The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria

Ancient Origins

Alexandria, one of the greatest cities of the ancient world, was founded by Alexander the Great after his conquest of Egypt in 332 BC. After the death of Alexander in Babylon in 323 BC, Egypt fell to the lot of one of his lieutenants, Ptolemy. It was under Ptolemy that the newly-founded Alexandria came to replace the ancient city of Memphis as the capital of Egypt. This marked the beginning of the rise of Alexandria. Yet, no dynasty can survive for long without the support of their subjects, and the Ptolemies were keenly aware of this. Thus, the early Ptolemaic kings sought to legitimize their rule through a variety of ways, including assuming the role of pharaoh, founding the Graeco-Roman cult of Serapis, and becoming the patrons of scholarship and learning (a good way to show off one’s wealth, by the way). It was this patronage that resulted in the creation of the great Library of Alexandria by Ptolemy. Over the centuries, the Library of Alexandria was one of the largest and most significant libraries in the ancient world. The great thinkers of the age, scientists, mathematicians, poets from all civilizations came to study and exchange ideas. As many as 700,000 scrolls filled the shelves. However, in one of the greatest tragedies of the academic world, the Library became lost to history and scholars are still not able to agree on how it was destroyed.

An artist’s depiction of the Library of Alexandria. Image source.

Perhaps one of the most interesting accounts of its destruction comes from the accounts of the Roman writers. According to several authors, the Library of Alexandria was accidentally destroyed by Julius Caesar during the siege of Alexandria in 48 BC. Plutarch, for instance, provides this account:

when the enemy tried to cut off his (Julius Caesar’s) fleet, he was forced to repel the danger by using fire, and this spread from the dockyards and destroyed the great library. (Plutarch, The Life of Julius Caesar, 49.6)

This account is dubious, however, as the Musaeum (or Mouseion) at Alexandria, which was right next to the library was unharmed, as it was mentioned by the geographer Strabo about 30 years after Caesar’s siege of Alexandria. Nevertheless, Strabo does not mention the Library of Alexandria itself, thereby supporting the claim that Caesar was responsible for burning it down. However, as the Library was attached to the Musaeum, and Strabo did mention the latter, it is possible that the library was still in existence during Strabo’s time. The omission of the library can perhaps be attributed either to the possibility that Strabo felt no need to mention the library, as he had already mentioned the Musaeum, or that the library was no longer the centre of scholarship that it once was (the idea of ‘budget cuts’ seems increasingly probable). In addition, it has been suggested that it was not the library, but the warehouses near the port, which stored manuscripts, that was destroyed by Caesar’s fire.

The second possible culprit would be the Christians of the 4th century AD. In 391 AD, the Emperor Theodosius issued a decree that officially outlawed pagan practices. Thus, the Serapeum or Temple of Serapis in Alexandria was destroyed. However, this was not the Library of Alexandria, or for that matter, a library of any sort. Furthermore, no ancient sources mention the destruction of any library at this time at all. Hence, there is no evidence that the Christians of the 4th century destroyed the Library of Alexandria.

The last possible perpetrator of this crime would be the Muslim Caliph, Omar. According to this story, a certain “John Grammaticus” (490–570) asks Amr, the victorious Muslim general, for the “books in the royal library." Amr writes to the Omar for instructions and Omar replies: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.” There are at least two problems with this story. Firstly, there is no mention of any library, only books. Secondly, this was written by a Syrian Christian writer, and may have been invented to tarnish the image of Omar.

Unfortunately, archaeology has not been able to contribute much to this mystery. For a start, papyri have rarely been found in Alexandria, possibly due to the climatic condition, which is unfavourable for the preservation of organic material. Secondly, the remains of the Library of Alexandria itself have not been discovered. This is due to the fact that Alexandria is still inhabited by people today and only salvage excavations are allowed to be carried out by archaeologists.

While it may be convenient to blame one man or group of people for the destruction of what many consider to be the greatest library in the ancient world, it may be over-simplifying the matter. The library may not have gone up in flames at all, but rather could have been gradually abandoned over time. If the Library was created for the display of Ptolemaic wealth, then its decline could also have been linked to an economic decline. As Ptolemaic Egypt gradually declined over the centuries, this may have also had an effect on the state of the Library of Alexandria. If the Library did survive into the first few centuries AD, its golden days would have been in the past, as Rome became the new centre of the world.

Featured image: One of the theories suggests that Library of Alexandria was burned down. ‘The Burning of the Library of Alexandria’, by Hermann Goll (1876).

 By Ḏḥwty

Who or what killed Alexander the Great?

Ancient Origins

In June 323 BC, Alexander the Great died in Babylon aged 32, having conquered an empire stretching from modern Albania to eastern Pakistan. The question of what, or who, killed the Macedonian king has never been answered successfully. However, new research may have finally solved the 2,000-year-old mystery.

Alexander III of Macedon, also known as Alexander the Great, was born in Pella in 356 BC and was mentored by Aristotle until the age of 16. He became king of Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece, and by the age of 30 had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world, stretching from the Ionian Sea to the Himalayas. Alexander is considered one of history's most successful commanders. He conquered the whole of the Persian Empire but being an ambitious warrior, seeking to reach the 'ends of the world,' he invaded India in 326 BC but later turned back. He is credited with founding some 20 cities that bore his name, including Alexandria in ancient Egypt, and spread Greece's culture east. However, before completing his plans to invade Arabia, Alexander the Great died of a mysterious death, following 12 days of suffering.

What is known from historical records is that Alexander was holding a memorial feast to honour the death of a close personal friend. But around mid-evening, he was seized with intense pain and collapsed. He was taken to his bedchamber where, after days of agony, high fever, convulsions and delirium, he fell into a coma and died.

His initial systems were agitation, tremors, stiffness in the neck, and sharp pain in the area of the stomach. He then collapsed and suffered acute and excruciating agony wherever he was touched. He experienced an intense thirst, fever and delirium, and throughout the night he experienced convulsions and hallucinations, followed by periods of calm. In the final stages of the condition he could not talk, although he could still move his head and arms. Ultimately, his breathing became difficult and he died.

Alexander the Great on his deathbed. Image source.

The four most popular theories concerning his death are: Malaria, typhoid, alcohol poisoning, or being intentionally poisoned by a rival. Three can probably be discounted. Malaria is carried by mosquitoes that live in jungle and tropical locations, but not in desert regions such as central Iraq where Alexander died. Typhoid is transmitted by food or water contaminated by bacteria which causes epidemics and not just single, individual cases. There is nothing in any of the historical accounts to suggest such outbreak in Babylon at the time Alexander died. The main effect of alcohol poisoning is continual vomiting, but not once do any of the historical sources mention vomiting or even nausea as one of Alexander’s symptoms.

So what did kill Alexander? According to the historical accounts, Alexander’s body failed to show any signs of decay for six days after death, even though it was kept in a hot, sultry place. One explanation is a lethal dose of a toxic substance that pervaded the corpse and slowed the rate of decomposition. This suggests that Alexander the Great was poisoned, but by what?

Recent research conducted by Dr Leo Schep from the National Poisons Centre in New Zealand suggests that Alexander died from drinking poisonous wine from an innocuous-looking plant that, when fermented, is incredibly deadly.

Dr Schep, who has been researching the toxicological evidence for a decade, said some of the other poisoning theories - including arsenic and strychnine - were not plausible as death would have come far too fast, not over 12 days as the records suggest. The same applies to other poisons such as hemlock, aconite, wormwood, henbane and autumn crocus.

However, Dr Schep’s research, co-authored by Otago University classics expert Dr Pat Wheatley and published in the medical journal Clinical Toxicology, found the most plausible culprit was Veratrum album, known as white hellebore. The white-flowered plant, which can be fermented into a poisonous wine, was well-known to the Greeks as a herbal treatment.

Dr Schep's theory was that Veratrum album could have been fermented as a wine that was given to the leader. It would have tasted 'very bitter' but it could have been sweetened - and Alexander was likely to have been very drunk at the banquet. The symptoms caused by consuming the plant also fit with the description of what Alexander experienced over the 12 days before he died.

However, even if Alexander were poisoned, there's no proof that he was murdered by conspiring generals. There have been documented cases of people accidentally poisoning themselves with Veratum album. In 2010, Clinical Toxicology published a paper about four people in Central Europe who thought they were eating wild garlic. In about 30 minutes they were throwing up, in pain, partially blind, and confused. Unlike, perhaps, Alexander, they all survived.

 By April Holloway

In Search of The Lost Testament of Alexander the Great: Excavating Homeric Heroes

Ancient Origins

The ancient city of Aegae in Greece, where the royal tombs are located, dates back to the 7th century BCE; it became Macedonia’s first capital after it was conglomerated from a collection of villages into a city in the 5th century BCE. Aegae was eventually supplanted by a new capital at Pella in the 4th century BCE but retained its status as the spiritual home and burial ground of the Macedonian kings. 

Aegae Becomes Lost to History
Both settlements were partially destroyed by Rome in 168 BCE following the Battle of Pydna when Macedonia was finally defeated, and a landslide which buried the older capital in the 1st century, after which it was uninhabited. The name ‘Aegae’ ceased to be used and its history was grazed over by goats and sheep and survived in oral legend only, while papyri and faded vellums told of a former city of kings. Only a nearby early Christian basilica built from the stones of the ancient ruins marked the forgotten location. In the 1920s, on what had once been the southeast side of the Macedonian royal palace, Greek refugees from the Euxine Pontus region of Asia Minor founded the village of Vergina, and the still unidentified fallen stones were used as masonry in the new houses.

 Supervised excavations at what turned out to be the founding city of the Argead (otherwise, Temenid) dynasty go back to the 1860s when a dig by French archaeologist, Léon Heuzey, sponsored by Napoleon III, revealed a Macedonian tomb next to the village of Palatitsia, ‘the small palaces’, a name that hinted tantalizingly at its former significance, though it was erroneously thought to be the site of the ancient city of Valla. In the 1930s, Konstantinos Romaios, a professor of archaeology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, revealed a further tomb, but as Albert Olmstead’s above despondent summation affirms, as late as 1948 archaeologists still had not pinpointed the location of Aegae.

Royal Macedonian Burial Mound in Vergina. (Benjamin /CC BY NC ND 2.0)

Between 1958 and 1975 excavations in the area were extended by Georgios Bakalakis and Fotis Petsas, the antiquities curator (from 1955-1965). Professor Manolis Andronikos, a pupil of Romaios, eventually became convinced the so-called Great Tumulus, Megali Toumba, must house the tombs of the Macedonian kings. But it was the British historian, Nicholas Hammond, who first voiced the idea (in fact in 1968) that the ancient ruins lying between Vergina and Palatitsia (rather than those at the town of Edessa) were in fact the lost city of Aegae, a contention that was not immediately accepted.

The City of Kings is Found
After initial disappointment in 1977 when shafts were sunk through the center of the mound (where remains of a stoa and/or cenotaph tumulus might have nevertheless been found) with some 60,000 cubic feet (1699 cubic meters) of earth removed, and while preparing an access ramp on the southeast perimeter for works planned the following season, Andronikos stumbled across gold, literally: two royal tombs were finally revealed. Tombs I and II had originally been buried together under a single low tumulus with Tomb II at its center; Tomb III, close by, was discovered the following year. Andronikos was exposing what is now referred to as the ‘royal burial cluster of Philip II’, Alexander’s father.

A model of the tomb of Philip II. (CC by SA 3.0)

The precious articles found within suggested to Andronikos that in the ‘monumental death chamber’ of Tomb II, ‘laid on an elaborate gold and ivory deathbed wearing his precious golden oak wreath’ – which features 313 oak leaves and 68 acorns – King Philip II had been ‘surrendered, like a new Heracles, to the funeral pyre’. For the flesh-boned cremation (the evidence lies in the color, warping and minute forms of bone fractures) which took place soon after its occupant’s death (distinct from ‘dry-boned’ which takes place long after death when flesh has rotted away) revealed traces of gold droplets, a clue that the king was placed on the pyre wearing his crown. A more recent analysis suggests that in the holokautoma, the total incineration, his body was wrapped in an asbestos shroud to help separate the bones from the pyre debris.

Within the Great Tumulus of Aegae, Andronikos discovered some ‘forty-seven complete or nearly complete stelae’ [commemorative stone slabs] representing commoners’ graves dating back to the second half of the 4th century BCE. Since his death in 1992, the Eucleia and Cybele sanctuaries, the acropolis and vast necropolis with graves dating mostly to the Early Iron Age (1,000-700 BCE), and the northeast gate, have all been revealed, along with the royal palace, which is now considered to be the largest building in classical Greece. Occupying 41,259 square feet (3833 sq. m.), it is three times the size of the Athenian Parthenon. Archaeologists have unearthed the fortress walls, more cemeteries with more sanctuaries and over 1,000 identified graves in total, besides the burial clusters of royal women and earlier Temenid kings (clusters ‘B’ and ‘C’), including the Heuzey and Bella clusters closer to Palatitsia. All in all, some 500 tumuli have been exposed covering over 900 hectares between Vergina and Palatitsia and they reveal the extent of the ancient city, which, with its suburbs, covered some 6,500 hectares.

 The Death of Philip II
Having survived numerous battles, skirmishes, city sieges and hostile alliances against him, Philip’s death was sudden and unexpected. Intending to show the Greek world his impressive enhanced religious capital at Aegae with its revolutionary palace design that would have been visible from afar as visitors crossed the plains below, and when entering its older amphitheater at which the tragedies of the resident Euripides must have once been heard, Philip was stabbed at the wedding of his daughter, Cleopatra, in 336 BCE. It was nothing short of a ‘spectacular, world-shaking event’. Unearthing in 1977 what is thought by many to be his tomb was no less dramatic and it has since been dubbed the ‘discovery of the century’.

A bust of Philip II of Macedon. (CC by SA 3.0)

Philip’s funeral had been overseen by a grief-stricken, or perhaps a quietly elated, king-in-the-waiting, Alexander the Great. His bones appear to have been washed in emulation of the rites described in Homer’s Iliad in which Achilles’ remains were similarly prepared before being steeped in wine and oil. After cremation, the bones were carefully collected and placed in the twenty-four-carat gold chest or larnax weighing 11 kilograms (24.25 lbs.), in a similar manner to the burial rites of Hector and Patroclus, and they were possibly covered in a soft purple cloth. However, the discovery of traces of the rare mineral huntite and Tyrian purple (porphyra) hint that Philip may in fact have been cremated in an elaborate funeral mask.

The gold larnax found in the main chamber, which contained the cremated bones. Image provided by www.alamy.com with permission from David Grant, author of ‘In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great.'

The remains of bones and trappings of four horses have been found in what appears to have been a purifactory fire above the cornice. Along with two swords and a sarissa (pike), they were left to decay in a (now collapsed) mud brick structure above the tomb. Some scholars believe the remains include the mounts of Philip’s assassins and/or his famous chariot horses. Once again, this would have followed the funerary rites Homer described for Patroclus. The Macedonian burial tradition, clearly following a heroic template, may have influenced Plato when he was writing his Laws which outlined the ideal burial in an idealized state.

Grave Goods of a Warrior King
What are believed by some scholars to be Philip’s remarkable funerary possessions provide a testament to a warrior king: a sword in a scabbard and a short sword, six spears and pikes of different lengths, two pairs of greaves, a throat-protecting gorget besides the aforementioned ceremonial shield (‘completely unsuitable to ward off the blows of battle’, according to Andronikos), body armor and the impressive once-plumed iron helmet. The weaponry is representative of a soldier who fought in both the Macedonian cavalry and infantry regiments. In front of the sarcophagus in the main chamber were found the remains of a wooden couch decorated with five (of fourteen finally recovered) chryselephantine miniature relief figures thought (by some) to represent the family of Philip II.

Winthrop Lindsay Adams insightfully stated back in 1980 that the contents of the antechamber of Tomb II are ‘crucial to identification of the king in the main chamber’. And the contents are fascinating; they include a Scythian gold gorytos, the distinct two-part quiver that traditionally held arrows (seventy-four were found) often poison-tipped and unleashed by a compact powerful Scythian compound bow. This is suggestive of a warrior woman whose identity we probe further in the epilogue. The gorytos, along with the exquisite items retrieved from the main chamber of Tomb II, are now on display in the Archaeological Museum at Vergina; the gold wreaths and the diadem have been described as the most beautiful pieces of jewelry of the ancient world.

The Scythian gorytos (quiver) and a pair of ornate greaves were photographed as they were found lying in the antechamber. Image provided by www.alamy.com with permission from David Grant, author of ‘In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great.'

 Unravelling Identities
Osteoarcheological studies on the bones of the two individuals from Tomb II, one of the longest and tallest of the chamber tombs at Aegae, have led to conflicting conclusions, as the press release made clear. But as Antikas’ 2014 report points out, the ‘…remains had been studied insufficiently and/or misinterpreted, causing debates among archaeologists and anthropologists for over three decades.’ Fortunately, the last thirty years have witnessed significant advances in bioarcheology. Working on behalf of the Aristotle University Vergina Excavation, Prof. Antikas explains that from 2009 to 2014 osteological and physiochemical analyses backed by CT and XRF scans (X-ray-computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy and X-ray fluorescence) have provided new theories regarding age, gender, paleopathology and morphological changes to the bones which are now catalogued by 4,500 photos.

Although the new investigations employed the latest tools in the science of physical anthropology that the earlier examinations of teams had not benefitted from in the 1980s, the technology has not yet put an end to the debate. In 2008, and prior to the highly scientific post-mortem by Antikas’ team in 2014, the Greek historian, Dr. Miltiades Hatzopoulos, summarized the background to the previous research: ‘The issue has been obscured by precipitate announcements, the quest for publicity, political agendas and petty rivalries...’ The summation sounds remarkably like the motives of the agenda-driven historians who gave us Alexander’s story.

Yet the Great Tumulus at Aegae, built from layers of clay, soil and rock, and thrown up by unknown hands laboring under a still-unnamed king, seems to have protected some of its finest secrets from historians and looters, both from the marauding Gauls and the invading Romans, who carted everything they could back to Italy following Macedonia’s defeat. No doubt there is much more still to be discovered; the recent excavations at the Kasta Hill polyandreion (communal tomb) at Amphipolis some 100 miles (160 km) from Vergina and the newly unearthed tombs at Pella and Katerini, remind us we have only unearthed a fragment of classical Macedonia, and, we suggest, no more than fragments of the story of Alexander himself.

This article is an extract from the newly-published book ‘In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great’ by David Grant. Visit http://alexanderstestament.com/

Top image: The entrance of Tomb II at of ancient Aegae, widely held to be the tomb of Philip II, Alexander’s father. Image provided by www.alamy.com with permission from David Grant, author of ‘In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great.'

By David Grant

Michael Wood on… Alexander the Great

History Extra

On our summer holidays in Greece at the end of August, I started getting excited messages from Greek friends about an amazing discovery at Amphipolis in the north of the country. A Macedonian tomb, the largest yet found: a mound 160m across surrounded by a circular wall, with a series of underground chambers, of which three so far have been entered. Inside are stone sphinxes and caryatids (sculpted female figures).

 Stone fragments in the entrance may be part of the famous Lion of Amphipolis which today greets the visitor as you enter the town; very likely the lion once surmounted the burial mound. The date of this extraordinary monument is still uncertain, but the excavators think it is from the late fourth century BC – just after Alexander the Great’s death in Babylon.

 The find is front-page news in Greece. The villagers (sensing its potential to draw tourists!) want the tomb to be that of Alexander himself. However, he was certainly buried in Alexandria. But could it still have been originally planned for him? All will be revealed, we hope, when the excavators open the tomb chamber; but the find has focused attention again on one of the great figures in history, and one who has long fascinated me.

 Back in the early eighties I was lucky enough to experience the incredible thrill of climbing down by ladder through a hole in the roof of the tomb of Alexander’s father, Philip, in the northern Greek town of Vergina with the excavator, Manolis Andronikos; the marble doors to the underworld still closed. In the late nineties I followed Alexander’s route from Greece to India on the ground, and will never forget the excitement of tracking him across the Hindu Kush to Alexandria the Farthermost (Khujand in Tajikistan), and through the forbidding Makran desert in southern Pakistan.

 The Greek adventure in Asia is an astounding tale: people from a small land on the edge of civilisation who conquered half the known world. After Alexander, they went even further. The ‘King and Saviour’ Menander subdued the Ganges valley and became a Buddhist; his name is given on ancient maps to the Arakan mountains, which divide Bengal and Burma. It’s an incredible story of conquest, daring and cruelty, only matched in history perhaps by the conquistadors.

 As for Alexander himself, the debate goes on. British imperialists idealised him as a unifier, yet he stands accused of war crimes. But as so often in history, war drove change. The expedition accelerated the dissemination of Greek culture across west Asia in a great cross-fertilisation. For a thousand years Greek was a lingua franca in a Hellenised near east. Even the Qur’an tells the tale of the ‘Two Horned One’ – thought to be Alexander – to whom Allah gave dominion over the Earth. 

Going east, the theorem of Pythagoras reached China within decades of Alexander’s death, and the terracotta army and the first monumental bronzes of the Chin emperor are now thought to have been inspired by Hellenistic models, perhaps seen in central Asia.

 So amazing vistas open up. The tale has been transformed out of all recognition these last few decades, through archaeology, cuneiform texts, the Vergina tombs and the Derveni papyrus with its insights into Greek mystical cults. And now, unexpectedly, is a spectacular new find from Macedonia itself.

 So who lies in the tomb? One of Alexander’s successors? Or one of his family? Could it be a war memorial? (Is it a coincidence that it was at Amphipolis that Alexander’s army assembled before embarking on the war in Asia?) Or could it perhaps commemorate Alexander’s general Laomedon, who went to India but may have ended his days in Amphipolis?

 So many questions! In the meantime we all wait with great excitement. When I heard the news on holiday in Greece, my mind went back to the old folktale still told by fishermen on the little Cycladic island where we go each summer. In the midst of the storm a mermaid appears in the raging waters and calls out: ‘Where is Great Alexander?’ To save your life you must give the right answer, or she will drag you into the depths. The answer is this: ‘Great Alexander still lives and rules!’

 Michael Wood is professor of public history at the University of Manchester. His most recent TV series was King Alfred and the Anglo-Saxons.

Mistaken Identity? Mosaic in Israel Purported to Show Alexander the Great, but Some Not So Sure

Ancient Origins

According to NationalGeographic.com, archaeologists have discovered an interesting and unusual mosaic at the Huqoq archaeological site west of the Sea of Galilee. The most recent and most interesting find dates from the 5th century, and shows a king in military attire and a troop of soldiers, offering a calf to a group of white-robed priests. But the meeting is obviously fractious, as the priests are drawing their swords, while the bottom of the scene shows the solders lying defeated and dying.

The scene has been compared to the semi-legendary meeting between Alexander the Great and the Jerusalem priesthood, in the 4th century BC. While other historians have suggested the mosaic represents the attack on Jerusalem by Antiochus VII in the 2nd century BC. But the characters are not named, which is unusual for mosaics in this era, and there are a number of problems with these interpretations. The main problem is that the king is bearded, which Antiochus and Alexander were not. And the meeting between Alexander and the Judaic priesthood was supposed to have been friendly, not antagonistic. And neither Alexander nor Antiochus were defeated, as the bottom of the mosaic appears to show.

Archaeological site of Huqoq, Israel, where the new mosaic has been revealed. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Detail of mosaic. (Source: NationalGeographic/Mark Thiessen)

Mistaken Identity

Since traditional academia have been unable to satisfactorily decypher what this mosaic represents, perhaps we should rework these interpretations using the new religio-historical framework that has been constructed in 'The King Jesus Trilogy'. This radical new theory, which is fully supported by all the original texts, suggests that the gospel era and story refers to the late AD 60s, and the tragic events of the Jewish Revolt. And if we use this new framework, we can immediately see that this mosaic does not depict Alexander the Great or Antiochus. The classical interpretations are wrong.
More intriguingly, this is actually a depiction of an obscure scene from the Talmud, where bar Kamza offers a sacrificial calf on behalf of the Romans, to rabbi Zechariah Abkulas (see Gittin 55-57).  This was in about AD 68, just prior to the Jewish Revolt.  But bar Kamza was being devious here, because he had cut the calf's lip (you can see the mark on the mosaic), knowing that Zechariah would have to reject the blemished Roman offering - and thereby offend the Romans, and in turn precipitate the Jewish Revolt. This was one of the ways by which the Jewish Revolt was deliberately contrived.

• Eden in Egypt – Part 1
• The Surprising Links Between Alexander the Great and Christianity
• Does newly-translated Hebrew text reveal insights into King Solomon’s treasures?

So who was this mysterious and largely unknown character called bar Kamza? Well, in actual fact, Kamza is merely a witty hypocorism meaning 'locust'.  And there was a royal family in Syria who were similarly disparaged as being locusts, one of whom was Agabus (meaning locust) who appears in Acts of the Apostles (Acts 11:27).  This Syrian Agabus in Acts prophesied the great Judaean famine of AD 47 and gave famine relief-money, just as did the more famous Queen Helena.  And this confirms that this royal family of 'locusts' was actually the Syrian monarchy of King Abgarus V of Edessa, because he was married to this very same Queen Helena.  Yes, the famous 1st century Queen Helena was the queen of Edessa in northern Syria.  (Note - Agabus and Agbarus are the Roman and Syriac pronunciations of this king's name.)

According to the account, King Abgarus received the Image of Edessa, a likeness of Jesus. (Public Domain)

And all the Edessan royalty, including King Abgarus, were bearded, a detail which suits the king in this mosaic much better than does Alexander or Antiochus. In fact, Josephus Flavius calls the Edessan monarchy the 'barbarians beyond the Euphrates', because they were bearded and lived across the Euphrates ('barbarian' being derived from 'barber' meaning 'hair', rather than from a foreign language).  And all the Edessan kings wore the diadema headband, the same as in this mosaic, which was the symbol of both the Greek and the Greco-Persian royalty.
So it is possible that this mosaic depicts King Abgar V of Edessa. But we are actually looking for the son of King Abgarus here (bar Kamza, not Kamza), and he was called King Izas Manu VI of Edessa.  And we know that the Talmud's enigmatic character called bar Kamza was King Izas Manu of Edessa, because both are said to have lived in Antioch-Edessa, and both are said to have started the Jewish Revolt (see: Gittin 55-57, and Josephus Flavius). But who was this relatively unknown King Izas Manu? (who was almost completely deleted from the works of Josephus Flavius.)  Believe it or not, King Izas Manu was the biblical King Jesus Em Manu-el, which is why the king on this mosaic wears a Judaic side-lock of hair.  (These 'two' monarchs share many, many similarities, including their near-identical names and a ceremonial Crown of Thorns.)

• King Solomon’s Mines Discovered: Kings and Pharaohs - Part I
• The Tomb of Alexander the Great - Part 1
• Use of unique pyramid-shaped podium in Jerusalem baffles archaeologists

Note that the character in this mosaic is dressed in military uniform and is wearing a purple cloak, which was the sole prerogative of the Roman Emperor, and so we know this king was claiming the throne of Rome. However, in a very similar fashion the biblical Jesus (King Izas Manu) was also pointedly said to have been dressed in a purple cloak (Mark 15:7). Why?  Because the Jewish Revolt was primarily a revolt against Rome, rather than against Judaea, and King Izas Manu (the biblical Jesus) wanted to become the next emperor of Rome.  Which is why both of these kings wore a purple cloak, and why their army is depicted as being defeated at the bottom of the mosaic. King Izas Manu of Edessa started and lost the Jewish Revolt, and according to Josephus Flavius he was crucified in the Kidron Valley alongside two others, but survived.

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem during Jewish-Roman war. (Public Domain)

So the upper register of this mosaic depicts bar Kamza giving a sacrificial calf to the priests of Jerusalem, to start the Jewish Revolt, while the bottom register depicts his eventual defeat. And so we see here the start and the end of the Jewish Revolt - an event that plays a large role not just in Josephus Flavius' history of the Jews, but also in the Talmudic and Gospel accounts. And so this mosaic confirms that bar Kamza was King Izas Manu of Edessa, and confirms that King Izas Manu was the biblical King Jesus Manu-el.  Which is, in turn, a complete confirmation of the new religio-historical framework discovered, explored, and explained in 'The King Jesus Trilogy'.
Ralph Ellis is author of Jesus, King of Edessa. You can find out more at Edfu-Books.com
The full mosaic can be seen here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/mysterious-mosaic-alexander-the-great-israel/
--
Top Image: Architectural elements and ruins at the archaeological site of Huqoq, Israel (CC BY-SA 3.0). Inset, decorated mosaic floor uncovered in the buried ruins of a synagogue at Huqoq. (National Geographic)
By Ralph Ellis

History Trivia - Alexander the Great dead at age 32

June 10

323 BC (or June 11) Alexander the Great, Macedonian king, died from either fever or excessive wine at the age of 32

History Trivia - Battle of the Granicus.

May 22

334 BC – The Macedonian army of Alexander the Great defeated Darius III of Persia in the Battle of the Granicus.
 

Ancient Amphipolis Tomb was Commissioned by Alexander the Great for his Closest Friend and General, Hephaestion, New Evidence Shows

Ancient Origins

New evidence has emerged that the massive underground tomb in Amphipolis, Greece, which was hailed last year as the archaeological discovery of the decade, was commissioned by Alexander the Great for his close companion and general in his army, Hephaestion.
The Amphipolis Tomb, which lies within the Kasta Hill burial mound, approximately 100 kilometres east of Thessaloniki in Greece, captured worldwide attention last year when two marble sphinxes were found guarding its entrance. It lies in what was once the ancient city of Amphipolis, conquered by Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, in 357 BC, and dates back to the fourth century B.C. The tomb, measuring 500 metres (1,640 feet) in circumference, was found to contain sculptures of caryatids, an ornate mosaic, and coins featuring the face of Alexander the Great.
Head archaeologist Katerina Peristeri long suggested that the tomb may have been commissioned for a general in Alexander the Great’s army. However, the discovery of rosettes painted in blue, red, and yellow, which are similar to those found on the coffin from the tomb believed to belong to Philip II, Alexander the Great’s father, suggested that the tomb at Amphipolis may have instead belonged to a Macedonian royal, with the most popular theory pointing to Olympias, Alexander’s mother.

Amphipolis Tomb by Greektoys.org (update) on Sketchfab.

New inscriptions found

Greek news site Ekathimerini reports that new evidence has emerged that may finally solve the mystery of the tomb’s original owner.
During a conference in Thessaloniki, Peristeri and her head architect Michalis Lefantzis announced that they found three inscriptions within the Amphipolis tomb with the monogram of Hephaestion, a general, and the closest friend of Alexander the Great. The inscriptions are project contracts for the construction of the monument.
According to the Greek Reporter, the inscriptions suggest that the monument was commissioned by a powerful individual of that era, and Peristeri maintains that individual may have been Alexander himself.

The monogram of Hephaestion found in three separate inscriptions within the Amphipolis tomb. Credit: Greek Ministry of Culture

Hephaestion, general in the army of Alexander the Great

Hephaestion was a Macedonian nobleman that grew up with Alexander, studying with him under the tutelage of Aristotle. They became close personal friends, as well as comrades. Hephaestion became a member of Alexander’s personal bodyguard and went on to command the Companion cavalry. He was entrusted with many important roles, including diplomatic missions, the bridging of major rivers, sieges and the foundation of new settlements.
When Hephaestion died suddenly in Ecbatana, Iran, in 324 BC, Alexander petitioned the oracle at Siwa to grant him divine status, and organized an elaborate funeral at Babylon, in which Hephaestion was said to have been cremated in the presence of the entire army. According to ancient historian Plutarch, Alexander then ordered a series of monuments to be built for Hephaestion across his empire.

A painting by Charles Le Brun depicting Alexander and Hephaestion (in red cloak), facing Porus, during the Battle of the Hydaspes.
While the Amphipolis monument may have been constructed in Hephaestions honor, Peristeri maintains that there is no evidence that Hephaestions remains were ever buried there.
When a sarcophagus was finally uncovered within the Amphipolis tomb, archaeologists found a total of five skeletons – an elderly woman, two men, a newborn baby, and the cremated remains of an individual of unknown age and gender.
The tomb is believed to have been in use from the fourth century BC until Roman times, and is known to have been looted in antiquity, so there is no way to know who those five individuals were.
Featured Image: Artistic representation of the caryatids in the Amphipolis tomb
By April Holloway

History Trivia - Battle of Arbela - Alexander the Great victorious

October 1

331 BC, Alexander the Great defeated Persian emperor Darius III in the Battle of Arbela in Mesopotamia in one of the fifteen decisive battles of history. 

959 Edgar, King of the Mercians and Northumbrians, became King of the West Saxons and was then considered to be King of all England. 

Henry III was born. King of England 1216-1264, his 56-year reign was one of the longest in history. The building of the Westminster Abbey was his most enduring moment. 

History Trivia - Alexander the Great destroys Thebes

 Sept 16

 335 BC Alexander the Great destroyed every building in Thebes, Egypt, except the temples and the house of the poet Pindar. 

 1400 Owain Glyndwr proclaimed himself Prince of Wales, launching the last Welsh rebellion against the English. 

1494 Francisco Maurolico was born. He was a Benedictine monk, historian, and mathematician, Maurolico wrote a history of Sicily and significant works on Greek mathematics.

History Trivia - Henry VII's army lands in Milford Harbor

August 7

 322 BC Battle of Crannon: Macedonian forces of Antipater and Craterus and rebellious Greek forces led by the Athenians, was the decisive battle of the Lamian War, following the death of Alexander the Great. The Greeks sued for peace which marked the end of city-state freedom from Macedonian hegemony in Greece.

 1485 Henry VII's army landed in Milford Harbor, South-Wales, a Lancastrian stronghold, and amassed an army to seize the crown from Richard III who was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485.

1606 The first documented performance of Macbeth was performed at the Great Hall at Hampton Court.

Burned Bones in Alexander the Great Family Tomb Give Up Few Secrets

 

A mosaic of Alexander the Great from the House of the Faun, Pompeii, c. 80 B.C.
Credit: National Archaeologic Museum, Naples, Italy

 

Live Science


It's a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes, with a backstory that puts "Game of Thrones" to shame: Who was laid to rest in a lavish, gold-filled Macedonian tomb near Vergina, Greece? The tomb, discovered in 1977, might be the final resting place of Philip II of Macedon, conqueror of Greece and father of Alexander the Great, who would push his father's empire to the edge of India.
Or, it might be the grave of the distinctly less impressive Philip III Arrhidaios (also written as Arrhidaeus), the half brother of, and figurehead successor to, Alexander the Great.
The latest volley in the debate over which Philip occupies the tomb makes a case for the illustrious Philip II, arguing that the woman found interred alongside the much-debated male body was too old to have been the younger Philip's wife. But this new research seems unlikely to resolve the great Macedonian tomb mystery. [Bones with Names: Long-Dead Bodies Archaeologists Have Identified]
A complicated history
Archaeologists discovered the contentious tomb in 1977. Amid paintings and pottery was a gold sarcophagus containing a man's cremated bones. Nearby were the even-more-fragmentary burned bones of a woman.

This cremated male skeleton may belong to Alexander the Great's father … or his half brother.
Credit: Jonathan Musgrave, University of Bristol.

View full size image

The tomb's discoverers declared the man was Philip II, who took the throne of Macedonia in 359 B.C. as regent for his infant nephew. Displaying the kind of initiative that defined the Macedonian royal family, Philip II quickly took the throne for himself and started conquering his neighbors.

This went well until 336 B.C., when one of Philip II's bodyguards assassinated him as he walked into a theater in the Macedonian capital of Aegae. It's not entirely clear why the king was murdered; ancient historians told various tales, including one in which the murderer was a former male lover of Philip who had hounded another of Philip's male lovers to suicide and then was himself subjected to sexual assault by one of Philip's in-laws as revenge for that suicide. Some argued that Philip's fourth wife, Olympias, who was rumored by the historian Plutarch to sleep with snakes, had something to do with it.
Regardless of whether Olympias was that diabolical, she certainly knew how to play politics — with bloody results. The queen moved quickly to put her own son, Alexander, on the throne. She arranged for Philip's two children by another wife, Cleopatra Eurydice, to be killed; Cleopatra Eurydice committed suicide by force soon after. Archaeologists who argue that the tomb at Vergina contains Philip II's bones have argued that the female remains found in the tomb belong to Cleopatra Eurydice. [The 10 Reasons Alexander the Great Was, Well, Great]
But not everyone believed the bones matched those of Philip II. In 1981, a further examination of the remains led to claims that the body instead belonged to Philip III Arrhidaios. After Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. (under mysterious circumstances, naturally), Philip III Arrhidaios took the throne as a figurehead, with his niece and wife Eurydice (not the same person as his father’s seventh wife) as queen. Ancient historians described Philip III Arrhidaios as mentally unfit. Plutarch blamed Olympias for the mental issues, claiming she'd tried to poison Arrhidaios as a child, but Plutarch clearly was not Olympias' biggest fan, and modern historians are skeptical.
Eurydice, however, was a force to be reckoned with. Her attempts to grab real power put her on a collision course with Olympias and her allies. In 317 B.C., during a war over secession, Olympias' forces defeated the king and queen — Philip III Arrhidaios and Eurydice. He was executed, and she was forced to commit suicide. As if that weren't enough indignity, their bodies were dug up more than a year later and cremated for a royal funeral meant to shore up legitimacy for the next king.
Archaeological arguments
Much of the debate around whether the tomb belongs to Philip II or Philip III Arrhidaios has focused on the burned bones. In the 1980s, Jonathan Musgrave, an anatomist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, created a facial reconstruction of the skull and argued that a notch in the bone over one eye matched historical descriptions of one of Philip II's battle wounds. In 2000, Greek paleoanthropologist Antonis Bartsiokas published a paper in the journal Science arguing that the bone notch and other features Musgrave had highlighted were simply incidental to cremation. (Musgrave does not agree.)
Another line of debate questions whether the bones show signs of warping, which occurs when flesh-covered bodies are cremated. If the bones of Philip III Arrhidaios were dug up and cremated months after the king's death, they might show less warping, or at least a different warping pattern compared with what would be found if the bones were cremated immediately. [See Photos of Another Alexander-Era Tomb Excavation]
Much of this argument falls by the wayside in the new paper, recently accepted for publication by the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. The researchers, led by Theodore Antikas of Aristotle University in Greece, conducted a five-year forensic study of the bones, including computed tomography (CT) scans.
The researchers argue that the bones of the man and the woman were, in fact, cremated with the flesh still on; however, because Philip III Arrhidaios was not in the ground long enough to become completely skeletal before exhumation, this does little to distinguish the two men.
The new study likewise fails to find any evidence of an eye wound in the male skull, though the researchers did find a healing wound in the hand that might match one of Philip II's battle injuries. The male body also had growths called Schmorl's nodes on his lower vertebrae, a telltale sign of bone stress from horseback riding.
With no smoking guns to identify the male skeleton, the team turned to the female bones. Here, they argue, was a 30- to 34-year-old woman, also a horseback rider, who had a fractured leg bone that would have caused her left leg to be shorter than her right. Tellingly, a set of leg armor, or greaves, found in the tomb appears to be made to fit someone with a shortened left leg, Antikas wrote. This suggests the tomb artifacts, including a quiver holding 74 arrowheads, belonged to the woman buried in the tomb, pointing to her identity as a Scythian princess married to Philip II in 339 B.C. Scythia was a kingdom comprising what is now Central Asia and parts of Eastern Europe.
"The gorytus, arrowheads, spears and everything in the antechamber belong to a Scythian warrior woman and NOT to Philip or any other woman but the seventh wife/concubine, namely the daughter of King Ateas," Antikas wrote in an email to Live Science. (A gorytus is a case for bows and arrows.) Antikas declined to comment on other aspects of the study. If he’s right, however, the woman in the tomb is not the Macedonian Cleopatra Eurydice, but another, foreign bride of Philip II’s.
Bone backlash
But the move toward identifying the tomb's occupants based on the female skeleton rather than the male one brings its own controversy.
"Frankly, I am disappointed that the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology has published this article," said Maria Liston, an anthropologist at the University of Waterloo in Ontario who studies cremated remains in Greece. "I don't think it makes a substantive contribution to this debate, and it certainly does not refute the position of those who say the skeleton is not Philip II."
Among the problems with the new research, Liston said, is an overconfident approach to aging the skeletons. The researchers looked at the pubic symphysis, the cartilage-padded joint of the pubic bone, to peg the woman's age at between 30 and 34 years. But the method they used can't possibly determine age to that level of precision, Liston said. Rather, it can pinpoint the woman's age only to between 21 and 53 years old, she said.
The researchers also found that the fusion of the clavicle and sternum, or breastbone, to each other was almost complete. But that fusion blows their case out of the water, Liston said, because the bones begin to fuse by 19 or 20 years old and are usually done fusing within a few years, and are always fused entirely by age 29.
"It can't be the age they're saying," Liston told Live Science. If the woman was younger than 29, as the breastbone fusion suggests, she could well be Philip III Arrhidaios' wife Eurydice, who was only about 20 when she died.
Even the broken leg doesn't seal the case, Liston said. She's not convinced the asymmetrical greaves are made for someone with legs of two different lengths — one may simply have a lengthened flange that flared over the ankle, providing the leading leg with an extra bit of protection. Thus, the greaves may not belong to the woman in the tomb at all.
Other archaeologists contacted by Live Science declined to comment, citing the preliminary nature of the paper (the journal has not yet released a final version of the publication) or unfamiliarity with the burial context. The tombs at Vergina are an important cultural and tourist site in Greece and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, which raises the stakes of what would otherwise be a largely academic debate. The museum at Aigai, which oversees the tombs, refers to the tomb as Philip II's without caveat, as does UNESCO. But among archaeologists, nothing is settled. [The 7 Most Mysterious Archaeological Finds on Earth]
"We're never going to build a case that it's Philip II or Philip III that we could go into court and say, 'We have a positive ID,'" Liston said. She understands the draw of giving the skeleton a name, however.
"I'm as subject as anyone to the thrill of touching the past," she said. But whether the skeleton is Philip II or Philip III, she said, it's rare and exciting to be able to identify so closely a set of bones from more than 2,000 years ago — and either way, the tomb's occupant was a Macedonian royal.
"Frankly, to me, whoever it is, it's really cool," Liston said.

Family Ties: 8 Truly Dysfunctional Royal Families

 

 

 

Cleopatra confronts Julius Caesar in this 1866 painting. She had been driven from the palace in Alexandria by her brother, Ptolemy XIII, whom she was also supposed to marry.Credit: Public Domain

Live Science

Grandma's stewing about something her sister said 20 years ago, Uncle Rupert's out teaching the kids about bottle rockets, and no one on dad's side of the family is currently speaking. If your family reunions look something like this, rest easy: You're still doing better than a great number of kings and queens throughout history.
With power and money comes dysfunction, as any number of royal families has proved. From palace assassinations to serial marriages, castle walls have seen it all.
1. Cleopatra, coming at you
Cleopatra is famous for her suicidal ending. What's less known is her bloody beginning — and the familial drama that brought her to power.
After her father's death, Cleopatra's younger brother Ptolemy XIII inherited the throne. She was meant to marry him, inbreeding being one way ancient royal families kept a grip on power. But her ambitions threatened him, and he had her exiled, according to Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra" (Little, Brown and Company, 2010). So Cleopatra allied with Julius Caesar, retaking the throne with her other younger brother, Ptolemy XIV. That younger brother later died; Cleopatra may have poisoned him. She also had her younger sister Arsinoe IV, another rival, killed in 41 B.C.
Deadly sibling rivalry was common in the Ptolemy dynasty, according to Schiff. The complex family trees occasioned by inbreeding caused succession crisis after succession crisis, typically with deadly results.
"It was rare to find a member of the family who did not liquidate a relative or two," Schiff wrote.
2. Macedonian mayhem
Another surefire way to rile up a royal family is to have lots and lots of wives, all of which would like to see their own children installed on the throne. Alexander the Great's father, Philip II of Macedon, probably had seven wives, including Alexander's mother, Olympias.
Olympias may have had something to do with Philip II's assassination by a bodyguard in 336 B.C., according to some ancient historians, but the truth is fuzzy. According to a later account by the historian Cleitarchus, the bodyguard was a former lover of Philip II, who had taunted the king's new, younger, lover into suicide. Philip II's uncle-in-law allegedly sexually assaulted the bodyguard in retaliation, leading the bodyguard to kill Philip II in his own quest for revenge.
Whatever really happened, the Macedonian family dysfunction did not end with Philip II's generation. Alexander quickly started putting rival family members to death to secure his ascension to the throne, and Olympias had Philip II's last wife and her children killed. After Alexander died in 323 B.C., leaving a pregnant wife but no sure heir, his mentally disabled half-brother Philip III Arrhidaios (also spelled Arrhidaeus) was installed on the throne. Philip III's wife Eurydice attempted to turn this figurehead king into a real ruler; this put her in competition with Olympias in the ensuing wars of succession. Ultimately, Philip III was executed on Olympias' orders, and Eurydice forced to commit suicide. Their bodies were buried and then dug up about 17 months later for a royal cremation and funeral.
Olympias would not escape the succession wars unscathed. Captured not long after she had Philip III and Eurydice killed, she was stoned to death by relatives of people she had ordered executed.
3. Murder of a pharaoh
Harems are all fun and games until somebody gets their throat slit, as Ramesses III learned the hard way. This pharaoh ruled Egypt from 1186 B.C. to about 1156 B.C. — until somebody slashed his neck so deeply that modern archaeologists say he would have died instantly.
Ancient papyrus texts reveal that one of Ramesses III's minor wives, a woman named Tiye, was behind the plot; she was trying to get her son Pentaweret installed on the throne. Dozens of co-conspirators were sentenced to death, according to contemporary records, including Pentaweret. Archaeologists reported in 2012 they may have found the prince's mummy. The corpse in question has an agonized expression and overinflated lungs, consistent with death by suffocation or strangulation. He may have been forced to commit suicide, or he may have been buried alive. [In Photos: The Mummy of Ramesses III]
4. War of brothers
A conflict called the War of the Two Brothers can signal just one thing — a serious family meltdown. In 1527, the Inca king Huayna Capac died, leaving his kingdom to two of his sons, Atahualpa and Huáscar. (The two men had different mothers, as Inca rulers took multiple wives and concubines.)
Joint rule did not work out so well for the two new kings. By 1529, war broke out. Things got personal: According to Kim MacQuarrie's book "The Last Days of the Incas" (Simon & Schuster, 2008), Atahualpa at one point made a drinking cup out of the skull of one of Huáscar's generals.
The Inca civil war would hurry along the downfall of this civilization. In 1532, Francisco Pizarro's Spanish conquistadors appeared just as Atahualpa was declaring victory over his brother. The conquistadors captured Atahualpa and held him for ransom, though Atahualpa was able to get out an important order to his people: Execute my brother. [10 Epic Battles That Changed History]
Atahualpa wouldn't outlive Huáscar by much. The Spanish executed him in 1533.
5. The passive-aggressive emperor
Ever get the sense Mom and Dad like your brother or sister more? The kids of the Wanli Emperor had no doubt. Wanli, the 13th emperor of China's Ming dynasty, had two official consorts and a great many concubines. His favorite concubine, Lady Zheng, had two sons, one of whom Wanli desperately wanted to follow him on the throne.
But the emperor's ministers wouldn't stand for this son — Wanli's third — as heir. Ultimately, they prevailed, and Wanli was forced to declare his first son by his consort Lady Wang the crown prince. [Gold Treasures Discovered in Ming Dynasty Tomb (Photos)]
And then the emperor did something very strange. He stopped working. Wanli had once been a strong ruler, handling internal rebellions and Japanese invasions with panache. The last 20 years or so of his reign, however, were like an extended lame-duck period. In a passive-aggressive protest, Wanli spent decades ignoring meetings, memorandums and all other royal duties, according to a 2011 article in the New York Times. Unsurprisingly, this undermined the country. Many historians attribute the crumbling of the Ming dynasty in 1644 largely to the self-sabotage of Wanli's rule.
6. Captive brother
William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England, had four sons. One died before him; William split his kingdom for his eldest remaining sons. Robert was given Normandy upon his father's death, and William got the throne of England.
That left the youngest son, Henry. He may not have been granted a kingdom, but Henry knew how to grab an opportunity. In 1100, William the younger died in a hunting accident while Robert was away on a crusade. Within three days, Henry had himself crowned king of England (as Henry I), beating his absent brother to the punch, according to the official histories of the British monarchy.
Robert attempted to take England for himself, but Henry I beat him back — and then, a few years later, took Normandy, too. Robert was captured, and Henry I kept him imprisoned for the rest of his life.
7. A murder mystery
Richard III, the last Plantagenet king of England, was recently exhumed from underneath a parking lot in Leicester. The occasion was heralded by Richard's fans as an opportunity to better understand a king remembered mostly as a Shakespearian villain. But questions remain about Richard's rise to power.
When King Edward IV died in 1483, he left behind two young sons. The eldest, Edward V, was only 12, so Richard III was declared his protector. After a 68-day reign, Edward and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury were sent to the Tower of London and then were never heard from again. Meanwhile, Richard III took the throne.
No one knows what happened to the boys, now known as "the Princes in the Tower." A widespread theory holds that Richard III had them murdered. But no one has ever found definitive proof of the princes' deaths (though two small skeletons were excavated from the tower in 1674), and Richard himself died in battle only two years later, taking his secrets to his hastily dug grave.
8. The many wives of Henry VIII
Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, survived.
Those were the fates of Henry VIII's six wives. Family matters came to dominate the reign of this Tudor king, who could not seem to secure himself a male heir. Originally, Henry married Catherine of Aragon, his brother's widow. When the king's eye roved to the witty Anne Boleyn in the 1520s, his argument for divorce focused largely on whether Catherine had ever had sex with his brother.
The divorce case rocked the Catholic Church, triggering the English Reformation. Henry got his divorce, but Anne proved no more able to produce sons than Catherine (some modern physicians suspect that Henry may have had a genetic disorder that caused his wives' many miscarriages). She was executed on trumped-up charges of treason, adultery and incest, accused of sleeping with her own brother.
Henry would go on to marry four more times and would have one more of his wives, Catherine Howard, killed for adultery. Ultimately, Henry's efforts to install a son on the throne were for naught; his one male heir died as a teenager, only about six years into his reign. Henry's great-niece Lady Jane Grey then took the crown for a mere nine days before being overthrown by his daughter by Catherine of Aragon, Mary I. After Mary I died five years into her reign, Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth I ruled. Her reign was marked by tumult, but Henry's fear that a woman could not hold the throne of England turned out to be quite unfounded: According to the official history of the British Monarchy, the "Virgin Queen" was extremely popular, and the date of her accession to the throne became a national holiday.

History Trivia - Alexander the Great dead at age 32

June 10

 323 BC (or June 11) Alexander the Great, Macedonian king, died from either fever or excessive wine at the age of 32.

1190 Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa drowned while crossing a river on a crusade to the Holy Land.

1540 Tho

mas Cromwell arrested in Westminster after falling out of favor with Henry VIII for having arranged the King's marriage to Anne of Cleves, which was quickly annulled.