Hypocrisy

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Phoebus wrote:I feel even more comfortable about my theory, then.

Don’t.

One day I will re-read Pierre Briant’s From Cyrus to Alexander and confirm the fact that the Great King’s communications system enabled him to send a message from the capitals of empire to Sardes – by horse – within a week. This, of course, takes no account of the Persian signal system, re-established by Monaphthalmus (Diod.19.57.5).

The dates are never certain Phoebus but Darius will not have made “serious” decisions until his remaining satraps reached him. By that time, there were no Persian satraps in Asia Minor to carry on the war. Memnon will have received his instructions in Halicarnassus.

The point of (the original) post was the Greek historians' construct of the "all -important" Greek mercenary commander. That any Greek led Persia armies is, as I wrote, fiction.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:The Great King is likely in Ecbatana and in control of the strategy that saw Granicus fought and any scorched earth tactic refused – Persians had used this in the past. That a Persian force was defeated in Asia Minor was not new; that a foreign force would besiege the walls of Sardes was nothing new but that Sardes would fall and the whole of eastern Asia Minor as well (several coastal cities aside) was not something faced since Cyrus the Younger’s anabasis. Darius had every reason to expect – as it had before – Sardes to prove inviolate whilst he set about assembling a royal army to deal with the invader.

By the time Memnon had received his naval commission – including defending the coastal cities – he was likely at Halicarnassus, in the face of Alexander’s relentless march, with what remained of the Persian forces that had not fallen back to Darius. And it was in no way the melodramatic decision that “Sardis TOO? Damn! Get me Memnon!” would imply. It was more likely part of a strategy, the aim of which was, for the Persian navy – in command of the sea – regain the Asia Minor coast and the Hellespont whilst the Great King prepared land forces.

Thus resistance was to settle around the navy and its coastal activity as well as Sardes holding out. Focal points for a resistance that did indeed fester after Issus.
Meep! I think I'm about to run into a lion's den in order to express the views of another rather than my own. First of all, E. Edward Garvin in his article, Darius III and Homeland Defense, Crossroads of History is of the opinion that at the Granicus it was Memnon’s mission to contain the invading force, not necessarily to defeat them. He refers to Justin's remarks (in conjunction with Diodorus and Arrian) that Darius believed in a policy of decisive battle, and that he lured Alexander deep into the empire believing that he could better defeat Alexander there. As the Granicus is hardly deep into the empire, Garvin opines that the intent there was to engage/contain Alexander whilst other forces were still being gathered. (Garvin notes that most Greek mercenaries, for example, prior to Alexander's crossing were "either still in Egypt or, more likely, in the eastern satrapies for they do not show up in any large numbers until the summer of 334 and not in full strength until the fall of 333."

Further to this, Garvin notes that the satraps had "begun to enroll their levies and prepare a massive defense as early as 335." He points to the gathering of Arsimes, Rheomithres, Petenes and Niphrates who "were at Zeleia with Spithradates and Arsites even before Alexander crossed," and that Mithrobouzanes of Cappadocia was on his way and was in the theatre by the Battle of Granicus. Thus this council of war indicates that "the orders to levy troops and combine forces must have come from Darius and been put into action in the summer of 335 or earlier." In essence, this infers that Darius was in no way as unprepared for Alexander as is commonly believed. Which brings me to Memnon's withdrawal to Halicarnasus after the Granicus where the large garrison, complete with warships, was part of preparations "according to Arrian (1.20.3) ‘made a long time previously.'" Garvin interprets this as meaning that the plan to counterattack in the Aegean must have been made long before the Granicus. And although Spithridates should have been de facto commander of the western armies, he died at the Granicus leaving the military post open, hence the appointment (at Halicarnasus) of Memnon who, according to Garvin, we might be correct in seeing as "a representative of Darius authority and manager of his strategy."

Well, that's my humble contribution to this debate – or, more accurately, E. Edward Garvin's contribution by proxy. As it disagrees with both sides of the current debate on some points I think I should probably duck now. :lol:
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Fair enough, and I appreciate your input.

My theory aside, I still don't see what your counter-arguments have to with my original post. Best as I can tell, you feel I erroneously used the word region (though I'm not so sure that Dareius would have had any reason to concede either the use of the term or his rightful ownership of said place).

Beyond that, I'm not sure to what extent you take issue with the idea of Memnon as commander.

I'll admit that I'm a bit frustrated being without my books at this time. Diodorus and Justin are available online, but I miss having Arrian and Curtius to look up a lot of the stuff we're talking about--e.g., the ultimate fate of the Satraps post Granicus.

EDIT:
Amyntoros,

I'm not sure that I disagree much with you. At least not where Memnon's status is concerned.

Cheers,
P.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

Amyntoros, thank you for that link.

I'll have to buy another book I see.

Memnon perhaps had a higher status than merely mercenary becuase of his intermarriage with Artabazus' family, as had his brother Mentor. I don't know what Artabazu' status was in Darius' court and that might make a difference as to how Darius regarded Memnon.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Phoebus wrote:My theory aside, I still don't see what your counter-arguments have to with my original post. Best as I can tell, you feel I erroneously used the word region (though I'm not so sure that Dareius would have had any reason to concede either the use of the term or his rightful ownership of said place).
Aside from hair splitting - which, when you've as little as me, is good way to produce "more" - it was taking issue with the Greek historians' view that Greek mercenary commanders were all important to the Persian command. Firther, that they commanded Persian expeditions (to Egypt for example). This is a Hellenocentric view and it is incorrect. Persians commanded those expeditions and will have taken their strategic directions from ther King.

The Greek condottieres will have had input on a tactical level but not command and control. The decision to confront the invader in Anatolia will have been the King's; the tactics the satraps'.

My intitial reference to Memnon was to put into perspective the largely hindsighted portrait of his large role in the strategic conference prior to Granicus. His opinion, as a commander of a contingent, will have been one of many lesser such. Like Amyntas (the Macedonian counterpart to Xerxes' Demaratus) prior to Issus, the Macedonian/Greek writers accord him an importance he did not likely have. Certainly not until Halicarnassus anyway. The notion that only Greek advice was cogent and germaine.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

I agree with your closing statements, Paralus. I'm simply not sure that this is entirely the case with Memnon (that Helleno-centrism necessarily unduly boosted his status).

Both Memnon and his brother, Mentor, enjoyed a long relationship with the empire and its nobility. Was there much of a track record for Hellene mercenary commanders enjoying marital alliances with Imperial nobility?

Unlike Amyntas, whose "advice" I will agree sounds like hindsight-rewriting, though, Memnon's strategy to combat Alexander seems kosher enough. It takes into consideration Alexander's own pressing issues, and fits the mindset of someone who doesn't have as obligating a relationship with the lands to be raised as the Satraps did.

Furthermore, I don't think the extant record of Memnon's service is one that contradicts what you are arguing for. I'm not sure that either he or his brother are stated as having "commanded" expeditions; I recall that Mentor "aided" the expedition to Egypt even as he aided his father-in-law in rebellion in the years prior. Memnon was attached to the military leadership pre-Granicus. He had his ambitions, and he had his ideas. He pitched them, and was overruled by his superiors. The field army raised to face Alexander destroyed and Asia Minor left more or less open to him, Dareius turned to an experienced military officer who had been in the employ of the Empire for decades, had offered offered savvy advice, and was probably the most qualified individual to lead at the given time and place.

You're right that we should question the extant record to ensure the integrity of what we learn. On the other hand, are you sure that you're not exercising a sort of similar prejudice as the ancient Hellene historians--but from a different angle? It seems to me that doubting that Memnon did what he did on the basis of his ethnicity is simply the flip-side to focusing on Hellenes commanders to the expense of the Persian counterparts.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Phoebus wrote:You're right that we should question the extant record to ensure the integrity of what we learn. On the other hand, are you sure that you're not exercising a sort of similar prejudice as the ancient Hellene historians--but from a different angle? It seems to me that doubting that Memnon did what he did on the basis of his ethnicity is simply the flip-side to focusing on Hellenes commanders to the expense of the Persian counterparts.
Hi Phoebus,

I realize the questions and comments aren't directed at me, but couldn't help but butt in. If we recognize that there is a Hellenocentric bias in the ancient Greek historians' accounts, then what else can we do but doubt accounts such as Memnon's unique genius in the Persian military command? I guess the important thing is to be open to both conclusions, ie. a . he has been given too much credit solely on account of being Greek or b. he really was exceptional. It seems to me that Paralus is drawing on a few different strands of evidence, rather than questioning his contribution solely based on his ethnicity (which I read somewhere may have been Greek only on the father's side anyway ;)).
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

By the way, what do you guys make of the story that Darius III asked the advice of a certain Charidemus from Athens regarding the Alexander. When told that the Persians would be defeated by the Macedonians, had his throat cut on the spot? Courtesy of Curtius. Was Darius really that stupid/despotic? Were the Greeks the only ones brave enough to tell the truth at a court full of barbarian slaves? Was Alexander's army so great that it was obvious even before the battle that Darius was going to lose? I'm not convinced. This story seems to display more of what Paralus is talking about -
Paralus wrote:My intitial reference to Memnon was to put into perspective the largely hindsighted portrait of his large role in the strategic conference prior to Granicus. His opinion, as a commander of a contingent, will have been one of many lesser such. Like Amyntas (the Macedonian counterpart to Xerxes' Demaratus) prior to Issus, the Macedonian/Greek writers accord him an importance he did not likely have. Certainly not until Halicarnassus anyway. The notion that only Greek advice was cogent and germaine.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Good words, Semiramis. :)
If we recognize that there is a Hellenocentric bias in the ancient Greek historians' accounts, then what else can we do but doubt accounts such as Memnon's unique genius in the Persian military command?
We should, as with all such matters, take it on a case-by-case basis.

In Amyntas case, I think it's fairly obvious we're looking at hindsight promotion of Hellenes over Persians. In Memnon's case, we're talking about a family of mercenary generals affiliated with--and married to--Persian nobility. We're talking about relationships that spanned decades and dealt with more than one Great King.
I guess the important thing is to be open to both conclusions, ie. a . he has been given too much credit solely on account of being Greek or b. he really was exceptional.
I believe he was exceptional--heck, I believe his whole family (brother, wife, etc.) was exceptional. As I said earlier, I don't believe that the advice/strategy was unrealistic and in fact is eminently suitable for an individual who doesn't have the same responsibilities to the lands to be sacrificed as a Satrap would.
It seems to me that Paralus is drawing on a few different strands of evidence, rather than questioning his contribution solely based on his ethnicity (which I read somewhere may have been Greek only on the father's side anyway ).
I believe that rejecting the idea of the Great King giving a Hellene command of regional forces as fiction is a bit too absolute where history is concrned--especiall when it deals with an era as hazy as Alexander's. Basically, I think Paralus was doing the same sort of disservice to Memnon (the idea of a Hellene leading Persians being fiction) as the ancients did to the Persians (the idea that any good strategy came from Hellenes).

Where Dareius III is concerned, I definitely believe that both he and his forces were given short thrift by both ancient historians and modern commentators. I don't think anyone has to look much harder than the stories of origin written by those same Hellenes who wrote him off as a coward later in their stories to establish this.

If Dareius III was selected to rule on the basis of his personal bravery and martial prowess, then one has to understand that his departures from Issus and Gaugamela must have been something other than cowardice. I find it far more likely that the battles were close affairs and that he was forced to concede the field because of his responsibilities as Great King. After all, even after Gaugamela he had considerable regions and peoples to perhaps draw more forces from for another battle. Suicide would have availed neither him nor his people anything.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Phoebus wrote:I believe that rejecting the idea of the Great King giving a Hellene command of regional forces as fiction is a bit too absolute where history is concrned--especiall when it deals with an era as hazy as Alexander's. Basically, I think Paralus was doing the same sort of disservice to Memnon (the idea of a Hellene leading Persians being fiction) as the ancients did to the Persians (the idea that any good strategy came from Hellenes).
Which is not what I am claiming. What I have argued against is the notion – promulgated by Diodorus in particular – that Hellenes commanded Persian Armies or were near to the single most important general in those forces over quite some time.

Whichever source Diodorus is reliant upon here is consistent in this representation. It is also inconsistent. In the case of Mentor, Diodorus claims that Ochus (Artaxerxes) “appointed him satrap of the Asiatic coast and designated him supreme general in the war against those in revolt” (16.52.2).This, if correct, would be utterly unprecedented. There were Persian satraps, not in revolt, who could well have led this. Think of Tissaphernes some fifty years earlier.

Interestingly, when Perinthus was under assault the King writes to the “Satraps on the sea” instructing them to give aid. Mentor, “Satrap of the Asiatic coast” and supreme general, is nowhere to be found.

One suspects that Mentor was deputed to deal with the ‘revotling’ Hermias and nothing more. In Diodorus’ source’s eyes, he has become “satrap”.

I further have no problem with Mentor or other Greeks commanding forces – such as Mentor above – in a “region” or for a limited action. The region - for Memnon, as I’ve said - was the navy and the remit to retain/recover the cities of the coast.
Phoebus wrote:Where Dareius III is concerned, I definitely believe that both he and his forces were given short thrift by both ancient historians and modern commentators. I don't think anyone has to look much harder than the stories of origin written by those same Hellenes who wrote him off as a coward later in their stories to establish this.
Indeed there is a strong tradition of Darius as the coward/usurper in the Greek sources. Never mind that he was part of the Achaemenid inner circle (since at least the accession of Artaxerxes III and probably his predecessor) and his rise to the throne was legitimate.

It helps, though, if you can colour his hat jet black.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

There's no disagreement where Mentor (and, really, a number of other Hellene mercenaries) are concerned--and I am sorry if I didn't make that more clear earlier.

I'm arguing specifically about Memnon and his situation, though.
Post Reply