

Well, this is what the books have to say. Now I am finding myself in Syria, driving up to Apamea. The first thing I see is a high, flat-topped hill crowned with many towers connected with city walls – 16 km long, they say. Well, well,… The bus drives uphill and stops at the northern end of the Cardo Maximus, at the Antioch Gate, so I can walk down the road to the other end of the city. I'm immediately drawn to the Cardo with all those impressive columns, of course, but I can't help turning around to take a closer look at the rubble behind me, where the very gate is supposed to be. Now that's a surprise! A surprise I am the only one to notice, though, for this gate is Hellenistic! Once you have seen the Hellenistic towers in Perge (inside the Roman walls), you can't miss recognizing them even in ruins – like in Side and Sillyum, all in today's Turkey. And now I find them here, of all places! If ever I expected this! Seleucos had quite a master to follow in his footsteps!

Alexander's achievements did indeed leave an everlasting imprint on his entourage and on his generals. This is what the birth of Hellenism truly means. Even in his boldest and most daring dreams, Alexander the Great could not have envisaged this to happen. Still, it did – and this proves how Alexander has changed history in geography, economy, army tactics, and architecture! The Romans copied him, and so did the Persians, the Indians, the Italians of the Renaissance, the British with Christopher Wren – you just name it! Nothing was left unchanged; nothing was ever the same. As I often say, there was a time before Alexander and the world after Alexander. We owe him so much. We owe so much to his Hellenization!

Alexander never ceases to amaze me, for here again, I saw what he accomplished and instigated others to do so many years after his death! Isn't that amazing?

Alexander the Great and the Magi

What have they in common, you’ll ask. Well much more than you would expect, provided you allow yourself to think about Magi in general and not about The Magi from the Bible who followed their star to Bethlehem.

Magi were known as Wise Men from Mesopotamia, particularly famous around Babylon by their local name of Chaldeans, were reputed among others for their knowledge in astrology. In those days there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology, both forms of star observation went hand in hand. By studying and analyzing the celestial heavens, these Wise Men could, for instance, predict major events to important people. This knowledge was already mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th century B.C. who defined the Magi as a priestly caste from upper Mesopotamia.

The Magi we are familiar with, are the Three Wise Men who visited the Lord Jesus, but this fact is based on a simple and non-explicit quotation by the evangelist Matthew, who stated that they came from the east, which is evident geographically speaking, and brought expensive gifts of myrrh, frankincense and gold with them. Nowadays there is a discussion going on whether there were three Magi or more for Matthew only mentions three gifts, which has been interpreted as each Magi carrying one gift, while evidently there could have been ten or thirty of them offering these three gifts.

Now we all know that Alexander the Great always looked for his omens. So, when he was in Babylon in 331 B.C, he came into contact with these Magi, the Chaldeans as Arrian called them, i.e. the priests of Marduk or Bel, for “in all matters of religious ceremonial he [Alexander] took their advice, offering sacrifice to Bel in particular, according to their instructions”. Alexander even gave them the money and instructions to rebuild the famous Temple of Bel.

After his campaigns to the East, through what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, Alexander returned to Babylon in 323 B.C. and was met by the Chaldeans outside the city walls. They advised him not to enter Babylon, as it was considered a bad omen. Arrian tells us this story “… Alexander, after crossing the Tigris, was met by some Wise Men of the Chaldeans, who drew him aside and begged him to go no further, because their god Bel had foretold that if he entered the city at that time it would prove fatal to him”. Plutarch relates a similar story in which Alexander got the news through his naval commander, Nearchus: “As he [Alexander] was upon his way to Babylon, Nearchus … came to tell him he had met with some Chaldean diviners, who had warned him against Alexander’s going thither”. Alexander complied but as time went by he lost his patience and decided to enter Babylon after all - his destiny was already sealed. It was written in the stars and Alexander died shortly afterwards in Babylon. The diviners must have known this but it remains a guess whether or not Alexander was fully aware that he would die if he ignored the warning.

By ancient writers, we usually refer to our western historians, but what about the literature in the East. There are, for instance, the Enuma Anu Enli records of celestial omens, which archaeologists have recovered from the Assyrian Library in Nineveh. The authors were Chaldeans, who left us tablets detailing the movements of the planets and how they disclosed the fate of mankind. These astronomers had the duty to warn authorities when they discovered that some major event was going to happen. They had done so before, for instance, at the approach of the decisive Battle at Gaugamela, that engaged Alexander the Great against King Darius III of Persia "The son of the king will become purified for the throne but will not take the throne. An intruder will come with the princes of the west; for eight years he will exercise kingship; he will conquer the enemy army; there will be abundance and riches on his path; he will continually pursue his enemies; and his luck will not run out."

Now among these tablets of Enuma Anu Enlil there is also one predicting Alexander’s death: "When in the month Ajaru, during the evening watch, the moon eclipses, the king will die. The sons of the king will vie for the throne of their father, but will not sit on it."

It is plain to see that these Magi knew about births and deaths. Why then are we so reluctant to accept knowledge and proven facts reaching back thousands of years? Just because they have not been scientifically proven? Just because we look at these stories as tales from old times and naïve peoples? We still may learn so much from our past, if we simply would allow ourselves….

All this reminds me of a clay tablet at the British Museum in London that was found in Babylon, Iraq. It tells us about meteorological and astronomical phenomena that were observed on the 29th day of the lunar month (the second month) in the year 323-322 B.C. Written in cuneiform script, it is a record of the death of Alexander, although he is simply mentioned as “king”. No western record of that ultimate moment has survived so far. Here too we could make some effort to read more about our history through the available legacies in the east. Why should we pretend that our Roman, Greek or maybe Egyptian sources are the only reliable ones? The Magi are not part of a fable. Why are we willing to believe that they came all the way to Bethlehem to pay tribute to the King of the Jews but would not have been able to predict the life and death of Alexander the Great and that of other kings?

We still have a long way to go…