Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmooss | Hacker News Reader

> the sacred Persian mesoleucon sarapis which belonged to Pharaoh and King Alexander the Great

[italicizing added]

sacred means something religious or divine. While Alexander the Great is very famous, does or did anyone who came after consider Alexander to be divine? For example, while people very much admire Abraham Lincoln, nobody would associate Lincoln with divinity.

Another comment says that English may not be the first language of the author, so perhaps 'sacred' wasn't meant precisely. And it could be used, even by an English speaker, imprecisely (hopefully not in published research) or in an exaggerated fashion (also probably doesn't belong in published research).

Still, I find it interesting how a little overenthusiasm and subtle shift in terminology can change perceptions of someone.

EDIT: Better stated: Here is a modern historian calling the sarapis sacred. Why? Sacred to whom?

View on HN

Quite famously, during his own lifetime, Alexander claimed some kind of "divine descent". He made an out-of-the-way journey to a famous religious site in the Libyan desert, to underline this.

Some would have believed him. Others, wouldn't.

The mere fact that he used to fight in the frontline of every battle, and still walked away (the only other military leader who can match him in this was Khalid bin Walid) - that would tend to sway opinion on the "wow, he's indestructible" debate.

When news of his death reached Greece, people stalled celebrating, as he was not really considered "merely human".

(Remember, Alexander was still recognized as Macedonian, not Greek - and in fact 50,000 Greek hoplites went with Memnon of Rhodes to fight for Iran against Alexander - which they did till the end. It's only much much later that Greek society appropriated him as one of their own. In fact, historical accounts showed that Alexander himself tired of aspiring to be Greek, and took on many trappings of the Iranian court & system, till his end)

> much later that Greek society appropriated him as one of their own

His father generally put in a lot more trying to “fit in” and be accepted by other Greeks. Alexander was a bit more ruthless and the whole “divine king” didn’t really fly in in Athens etc. I’m not sure he really tried but rather just wanted to do his own thing (entirely razing once of the most ancient cities in Greece didn’t help much either).

It was not uncommon for rulers in the ancient Near East to claim to be divine, or descended from the gods.

When Alexander conquered Egypt, he took on the role of Pharaoh, and claimed to be the son of Ra. He also began calling himself the son of Zeus.

Abraham Lincoln isn't considered a deity, but American political culture is very different from 4th-Century BC Hellenistic political culture.

But here is a modern historian calling Alexander's clothes 'sacred'. Why?

Because in the historical context, they were considered sacred.

Thanks. It's not that I'm ignorant of that. I'm trying to explore which historical contexts - and possibly modern ones - consider Alexander to be 'sacred' and why.

Haven't most royal figures been considered "sacred" as their claim of, and acceptance by others, of being hand picked by a god or two; of divine right? Since people would never actually see a real god in the physical world, this sacredness is projected onto those being "divinely appointed".

Thus "sacred" to some. As in people who held this view wont just stroll up to them and chat about the Dodgers (or weather etc) or give them a hug (unless that person is Michelle Obama) and not be marched out of town, jailed or worse, and is why they enjoyed so much personal space.

Unless, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "sacred".

Many royal figures in many cultures have claimed some divinity, divine blessing, etc.

What I'm wondering is, who saw Alexander as divine? Contemporaries? Later ancient people in Greece or Rome? Authors or religions since then? Anyone today, in some way or to some extent?

> people would never actually see a real god in the physical world

fwiw I think people in many cultures believed they saw gods in human guise, including the Greeks.

We still would call some of the items in the vatican "sacred". Why is that different?

Many people today believe some items in the Vatican are connected to actual divine beings. Few today believe Alexander the Great was divine.

Are you suggesting that only people who believe in objects being sacred (whatever that means) should be allowed to use the term? To those who don't, why would the current liveness status of those who do/did matter in their usage of the term?

Only the people who believe something is sacred are likely to apply the term, though others may use it out of respect for the believers. Dead people don't say much.

In the context of history I’d say it was sacred to the Greeks. There’s not really anything wrong with the wording; they aren’t saying it’s a religious artifact to modern society or holds any magic.

They might not divinize Lincoln but they certainly do Washington:

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-wa...

There's an entire Temple of Zeus lookalike on the other side of the Mall entirely dedicated to Lincoln. It's not just GW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_cult_of_Alexander_th...

> • regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual: an animal sacred to Mexican culture.

All excellent examples. I particularly enjoyed the George Washington example. Another interesting reference point would be the English coronation ceremony, which is chock full of sacred symbols and rituals, and references to what God does or does not want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com