AtG statue at site of Gaugamela?

[marcus]

My point is that the majority of people will know (or think they know) much more about Alexander than they will about any of the Sumerian, Assyrian or Babylonian civilisations. Therefore his name would be more of an identifier than proudly boasting a statue of Hammurabi.

I am not advocating building anyone's statue. I don't think a newly built statue of will have much impact on attracting tourists. If India decided to build an Alexander statue next to Jhelum, I doubt it would have a noticeable impact on the tourist numbers there.

That might well be right. However, my point is less about whether or not there is a statue, and more about the fact that linking Alexander's name to the area will resonate more with people than using the name of an Assyrian king whom no-one has ever heard of. That, I surmise, is one of the reasons for suggesting a statue of Alexander - irrespective of whether one agrees with it, or with creating a statue at all.

Indeed it is not the lack of attractions. Having said that, and as I was at a lecture a couple of weeks ago by the Lead Curator of the British Museum, on the state of archaeology in Iraq today, to most people the remains of the ancient civilisations will be meaningless and, dare I say it, dull. There are no monumental temples, and even where there were ziggurats there is little remaining to be seen - it isn't like Egypt!

ATB

Iraq isn't like Egypt because it hasn't been marketed like Egypt. Most people know of the Pharaohs, and that's the reason why ancient ruins to do with them are exciting to the visitors. Looking at the pictures on the internet, Iraqi reliefs and ruins are in no way intrinsically more or less dull than the Roman ones I've seen. It's simply a matter of value that an education system and obliging media can attach to them. As for monuments, I have to point out that well-preserved palaces, mosques and other monuments of considerable size and beauty from the Islamic era can be found pretty easily in Iraq.

Not so. Iraq isn't like Egypt because Egypt has large, prominent buildings built of durable stone, that people can see and visualise easily. Iraq's cities were built of mud brick, and even where foundation layers can be seen, there is little beyond the basic layout of a site to be seen. Most of the reliefs, if they aren't in the Baghdad museum, are in the Louvre, the British Museum, or private collections - they certainly can't be seen at the sites themselves; and I can assure you that the ruins are intrinsically more dull than almost all Roman ruins - at least to a 'regular' visitor (as opposed to someone who has studied the history, or an archaeologist) - because there basically isn't anything to see. I really don't wish to sound pompous, but I have seen the pictures, taken by the British Museum guy over the course of the past year, as he made a professional assessment of the state of the Iraqi sites.

There are indeed buildings and other monuments from the early Islamic era, which would certainly interest me; although I think you'll find that there isn't as much left of Medieval Baghdad as you might wish - and Medieval Baghdad was the city that 'made' the Caliphate.

But you must remember that, on the whole, people just do not know much, if anything, about Iraq's history, and the country is never likely to attract a large-scale tourist industry, certainly nothing of the scale that Egypt attracts. Therefore, if there is a 'hook' then I imagine they are keen to use it.

ATB

[Nikas]

So you’re saying two things. One – Greeks were “as one”. But two – that Alexander and Phillip’s intervention was needed to “unite” them. If the Greeks were “as one” and in need of unity, why did they themselves not understand this concept? Why did Alexander and Phillip need to march in with their mighty armies? Why did Alexander need to raze a city like Thebes, kill and turn people into slaves the same way he did with many other cities he conquered? It’s hard to make a distinction between the terrorizing of the population in Thebes versus say those of Tyre or Gaza. Similar strategy, similar effect of other cities submitting to Alexander out of fear.

I would counter with why did Romans and other Latins not "understand" the concept and had to fight a few wars for the unification of Italy? Why do Austrians and Germans not get it? Swedes and Norwegians? Heck, what about those poor Messenians, not just Greek, but also Dorian kin to the Spartans , and yet Helot slaves nonetheless? Alexander was practising pure power politics, obey or else. The Athenians would have been no strangers to this approach, as the Melians could attest.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that, you may perceive Greeks and Macedonians from before the Classical Era and onwards as “one”, but did they perceive themselves that way?

Even up to Roman times, "Greece" was not always a precisely defined geographic area. Did not Flaminus and Perseus argue that very point? We may debate whether the other Greeks perceived the Macedonians to be "fully" Greek, and some for reasons of their own would indeed dispute it, but most of the evidence that appears to be attestable from the Macedonians themselves seems to me to make the case convincingly that they themselves, at the very least would have answered "Greek" to your question.

This is where the irony of Athens erecting a statue to Alexander is amusing. I see the evolution of a person from hated conqueror and denier of freedoms to “national hero” over the course of time thanks to the need for national identity.

With Athens the ancient city state, then I find it amusing that those Athenians, so drunk with nostalgia for a hegemony long-dead and beyond revival, could not get over the bitter jealousy of their loss of the pre-eminent position in the Greek world to these "conquerors", who in retrospect treated Athens with almost a criminal leniency. Philip and Alexander could have treated the Athenians to a much more severe reprimand, and not have to deal with their unending rabble-rousing, in spite of their restraint.
Modern Athens of course represents the Macedonians, so definitely a "national hero", to them and many other Greeks.

[Fiona]

Here is another piece of news, from http://www.azzaman.com, which seems to be an Iraqi news site.

Bridge built by Alexander the Great found north of Mosul
By Jareer Mohammed
Azzaman, February 11, 2009
Road construction workers have come across an old bridge Alexander the Great had it built after conquering Iraq, an Iraqi archaeologist says.
Archaeologist Omer Sharif, who inspected the ancient bridge, said he was certain of its antiquity and attribution.
“The bridge dates to 330 B.C. and to the reign of Alexander the Great,” he said.
Historians say Alexander entered Babylon, the then Iraq’s capital, without a fight and had all the Mesopotamia, the present-day Iraq, under his rule by 331 B.C.
He fell in love with Babylon and its inhabitants and died there of Malaria.
Sharif said low water levels in a small river helped the construction workers to tell that they were running into an ancient monument.
He said he ordered the construction company to “immediately halt” all activities in the area.
“I have asked the Antiquities Department in Baghdad to send a team of specialists to evaluate the discovery,” he said.
He said it was too early to say whether antiquities officials would declare the bridge of real archaeological value.
But he said relics of this sort from the Macedonian period in Iraq were rare and that he believed scientists would do their best to preserve the bridge.
“Hopefully, a lot of the ancient construction survives so that we can have in place a bridge that will bear the name of this great monarch,” Sharif said.

I don't know how Mr Sharif can be so sure, so quickly, that the bridge dates to 330 BC, but what leapt to my mind was that he sounded keen for there to be a link with Alexander in this discovery. If he's anything like most archaeologists, he'll be permanently concerned with funding, and 'Alexander' is, like 'gold' or 'treasure', something of a purse-opener, I suspect. No harm in mentioning the possibility...
I thought it also came across that he wasn't thinking of Alexander as a liberator or a conqeror, but simply as a very famous person, whose ancient connection with his country was a matter of interest.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Hi Marcus,

All good points. It’ll be a while before Iraq is visitor-friendly (or even local-friendly) but whatever works to get the country back on its feet. Would it be too pompous to suggest a giant statue of Semiramis?

Hi Nikas,

I would counter with why did Romans and other Latins not "understand" the concept and had to fight a few wars for the unification of Italy? Why do Austrians and Germans not get it? Swedes and Norwegians? Heck, what about those poor Messenians, not just Greek, but also Dorian kin to the Spartans , and yet Helot slaves nonetheless? Alexander was practising pure power politics, obey or else. The Athenians would have been no strangers to this approach, as the Melians could attest.

I think we’re in complete agreement over Alexander’s power politics. I just doubt that his subjugation of Athens was any more for the sake of Greek "unification" than Sidon was for unifying the Phoenicians or Taxila was for unifying the Indians. Alexander seemed to set out to conquer and get recognized as the ruler of as much territory as he could. One could argue that Xerxes set out to "unify the Greeks" too. But it might be more likely that an emperor saw unconquered territory and wanted to expand his rule. A statue to Xerxes in Athens for his efforts? Who is with me on this? Personally, I would just find it ironic if, say, the Austrians decided to erect a statue to any statesmen who had tried to "unite" them with their German kin. But that’s no more tangible than a simple matter of taste.

Even up to Roman times, "Greece" was not always a precisely defined geographic area. Did not Flaminus and Perseus argue that very point? We may debate whether the other Greeks perceived the Macedonians to be "fully" Greek, and some for reasons of their own would indeed dispute it, but most of the evidence that appears to be attestable from the Macedonians themselves seems to me to make the case convincingly that they themselves, at the very least would have answered "Greek" to your question.

I totally agree that “Greek” identity was more amorphous than the flag and passport and map that it boils down to in the era of nation states. I remember reading Greek writings describing a Persian who was “Greek in thought”, further adding to complications. I am far from convinced about what the Macedonians themselves would have said 2400 or so years ago (assuming they answered questions in a unanimous fashion), but asking for your lines of evidence would break the forum rules I think.

With Athens the ancient city state, then I find it amusing that those Athenians, so drunk with nostalgia for a hegemony long-dead and beyond revival, could not get over the bitter jealousy of their loss of the pre-eminent position in the Greek world to these "conquerors", who in retrospect treated Athens with almost a criminal leniency. Philip and Alexander could have treated the Athenians to a much more severe reprimand, and not have to deal with their unending rabble-rousing, in spite of their restraint.

Ah yes. The Athenian tendency to copy Persian ceremonies, reliefs, tents etc. and play “empire”. Very cute. As for the real deal, a lot of things Phillip or Alexander did would be considered “criminal” by our standards. But no matter what unattractive qualities are assigned to long-dead Athenians, I still hesitate to put not killing and enslaving the population and destroying the whole city – sometimes also referred to as leniency - in the “criminal” basket.

Modern Athens of course represents the Macedonians, so definitely a "national hero", to them and many other Greeks.

Eck, you’re going to put the boys and girls in Skopje out of business! Who else would find time to fight with their counterparts in Athens over ownership of long dead conquerors? I doubt Vienna and Berlin would be willing to provide this degree of entertainment any time soon.

[Nikas]

I think we’re in complete agreement over Alexander’s power politics. I just doubt that his subjugation of Athens was any more for the sake of Greek "unification" than Sidon was for unifying the Phoenicians or Taxila was for unifying the Indians. Alexander seemed to set out to conquer and get recognized as the ruler of as much territory as he could. One could argue that Xerxes set out to "unify the Greeks" too. But it might be more likely that an emperor saw unconquered territory and wanted to expand his rule. A statue to Xerxes in Athens for his efforts? Who is with me on this? Personally, I would just find it ironic if, say, the Austrians decided to erect a statue to any statesmen who had tried to "unite" them with their German kin. But that’s no more tangible than a simple matter of taste. .

Oh, I will not dispute that Alexander's only motivation was an altruistic ideal of unifying Greece. To be precise, I would first give the credit to Philip in any case. Honor, glory, power, and everlasting fame were probably what floated Alex's boat, far more than sitting back in his Pella palace, ruminating on the latest comings-and-goings of a Greece full of demagogues and rabble-rousers that he knew would just leap at the chance to be named hegemon of the year, but for a well placed Illyrian spear. Xerxes you say? Ironic, as Alexander was the eventual Athenian avenger as the ruins of Persepolis might testify to. As for the Austrians, nasty little thing called WWII put a halt to their "unification", and fortunately for all of us, their "unifier" was not what I would call a success.

I totally agree that “Greek” identity was more amorphous than the flag and passport and map that it boils down to in the era of nation states. I remember reading Greek writings describing a Persian who was “Greek in thought”, further adding to complications. I am far from convinced about what the Macedonians themselves would have said 2400 or so years ago (assuming they answered questions in a unanimous fashion), but asking for your lines of evidence would break the forum rules I think.

Well, if you are really interested we could always find another party where the hosts are not so worried about a little spilt wine on the carpet? Needless to say, I am in fact quite convinced that regardless of what others may have thought, the Macedonians themselves were quite clear where their heart and soul lay And yes, I would be breaking the forum rules were I to put up all my evidence

Ah yes. The Athenian tendency to copy Persian ceremonies, reliefs, tents etc. and play “empire”. Very cute. As for the real deal, a lot of things Phillip or Alexander did would be considered “criminal” by our standards. But no matter what unattractive qualities are assigned to long-dead Athenians, I still hesitate to put not killing and enslaving the population and destroying the whole city – sometimes also referred to as leniency - in the “criminal” basket.

Methinks many things that many of the ancients did would be considered "criminal" by our standards, just like many of the things that states still do still fall under that category. Now, before you belittle poor ole Phil and Alex's leniency, don't forget those "long-dead Athenians" did their fair share of a little imperialism of their own (cute as it may not have been for those Delian allies). Torone comes to mind and had cooler heads not prevailed, Mytilene was in for a nasty little "lesson" of a good old-fashioned brutal sack. The Spartans were not too kind to the Plataeans either, and if you consider that the Thebans had a large part to say about that, well maybe justice was not so blind after all....

Eck, you’re going to put the boys and girls in Skopje out of business! Who else would find time to fight with their counterparts in Athens over ownership of long dead conquerors? I doubt Vienna and Berlin would be willing to provide this degree of entertainment any time soon.

Skopje? My dear, I put their opinion in the same category that I put a Mexican, Angolan, Thai or any other opinion on the matter, they have no special relevancy aside from just being neighbors. As for Vienna and Berlin, time will still tell, but I seriously doubt they want to fight over the "heritage" of their last dead conqueror? I shudder to put Alex in that category

[marcus]

Hi Marcus,

All good points. It’ll be a while before Iraq is visitor-friendly (or even local-friendly) but whatever works to get the country back on its feet. Would it be too pompous to suggest a giant statue of Semiramis?

A giant statue of Semiramis, at Babylon, would be an excellent idea! An under-represented figure, she is - not very often referred to. Funny, really - occasionally books come out of "warrior women" or some such, which always include Boudicca, Zenobia, Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc.; but they never seem to include Semiramis ... perhaps it's because she is legendary, but the stories are great!

However, for her to be a 'hook' requires more education of hoi polloi ...

ATB

[Semiramis]

Oh, I will not dispute that Alexander's only motivation was an altruistic ideal of unifying Greece. To be precise, I would first give the credit to Philip in any case. Honor, glory, power, and everlasting fame were probably what floated Alex's boat, far more than sitting back in his Pella palace, ruminating on the latest comings-and-goings of a Greece full of demagogues and rabble-rousers that he knew would just leap at the chance to be named hegemon of the year, but for a well placed Illyrian spear. Xerxes you say? Ironic, as Alexander was the eventual Athenian avenger as the ruins of Persepolis might testify to. As for the Austrians, nasty little thing called WWII put a halt to their "unification", and fortunately for all of us, their "unifier" was not what I would call a success.

World War II eh? I may have heard of it. Much drivel about honour, glory, power, ever-lasting fame etc. in vogue during those times too. I find it quite amusing that Xerxes claimed to be avenging the Greek invasion of Troy before his own crossing of the Hellespont. Is there no end to that poor blind man being hijacked for propaganda?

Well, if you are really interested we could always find another party where the hosts are not so worried about a little spilt wine on the carpet?

This is starting to sound all together dodgy but sure PM me.

Methinks many things that many of the ancients did would be considered "criminal" by our standards, just like many of the things that states still do still fall under that category. Now, before you belittle poor ole Phil and Alex's leniency, don't forget those "long-dead Athenians" did their fair share of a little imperialism of their own (cute as it may not have been for those Delian allies). Torone comes to mind and had cooler heads not prevailed, Mytilene was in for a nasty little "lesson" of a good old-fashioned brutal sack.

Athenians rowing too slowly because their hearts weren’t in it? Come on, warm fuzzies.

The Spartans were not too kind to the Plataeans either, and if you consider that the Thebans had a large part to say about that, well maybe justice was not so blind after all....

The old "Thebans/Tyrians/Gazans/Cosseans/Indians had it coming" sentiment when Alexander's massacres are discussed. That essential component of justifying “criminal” actions of states - both ancient and modern.

Skopje? My dear, I put their opinion in the same category that I put a Mexican, Angolan, Thai or any other opinion on the matter, they have no special relevancy aside from just being neighbors.

It’s the Australians I would put my money on. Bosworth is my pick of the scholars. On this forum his countryman Paralus comes up with a few gems quite often. I don't believe Australia even has the distinction of having the Argead sun on their flag. So they’re not doing too badly there at all.

As for Vienna and Berlin, time will still tell, but I seriously doubt they want to fight over the "heritage" of their last dead conqueror? I shudder to put Alex in that category

Who can guess what will happen in a couple of thousand years…

Lastly, for a bit of a laugh (and almost relevant to our discussion) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE

[Nikas]

World War II eh? I may have heard of it. Much drivel about honour, glory, power, ever-lasting fame etc. in vogue during those times too. I find it quite amusing that Xerxes claimed to be avenging the Greek invasion of Troy before his own crossing of the Hellespont. Is there no end to that poor blind man being hijacked for propaganda?

Indeed, aren't we glad we live in a world free of war and conflict today? Now it's just war against terror, non-proliferation, energy resources, and ever-lasting security? To be precise, perhaps Xerxes should have focused his efforts on Mycenae and left poor Athens alone. I wonder if the Trojans ever sent Xerxes a request to avenge Troy from the hated Greek invader, and unite the Trojans against the dastardly Greek "barbarians"? Oh those Wilusians, stirring up such trouble. Here I believed the war between Asia and Europe began over the stealing of some women-folk which the Greeks took a little too personally? After all, women could just be replaced with a raid of their own?

This is starting to sound all together dodgy but sure PM me.

Dodgy? No, respectful of forum rules, must observe proper etiquette I have reams of the stuff, where to begin? I will think of something...

The old "Thebans/Tyrians/Gazans/Cosseans/Indians had it coming" sentiment when Alexander's massacres are discussed. That essential component of justifying “criminal” actions of states - both ancient and modern.

Ah, never a justification. More of an observation, especially if one is comparing apples-to-apples, and the point remains, the Athenians, Spartans et al, gave as good as they got as well. No one deserves a massacre, but in the context of that age, I believe there simply was a different morality in play. I wonder if the Tyrians never, ever, commited a state atrocity?, or their progeny the Carthaginans. Or the Indians for that matter? It may or may not be recorded, but does it mean that it did not, or would not happen by them in that age (or later) if given the situation and ability. While we may condemn Alexander for his treatment of the Thebans, I cannot help asking myself why the heck they didn't just surrender when he promised to forgive them for their obvious misconception of his demise, and their obvious inability to meet him strength for strength?

It’s the Australians I would put my money on. Bosworth is my pick of the scholars. On this forum his countryman Paralus comes up with a few gems quite often. I don't believe Australia even has the distinction of having the Argead sun on their flag. So they’re not doing too badly there at all.

Ah, the Australians, how could I forget them, although I like Hammond and Fox personally No Argead sun? What could be a better symbol for those hot summers

Lastly, for a bit of a laugh (and almost relevant to our discussion) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE

Now that was funny, my thanks! Especially seeing as I have played Risk a few times, and damn that Asia is impossible to hold...

[Paralus]

It’s the Australians I would put my money on. Bosworth is my pick of the scholars. On this forum his countryman Paralus comes up with a few gems quite often.

Blush.

Indeed, aren't we glad we live in a world free of war and conflict today? Now it's just war against terror, non-proliferation, energy resources, and ever-lasting security?

Well indeed, as it always was. Back in Phil’s time the terrorists – after other pretenders, Illyrians (and sundry other neighbours) and Thracians – were the Persians: he was going east to teach them all a lesson for destroying Athenian temples. Thus it might not have been at all convenient to destroy any - Athenian temples - himself. Might apply to Sparta as well.

Alex, like Bush, sort of lost his way and adopted terrorist methods in dealing with the dastardly terrorists. He also tended to run out of original terrorists and so had to find others. He apparently found them easily enough – especially over the next frontier and, ironiacally enough, in Afghanistan. The last, seemingly recorded, on his list were the Arabs.

In fact it was always resources: an historical fact that never alters over the millennia. Womenfolk hunkering in the caves over the next ridge, the rights to that migration route, the harvest you have that I don’t all the way down to the oil that one has and another has not.

In between we have the shining democracy of Athens whose empire – built on the three massive pillars of wood, metals and grain (not always in that order) – was a rapacious consumer and always insistent to be fed. Hence its interest in Macedonia (and its addict’s needle Amphipolis), Illyria (via Corcyra), Egypt, the Black Sea, Sicily and Magna Graecia. All clearly satisfy one or more of those three. As Peter Green archly observed:

An empire without bread starves; a naval empire without timber rapidly becomes a contradiction in terms.

Alex seemed not to understand “non-proliferation”: he offered his proven technology and tactics to 30,000 Asians. Then again, the “home government” had seemingly tired of supplying him manpower – or more likely, given the embarrassment of the Lamian war couldn’t – and so he had to improvise.

More of an observation, especially if one is comparing apples-to-apples, and the point remains, the Athenians, Spartans et al, gave as good as they got as well. No one deserves a massacre, but in the context of that age, I believe there simply was a different morality in play. While we may condemn Alexander for his treatment of the Thebans, I cannot help asking myself why the heck they didn't just surrender when he promised to forgive them for their obvious misconception of his demise, and their obvious inability to meet him strength for strength?

Well indeed they did. The Spartans’ treatment of Plataea, given that city’s past and their propaganda of “autonomy of the Hellenes” was atrocious. Even they “repented” later. Well, admittedly after surrendering on Sphacteria. Their continued running of this line whilst selling the Greeks of Asia Minor for hegemony (prostatai of the peace) at home backed by the King indicates their priority. Agesilaos’ rejection of the Theban request for the Perioicic towns (not to mention Messenians) to sign the peace as independent poleis illuminates the dark contradiction at the heart of the Spartan “mirage”.

Athens, of course, was quietly comfortable with the exercise of Realpolitik as you say. The examples are well known. Its handling of the second Athenian “Confederacy” clearly shows it had learnt little. Cleruchies established on Samos and elsewhere in the 350s set off the disastrous (for Athens) Social War.

Why did Thebes resist? You’re a Greek: that is a question you’d well be able to answer. It remains a possibility that Thebes hoped for its more craven neighbour (Athens) to rise again.

As to a different morality in play, that’s quite correct. Even so, the destruction of Thebes was remarked upon in ancient times. It seems that smaller poleis might suffer somewhat unremarked; larger, more “famous” ones drew attention. That was, of course, what Alex wanted.

[Semiramis]

Hi Nikeas,

I found something quite interesting about those Phoenicians and their Carthigian progeny the other day. I don’t know if you’ve come across this study.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... index.html

It turns out that fewer than 20% of modern-day Tunisians (“Carthigians”) share genes with the people historians refer to as ‘Phoenicians’. The researchers have concluded that Phoenicians did not match their political impact in that colony with a genetic one. However, most modern-day Lebanese and Palestinians (Phoenician heartland) are descendants of Phoenicians. The researchers also claim that the Phoenicians are themselves genetically indistinguishable from the Canaanites. As in, the theory about populations from the region that is modern-day Italy migrating there to give rise to the Phoenicians is not backed up by genetic data. I think we might see an explosion of data in the near future from these genetic studies that will help create a coherent historical picture along with archeology, ancients text etc.

Here’s the video link to the whole Eddie Izzard show. He seems quite into his history. Some good laughs in there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... zard&dur=3

In fact it was always resources: an historical fact that never alters over the millennia. Womenfolk hunkering in the caves over the next ridge, the rights to that migration route, the harvest you have that I don’t all the way down to the oil that one has and another has not.

How cynical Paralus! Everybody knows that Gaugamela was all because Darius, that evil-doer, killed Alexander’s daddy. This Alexander statue at Mosul better dance or something, because Skopje’s already got one up on Athens with their singing one!

[Nikas]

Well indeed, as it always was. Back in Phil’s time the terrorists – after other pretenders, Illyrians (and sundry other neighbours) and Thracians – were the Persians: he was going east to teach them all a lesson for destroying Athenian temples. Thus it might not have been at all convenient to destroy any - Athenian temples - himself. Might apply to Sparta as well.

Perhaps, although I wonder that if by this point , it mattered that Athens be mollified. Sure, it didn't hurt that they wouldn't stir up some trouble behind the scenes,and the temptation of the mighty Athenian fleet must have had it's strategic allure, but pragmatically, Athens was isolated and defeated (Theban slighted pride not withstanding), and where the Spartans were concerned, the Peloponnesians were more than happy to hitch their star to Philip, as they had previously to Epaminondas. The Social War certainly didn't help earn the Athenians any sympathy votes from many of the other Greeks. The Panhellenic "crusade" certainly gave Philip a certain legitimacy, but Philip had seen all too well that the other Greek powers would not be able to mount a serious threat. Strategically brilliant check-and-balances, Chaeronia, and the rock-and-roll tour of the Peloponnese had seen to that. Only a major Macedonian defeat in Asia would have probably sparked enough hope to give the latest hegemon the boot, and if that were the case, Panhellenism wouldn't have mattered a whit, as Agesilaus found out a few decades before.

He apparently found them easily enough – especially over the next frontier and, ironiacally enough, in Afghanistan. The last, seemingly recorded, on his list were the Arabs..

The irony is indeed striking. The more things change the more they stay the same...

Well indeed they did. The Spartans’ treatment of Plataea, given that city’s past and their propaganda of “autonomy of the Hellenes” was atrocious. Even they “repented” later. Well, admittedly after surrendering on Sphacteria. Their continued running of this line whilst selling the Greeks of Asia Minor for hegemony (prostatai of the peace) at home backed by the King indicates their priority. Agesilaos’ rejection of the Theban request for the Perioicic towns (not to mention Messenians) to sign the peace as independent poleis illuminates the dark contradiction at the heart of the Spartan “mirage”.

Athens, of course, was quietly comfortable with the exercise of Realpolitik as you say. The examples are well known. Its handling of the second Athenian “Confederacy” clearly shows it had learnt little. Cleruchies established on Samos and elsewhere in the 350s set off the disastrous (for Athens) Social War.

Absolutely. That these heroes of Thermopylae and Plataea, these Heraclidae and victors in the war for the "Freedom of the Greeks" against both Persian and Athenian oppressors, should sacrifice the stability ,peace, and prosperity of this self-same Greece for what can only be seen as vindictive spite against the Thebans upstarts, is as criminal, as the Melian Dialogue is as chilling, of an example of Realpolitik being icily exercised.

Why did Thebes resist? You’re a Greek: that is a question you’d well be able to answer. It remains a possibility that Thebes hoped for its more craven neighbour (Athens) to rise again.

As a Greek, it is my belief that the Theban stubborness is another sad illustration of that potent combination so evident in Greek history, hubris and stasis (amongst all the Greeks). Greek states allied and warred with each other in such amazing frequency, and alternated allies and enemies as often as I change my underwear (no wisecracks now), and indeed those Athenians did turn out to be craven, selling out those Thebans they had so encouraged to take up the cause.

Or, if you believe in predestination, perhaps it just had to happen this way, and Fortune had to have her say:

"Again, however, Fortune stirred up Thebes against him, and thrust in his pathway a war with Greeks, and the dread necessity of punishing, by means of slaughter and fire and sword, men that were his kith and kin, a necessity which had a most unpleasant ending."

-Plutarch, On The Fortune of Alexander

As to a different morality in play, that’s quite correct. Even so, the destruction of Thebes was remarked upon in ancient times. It seems that smaller poleis might suffer somewhat unremarked; larger, more “famous” ones drew attention. That was, of course, what Alex wanted.

Agreed, and it probably didn't matter in the end as it didn't preclude Agis from giving it the ole Spartan shot...

[Nikas]

Hi Nikeas,

I found something quite interesting about those Phoenicians and their Carthigian progeny the other day. I don’t know if you’ve come across this study.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... index.html

It turns out that fewer than 20% of modern-day Tunisians (“Carthigians”) share genes with the people historians refer to as ‘Phoenicians’. The researchers have concluded that Phoenicians did not match their political impact in that colony with a genetic one. However, most modern-day Lebanese and Palestinians (Phoenician heartland) are descendants of Phoenicians. The researchers also claim that the Phoenicians are themselves genetically indistinguishable from the Canaanites. As in, the theory about populations from the region that is modern-day Italy migrating there to give rise to the Phoenicians is not backed up by genetic data. I think we might see an explosion of data in the near future from these genetic studies that will help create a coherent historical picture along with archeology, ancients text etc.

Interesting article, I had not seen before. Genetics will be a fascinating addition to many of the questions that history, archaeology, and linguistics do not fully elucidate on. Lebanese I would have imagined, but the Palestinians, hmm, I wonder if this could have some modern repercussions in terms of setting "precedence" in a certain ongoing Middle-Eastern political disputes...

Here’s the video link to the whole Eddie Izzard show. He seems quite into his history. Some good laughs in there.

I will definitely enjoy over a few cold ones, that was a good clip

This Alexander statue at Mosul better dance or something, because Skopje’s already got one up on Athens with their singing one!

Sighh, Skopje...might as well have a wine-swilling Alexander in Mexico City...a Cleitus-stabbing Alexander in Moscow, heck, an arrow-out-of-the-lung-pulling Alexander in Mogadishu

[athenas owl]

When i first read the title I thought it was about an ancient actual statue of ATG that had been found.

From rogueclassicism

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.p ... 17-02-2009

An ancient bridge, possibly or wishful thinking, perhaps, thought to be a bridge built by ATG?

Near Mosul...

[Phoebus]

Where the sponsorship of the statue is concerned, I do feel that the ethnicity of the Iraqi minister in question might have played a role. Greece has quite often backed Kurdish causes in the past, officially or unofficially, and it might not be a coincidence that such a monument was suggested.

Regarding Philip and Alexander's designs on, and treatment of, the Greeks... why do altruism and unification have to go hand-in-hand? I mean, why on earth would Philip or Alexander have left such a southern flank alone? Philip, especially, having begun his reign within living memory of the erstwhile powerhouses' times of glory? Beyond that, military efforts of the sort that Philip and, later, Alexander, were planning inevitably require manpower. Alexander did, eventually, figure out a way around this conundrum (and more on that later), but the most obvious pool of Greek-speaking military manpower would have been... well... Greece, itself.

I don't know that Alexander's recruiting efforts can be considered proliferation... Judging from what Arrian left us with, Alexander "recruited" from the most dangerous territories, turning the next generation ("youths just growing into manhood") of potential rebels into his own soldiers. Some rather fine socio-cultural re-engineering, if you ask me. This is only conjecture on my part, but I think this project would have worked out better in the long run than nationally-distinct units working parallel to, or beneath, Greek-speaking ones.

A final note. Alexander's adoption by Greeks as a means of arriving at some national identity? Not quite, IMHO. Rather, I see it as the embracing of a consistent winner by a people who, for some time, had been beaten up quite a bit--for some centuries. Kind of the flip side for the reason the Romans embraced him as they did--though, for them, it was a matter of winner (with similar scruples) celebrating a man they could see as one of their own.

[Paralus]

Perhaps, although I wonder that if by this point , it mattered that Athens be mollified. Sure, it didn't hurt that they wouldn't stir up some trouble behind the scenes,and the temptation of the mighty Athenian fleet must have had it's strategic allure, but pragmatically, Athens was isolated and defeated (Theban slighted pride not withstanding), and where the Spartans were concerned, the Peloponnesians were more than happy to hitch their star to Philip, as they had previously to Epaminondas.... Strategically brilliant check-and-balances, Chaeronia, and the rock-and-roll tour of the Peloponnese had seen to that. Only a major Macedonian defeat in Asia would have probably sparked enough hope to give the latest hegemon the boot, and if that were the case, Panhellenism wouldn't have mattered a whit, as Agesilaus found out a few decades before.

Nothing really to do with mollifying Athens; more retaining and usurping her supposed reputation as a cornerstone of the “Greek resistance” to the filthy despotic and effete Persians. Ditto Sparta.

The propaganda of a righteous war of retribution – a necessary cloak for Macedonian imperial aims and lebensraum in the east – was as important to Philip’s military / political programme as was a Persian threat in the Aegean to imperial Athenian democrats over a century earlier. Philip needed an instrument – a political and social instrument – that would provide the scaffolding to keep the Greeks “in line”. Such an instrument would provide the forum for the Greeks to indulge their favourite pastime – outside of war – of claim, counter claim, arbitrate and sanction. And such a symmachia needed a palatable and believable aim. All with the Macedonian king as sole arbiter and interpreter of said symmachia and aim, of course.

It then will have put the lie to such high minded Macedonian philhellenism should Philip have raised Athens post Chaeronea. Neither will it have helped had he done similar to Sparta. Other matters – those checks and balances – buttressed his policy toward Sparta as the not so subtle apportioning of Spartan territory such as Dentheliatis, the east Parnon foreland, Belminatis, Thyreatis and Sciritis show. Sparta was to remain proudly isolated and a thorn in the ambitions of Achaea, Argos and other Peloponnesian pugs. A recipe fraught with employment opportunities for the synhedrion of the new “League”.

For the Greeks it was always a workable and malleable mirage. Antigonus Monophthalmus would retread the League tyre. Antigonus could hardly have utilised the dead Persian Empire as his unifying theme - it no longer existed. From the remove of Celaenae, and needing the "gangway to Greece" (Athens), he picked the perfect flag to fly: the autonomy of the Greeks.

The irony of the Spartan Agesilaos pictured as some early fourth century Kimon most likely was lost on its author Xenophon. Then again, possibly not. Fancy an exiled Athenian creating a Spartan king in the (“foreign policy”) image of Kimon? Patriot (to his polis), righteous prosecutor of Persia, dreamer of panhellenic dreams and, always, an avid imperialist.

That Agesilaos was no Kimon is indicated by his willingness to negotiate truces or treaties whilst spending great energy in achieving little. Not for Agesilaos any resounding Eurymedon or grand campaign to drive out the Persian despot.

Phoebus, welcome back! Glad to see you survived your deployment ... was begining to wonder. Read Anson's Eumenes as yet??