you guys should read this about Alexander

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080423-alexander-great.html

I do not agree. The remains of the skeleton were examined back then and scientists agree it was Philips. Also look at this:

The earliest securely dated barrel vault in Greece dates to the late 320s [B.C.], nearly a generation after the death of Philip II," Borza told National Geographic News.

That is not an argument. We're talking about 1 generation, not centuries. Just because the earliest is dated to the late 320, it doesn't mean there have never been earlier than that.

I don't see any concrete reasons for all these. I just feel it is another "I found Alexander the greats tomb" hysteria.

If Alexander was burried in Greece, then considering that his mother was alive, I believe he would have been burried in the Aecides burrial place in Pydna. I believe Olympia, would prefer to have her son burried in the burrial place where the people related to her side of the family were burried. Aecides, could be Royals too and with great ancestral fame, something that wouldn't degrade Alexander in any way.

Maybe Taphoi, who is an expert on the tomb theories and a member of Allempires could enlighten us. I have sent him a PM, lets hope he will notice.


Edited by Flipper - 10-May-2008 at 15:28

Originally posted by Vorian From what I've read the skeleton didn't have Phillip's eye injury and things like that

That's exactly what i thought it had. Anyway, i don't know if Taphoi will see the PM here but I got an answer from him in another way. Interresting points...Read below...

My Message: Hello! Since you're an expert on the theories about Alexanders tomb, I would like your opinion on Borzas new theory, regarding the tomb discovered by Andronikos. Taphois answer: I'm sceptical even about whether the Borza theory is new. It is really a continuation of an argument that has been going on for thirty years. Unfortunately, the proponents of Philip II in Tomb II, Hammond & Andronikos, are both dead, so Borza has been unopposed. His arguments remain slim. If you believe him, then you have to believe that the youthful horseman in the middle of the frieze on the facade of Tomb II is the mature Alexander involved in a hunt with Philip Arrhidaeus at Babylon in 323BC, even though Babylon is flat and the frieze has mountains! I prefer to believe the evidence of my own eyes that this is Alexander at circa 18 or 20 hunting with his father Philip II in the hills of Macedon. If so, then the tomb occupant must be Philip II.

The bold phrase is characteristic, not just in this case. I may recall various things where he expresses plain assumptions and skepticism rather than concrete evidence that can be backup up. Not to mention things that are completely bypassed...

Generally i doubt Alexander was burried in Greece. I can imagine that his body could have been transfered by his mother, but as I said before I doubt that she would have burried it next to his fathers family line. If there is a chance he was burried in Greece, that would be Pydna in my opinion.


Edited by Flipper - 11-May-2008 at 04:54