The Conquests of Alexander by Waldemar Heckel

[Paralus]

Curtius may indeed have been playing to his audience's tastes. He may even have been a little “inventive” in support of his degenerating Alexander theme. That does not, though, facilitate a total dismissal.

Much followed that will have fit “Curtius’ theme” without the invention of the crucifixion: the butchering of the Indian prisoners in the town located near to the Choes; the massacre of the Indian mercenaries and the subsequent sack of Sangala to name a few.

Not as lurid as a crucifixion I grant.

Then again, perhaps Curtius thought Alexander had followed the example of his father here? Macedonian nobles – kings included – had a decent propensity for “demonstrative cruelty” when necessary.

The shades of Antigenes and Onomarchus would provide eloquent testimony. Not to mention those of the Tyreans.

[Taphoi]

But if the Metz Epitome is following Cleitarchus on this then I have to wonder when did Cleitarchus become the most dependable of historians that we should trust his account above all others when there is a contradiction in the story?

To quote Jona Lendering on Livius:

Summing up, we can say that Cleitarchus' work combined vivid descriptions, eyewitness accounts and a dark psychological portrait of Alexander. He also delights in fantastic tales and he sometimes sacrificed historical reliability to keep the story entertaining and to stress the psychological development. Therefore, Cleitarchus' History of Alexander contains many errors (some serious).

I did not say Cleitarchus is the most dependable of historians. But I think the only sources which describe Ariomazes' fate are Curtius and the Metz (though Polyaenus and Strabo also mention him.) There are complex reasons to suppose that the Metz is following Cleitarchus. Cleitarchus is also Curtius' main source, so the question arises of why Curtius is giving a variant version on this particular point? Most of the possible answers are not favourable to Curtius' integrity.

I do not really disagree strongly with most of Jona's assessment of Cleitarchus. However, I would point out that Cleitarchus was heavily "blackwashed" in the early to mid 20th century and that his supposed errors are often more subtle and ambiguous than Jona implies. His most infamous supposed invention was Thalestris, the Amazon queen. However, it looks like he got this story from Onesicritus and it also looks as though Alexander really is likely to have encountered armed soldier-maidens in the Scythian regions. Another example would be Cleitarchus' statement that Alexander sailed down the Acesines instead of the Hydaspes in India. But actually Alexander was operating extensively between the two rivers at the time, so it is not unlikely that he had boats on both.

In another thread Cleitarchus has been accused of being a propagandist source. I feel this is a complete misunderstanding of him. It is clear that Cleitarchus' father Deinon had written a history of Persia. It follows that Cleitarchus' fundamental motivation was to complete his father's work by recording the downfall of the Persian Empire at the hands of Alexander. The best evidence is that his attitude to Alexander was fairly neutral.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I'm beginning to feel like "Dr Evil" here in that I seem to disagree with you so frequently, but once again I have a couple of questions/comments.

I did not say Cleitarchus is the most dependable of historians. But I think the only sources which describe Ariomazes' fate are Curtius and the Metz (though Polyaenus and Strabo also mention him.) There are complex reasons to suppose that the Metz is following Cleitarchus. Cleitarchus is also Curtius' main source, so the question arises of why Curtius is giving a variant version on this particular point? Most of the possible answers are not favourable to Curtius' integrity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your dismissal of Curtius' version here is based solely on your stated "complex reasons" that the Metz is following Cleitarchus – and therefore Curtius is NOT. This is a theory – one you are entitled to present, of course – but difficult to prove convincingly. Unfortunately there is a lacuna in Diodorus at this point so all we really have are two different versions – one from an author whose main source is considered to be Cleitarchus and one that you suppose is following Cleitarchus. I would therefore hesitate to question Curtius' integrity in this particular instance.

In another thread Cleitarchus has been accused of being a propagandist source. I feel this is a complete misunderstanding of him. It is clear that Cleitarchus' father Deinon had written a history of Persia. It follows that Cleitarchus' fundamental motivation was to complete his father's work by recording the downfall of the Persian Empire at the hands of Alexander. The best evidence is that his attitude to Alexander was fairly neutral.

Well, I wouldn't personally claim that Cleitarchus is a total propagandist source, however our knowledge that Curtius used him heavily makes me wonder how it can be claimed that Cleitarchus' attitude to Alexander was fairly neutral. It seems to me that in order to support that statement one must credit most (or all?) perceived negative statements in Curtius' history to Curtius alone and not to his source(s), as you have done above, for example. (Or that he misunderstood, as was suggested earlier.) Didn't the same thing happen here with Justin? This could be a slippery slope which would make me nervous.

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. Yes, when there are conflicting sources it is necessary to evaluate them and hope to come to a reasonable conclusion as to which is more credible. However, in this instance I wouldn't invalidate one version (and cast dispersions on its author) simply because the other has a kinder, more gentle Alexander. Curtius is quite credible here, IMO. Arimazes didn't surrender when Alexander first arrived at the rock but only when he thought he had been defeated; i.e., when he despaired of his situation. Given the draconian nature of warfare in Sogdia/Bactria up to this point in time it is not unreasonable to believe that Alexander would have inflicted severe punishment here in order to demonstrate to the remainder of the enemy what would happen to them if they sat on their "rocks" and resisted. Additionally, I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army. After all, many people on the rock were refugees whom the army had been pursuing. I don't see why Alexander would have necessarily looked kindly upon them after the surrender.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your dismissal of Curtius' version here is based solely on your stated "complex reasons" that the Metz is following Cleitarchus – and therefore Curtius is NOT.

If it helps, it's not very controversial to suggest that the Metz Epitome is basically Cleitarchan, e.g.

Sections of the Metz Epitome correspond quite closely to parts of Curtius, Books 7-9. Yet there are enough differences to indicate that Curtius was probably not the direct model and the similarities in this case may be explained by a shared source, most likely Cleitarchus.

Well, I wouldn't personally claim that Cleitarchus is a total propagandist source, however our knowledge that Curtius used him heavily makes me wonder how it can be claimed that Cleitarchus' attitude to Alexander was fairly neutral.

Diodorus and the Metz Epitome are probably fairly straightforward summaries of Cleitarchus. They are fairly neutral in their reporting of events and this probably reflects their source. Curtius is much more complex. He followed Cleitarchus for his basic thread, but he was influenced by other sources, some of them quite late (e.g. Trogus). He also overlaid a lot of rhetoric of his own and is dogged in his determination to show that Alexander was corrupted by the vices of the orient. For these reasons alone, discrepancies between the Metz and Curtius are much more likely to be due to Curtius failing to follow Cleitarchus than the reverse.

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army. After all, many people on the rock were refugees whom the army had been pursuing. I don't see why Alexander would have necessarily looked kindly upon them after the surrender.

I have to say that in the light of more recent Middle Eastern history it worries me when Americans say that they see nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him. It would have been very out of character for Alexander to execute supplicants. It would also have been very stupid, since it would have guaranteed that other "rocks" would have held out to the last man and caused Alexander a lot of trouble. Actually, however, Sisimithres surrendered himself and his family to Alexander's mercy following a brief siege of his "rock" a little later (Curtius 8.2.19-33). That Sisimithres should take such a risk tends to lend the lie to Curtius' account of the slaughter of Ariomazes. The Metz Epitome is far more credible on Ariomazes in the light of Curtius' subsequent narrative. The army btw would not have welcomed the wanton killing of potential slaves and serfs.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[jan]

for giving me the exact source of this statement of flogging and crucifying the captured. Heckel did state that Hephaestion accepted a title to cover up his own incompetence, and I did not see a footnote for that.

To Amyntoros, I disagree with you about the competency of the editor or author as the information about Roxanne does not occur until much later. The footnote is placed at the end of the sentence where the statement about flogging and crucifying happens, and not at the spot where he is discussing the marriage of Roxanne which he does take up several paragraphs later. He sounds as though he had a bit mite to drink about now...

In fact, I am surprised, but Heckel even mentions Cleophis in this book also.

And also, Amyntoros, any book is intended for the reader, not for the author. Why bother to write books at all if it is not for the reader?

[marcus]

for giving me the exact source of this statement of flogging and crucifying the captured. Heckel did state that Hephaestion accepted a title to cover up his own incompetence, and I did not see a footnote for that.

No problem, Jan. I haven't read the book yet, but I am indeed intrigued by this business of Hephaestion's "incompetence". Lord knows I am no lover of Hephaestion, as many on Pothos know; but I have never accused him of incompetence. I shall definitely have to read the book now!

To Amyntoros, I disagree with you about the competency of the editor or author as the information about Roxanne does not occur until much later. The footnote is placed at the end of the sentence where the statement about flogging and crucifying happens, and not at the spot where he is discussing the marriage of Roxanne which he does take up several paragraphs later. He sounds as though he had a bit mite to drink about now...

Again, I will have to see the book before I pass judgement; but it is fairly standard practice to place a footnote number at the end of a sentence or even a paragraph. Therefore it can sometimes be confusing when one looks at a note or footnote to find that the additional information or clarification is not referring to what it first appears to be referencing. In which case, it is neither the author's nor the editor's fault, but that of publishing convention.

And also, Amyntoros, any book is intended for the reader, not for the author. Why bother to write books at all if it is not for the reader?

Well, to some extent you are correct, of course. However, the author has to make a judgement about what is necessary/relevant - poor old Heckel will hardly have been thinking "now, what exactly is Jan going to want to know more about?". Also, I must say, academic funding in the US is, as I understand it, much more dependent on the academic's publication history than it is in the UK; and so, to some extent, an academic's published work is going to reflect far more what he/she dictates than the wishes of the (relatively small) potential readership. So although I don't completely disagree with you, I would suggest that there are different forces at work with non-fiction, "academic" publishing than with mass-market publishing.

ATB

[Paralus]

I have to say that in the light of more recent Middle Eastern history it worries me when Americans say that they see nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him.

I won't delve into recent Middle Eastern history as I have rather strong views on it that do not belong here. I will, however, say that I can't for the life of me find anyone on this thread - American or not - claiming that there is "nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him."

I don't believe that a gratuitous - not to say offensive - assertion via national association advances anything.

It would have been very out of character for Alexander to execute supplicants. It would also have been very stupid, since it would have guaranteed that other "rocks" would have held out to the last man and caused Alexander a lot of trouble. Actually, however, Sisimithres surrendered himself and his family to Alexander's mercy following a brief siege of his "rock" a little later (Curtius 8.2.19-33). That Sisimithres should take such a risk tends to lend the lie to Curtius' account of the slaughter of Ariomazes. The Metz Epitome is far more credible on Ariomazes in the light of Curtius' subsequent narrative. The army btw would not have welcomed the wanton killing of potential slaves and serfs.

I have no issue with the fact that Alexander may have intended this as a salutary warning - if it transpired. He has form on such "warnings".

The other rock would be Aornus? Those on this rock felt is absolutely impregnable - as Arrian makes plain. What transpired in Sogdia may well have been irrelevant to them: they thought themselves inviolate. At the close of this engagement Alexander, appraised of the Indian's intent to retreat under cover of night, sets his trap and - at the signal - slaughters those fleeing Indians.

The slaughter at the Indian town on the Choes and in Sangala (which followed upon this) of both prisoners and the "sick" as well as combatants indicates , in fairly graphic terms, just what sort of "wonton killing" this Macedonian army was capable of - potential slaves or not under spear.

And worse was to follow.

[agesilaos]

I think it's a bit much to call the reasons for thinking the Metz Epitome follows Kleitarchos, 'complex', they are very simple - it is clearly not following Arrian's story and has parallels with Curtius, Justin and Diodoros all of whom we assume used Kleitarchos - since he is known to have been a popular author when they were writing and the tenor of their narratives corresponds nicely with the ancient testimonia for his work. Basically if it isn't Arrian or Plutarch it is Kleitarchos, however it would be more accurate to say Kleitarchan as there is no reason why later writers should not be following intermediate authors rather than the original. Metz is third century AD and therefore quite late.

That said I have to agree with Taphoi that it is more likely that Curtius is the author adapting his material; he is writing a full length history not epitomising an existing book; the evidence throughout of his own creativity is extensive. I would like to find a Roman parallel to prove the point though but can't think of one off hand, Caesar in Gaul perhaps but that would be old news by 70AD.

But just in case you thought I agreed with everything I have to say that the Metz Epitome gives the same dark portrait as Curtius and even starts with a description of Alexander's Orientalizing and comments on his decline thereafter, which seems to have been Kleitarchos' not at all 'neutral' position. And one well suited to blackening the image of the Oriental despot Demetrius whose pomp and extravagant clothing Plutarch describes in his life. But this is no place for that argument see you on another thread.

[Taphoi]

I will, however, say that I can't for the life of me find anyone on this thread - American or not - claiming that there is "nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him."

Arimazes believing that his situation was desperate, whereas it was in fact not hopeless, came down to the king's camp with his relatives and the principal nobles of his race; Alexander ordered all these to be scourged and crucified at the very foot of the rock.

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

There is a clear implication by amyntoros that the scourging and killing of prisoners did not reflect badly on Alexander, because he did it to sate the bloodlust of his army. If amyntoros wishes to explain that she did not intend this clear implication, then she is free to do so.

The other rock would be Aornus?.

No. As I said, the Rock of Sisimithres.

The slaughter at the Indian town on the Choes and in Sangala (which followed upon this) of both prisoners and the "sick" as well as combatants indicates , in fairly graphic terms, just what sort of "wonton killing" this Macedonian army was capable of - potential slaves or not under spear.

As for the Indian town on the Choes, Arrian 4.23.5 simply says that the Macedonians killed the fleeing Indians they captured out of anger that they had wounded Alexander. It is a testament of the army's affection for their king rather than a condemnation of Alexander.

As for Sangala, the deaths were during a sack by the army, because the defenders had refused to surrender. As for the sick, you appear to be referring to the circumstance (Arrian 5.24.7) where Alexander's army was in hot pursuit of Indians from neighbours of Sangala, whom Alexander had offered not to treat harshly if they stayed put and behaved in a friendly fashion towards him. Instead they fled, so Alexander sent his army in pursuit. They killed about 500 stragglers, who had fallen behind through infirmity. Then Alexander called a halt to the pursuit. It is hardly a condemnation of Alexander that his army killed stragglers of a hostile armed force, which had refused equitable terms of surrender.

As for the slaughter of the Indian mercenaries at Mazaga, Arrian 4.27.3 is clear that Alexander attacked them, because he had received credible intelligence that they intended to slip away at night in breach of an agreement to join his army and serve as mercenaries. In fact the Metz Epitome 44 basically supports this on behalf of the Vulgate tradition. Hence there is unanimity that Alexander had good cause to attack them.

As for later massacres in India, Arrian is clear that they occurred because the Indians had been whipped up into a frenzy of fanaticism by the Brahmins and preferred to commit suicide rather than surrender.

Alexander emerges relatively unscathed from all of this.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[abm]

Arimazes believing that his situation was desperate, whereas it was in fact not hopeless, came down to the king's camp with his relatives and the principal nobles of his race; Alexander ordered all these to be scourged and crucified at the very foot of the rock.

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

There is a clear implication by amyntoros that the scourging and killing of prisoners did not reflect badly on Alexander, because he did it to sate the bloodlust of his army. If amyntoros wishes to explain that she did not intend this clear implication, then she is free to do so.

It easy to prove a point by quoting selectively, but actually

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. Yes, when there are conflicting sources it is necessary to evaluate them and hope to come to a reasonable conclusion as to which is more credible. However, in this instance I wouldn't invalidate one version (and cast dispersions on its author) simply because the other has a kinder, more gentle Alexander. Curtius is quite credible here, IMO. Arimazes didn't surrender when Alexander first arrived at the rock but only when he thought he had been defeated; i.e., when he despaired of his situation. Given the draconian nature of warfare in Sogdia/Bactria up to this point in time it is not unreasonable to believe that Alexander would have inflicted severe punishment here in order to demonstrate to the remainder of the enemy what would happen to them if they sat on their "rocks" and resisted. Additionally, I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army. After all, many people on the rock were refugees whom the army had been pursuing. I don't see why Alexander would have necessarily looked kindly upon them after the surrender.

Saying that it is not unreasonable to believe that he did it, is not the same as saying he did a morally good thing doing it. And since it is in itself not implausible that Alexander would have done something like that, I agree with Amyntoros that this need not be a passage adapted to make Alexander look bad.

On another matter, Heckel's rather negative view on Hephaistion can already be read in Marshals of Alexander's Empire, so what he says now will probably be similar, but I haven't seen the new book yet.

[Taphoi]

Saying that it is not unreasonable to believe that he did it, is not the same as saying he did a morally good thing doing it.

I agree with you and I specifically did not have a problem with that part of amyntoros' statement, which is why I didn't quote it. My problem was with the idea that writing that Alexander ordered people who had surrendered to him to be scourged and crucified was not hostile to him (especially when it appears that Curtius' main source gave quite a different explanation of events, which reflected well upon Alexander).

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

That said I have to agree with Taphoi that it is more likely that Curtius is the author adapting his material; he is writing a full length history not epitomising an existing book; the evidence throughout of his own creativity is extensive. I would like to find a Roman parallel to prove the point though but can't think of one off hand, Caesar in Gaul perhaps but that would be old news by 70AD.

Hi Agesilaos. I understand what you are saying, but I think the question remains of just how much of Curtius can be put down to his own creativity. As you said, he is not epitomizing an existing book and we don't know exactly what information was in Trogus (and therefore Cleitarchus also) that Justin chose not to include. The same applies to the Metz Epitome (which is an extremely abridged account) and to Diodorus, albeit to a lesser degree, because his work on Alexander was part of a much greater project and his abbreviated details demonstrate that he didn't include everything that was known to him about Alexander. Now, we don't reject everything in Curtius as creativity because the book is replete with information of a geographical and militaristic nature not found elsewhere and frequently used and accepted by historians. Yet anything considered sensational or objectional is frequently dismissed by others as Curtius' imaginings in order to elaborate on his own (unknown) political viewpoint. Why could it not be that Curtius chose, at least sometimes, to include known information on Alexander from his sources, even if to prove his point – information that Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin did not include, for their various reasons? THAT'S always my question when it comes to generalizations of Curtius. Not that I'm saying the above applies to you, by the way – I'm referring to the more general attitude towards Curtius of which I am sure you are familiar.

Saying that it is not unreasonable to believe that he did it, is not the same as saying he did a morally good thing doing it.

I agree with you and I specifically did not have a problem with that part of amyntoros' statement, which is why I didn't quote it. My problem was with the idea that writing that Alexander ordered people who had surrendered to him to be scourged and crucified was not hostile to him (especially when it appears that Curtius' main source gave quite a different explanation of events, which reflected well upon Alexander).

Let me quote you on my not hostile to him remark then:

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

There is a clear implication by amyntoros that the scourging and killing of prisoners did not reflect badly on Alexander, because he did it to sate the bloodlust of his army. If amyntoros wishes to explain that she did not intend this clear implication, then she is free to do so.

Yes, I am free to do so and I will ... because (once again) the implication is yours and not mine. I will do this even though you omitted the word additionally as in "Additionally, I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army" thus manipulating the intent of my words. However, stating that I do not believe the statement in Curtius to be particularly hostile is not the same as saying it does not reflect badly on Alexander. Feel free to read on for further explanation.

I have to say that in the light of more recent Middle Eastern history it worries me when Americans say that they see nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him. It would have been very out of character for Alexander to execute supplicants. It would also have been very stupid, since it would have guaranteed that other "rocks" would have held out to the last man and caused Alexander a lot of trouble. Actually, however, Sisimithres surrendered himself and his family to Alexander's mercy following a brief siege of his "rock" a little later (Curtius 8.2.19-33). That Sisimithres should take such a risk tends to lend the lie to Curtius' account of the slaughter of Ariomazes. The Metz Epitome is far more credible on Ariomazes in the light of Curtius' subsequent narrative. The army btw would not have welcomed the wanton killing of potential slaves and serfs.

The circumstances at the rock are not an instance of immediate supplication and surrender to Alexander. It was taken with difficulty and we all know what happened in many other cities when the inhabitants did not immediately surrender to Alexander. After first refusing to surrender and then being cleverly manipulated to change their mind, the inhabitants of the rock became Alexander's prisoners. It is not at all out of character for Alexander to punish his prisoners. The Greek mercenaries taken at the Granicus were sent to hard labor in Macedonia to live what would have been a short, torturous life with an inevitable early death. (Arrian 1.16.6)

In his first encounter with the Mallians (Arrian 6.6.1-5) the people had fled to a city through a waterless region and because they were not expecting Alexander's troops to have followed them most of them were outside the city walls and unarmed – what else could they have been but supplicants when they had no weapons? Yet they were struck down to a man and given no opportunity to surrender. I think one could call that wanton killing of potential slaves and serfs if one wished to do so. Do you consider this "very stupid" on Alexander's part in that it guaranteed resistance from all other Malli afterwards and "caused Alexander a lot of trouble." It did, in fact, very nearly cost him his life.

According to both Diodorus (17.84.1-6) and Plutarch (Alexander 59.3-4) Indian mercenaries were slaughtered after having made a truce with Alexander. Only Arrian claims they were killed because they were intending to desert. Here we have a similar situation as with the two differing accounts of the surrender of the rock. Do we not have an example of Diodorus' probable "fairly straightforward summary of Cleitarchus" here? You said that both Diodorus and the Metz Epitome are "fairly neutral in their reporting of events and this probably reflects their source." So we should accept this neutral account of Alexander "executing an enemy who has surrendered to him," should we not? Or must we instead embrace the apologetic version in Arrian in order for Alexander to emerge "relatively unscathed"?

And, in addition, the Branchidae were welcoming supplicants to Alexander. But that's Curtius again, which I suppose leaves it open to be rejected as fiction on his part.

What we have above are actions by Alexander according to various circumstances – actions all taken for different reasons which I'm not going to take the time to go into here and which don't require explanation from yourself or others because I'm familiar with the sources. It is understood that Alexander responded variably in different situations and most of the time had good reason (in his mind) for his actions. My point is that the above examples demonstrate that Curtius' account of the surrender of the rock should not be considered isolated behavior and my opinion of why events there might be true is as valid as any other - which is why I won't just dismiss his version as being "hostile to Alexander" and commit without reservation to believing it to be a fictional account written only to further Curtius' agenda. (Or that Curtius was confused.) That it appears to be the only instance of Alexander punishing a stronghold that had surrendered does not mean that it couldn't have happened. If it DID happen then it is factual rather than "hostile." That's the difference.

Returning to another statement of yours (see the beginning of this post for the full quote):

... Sisimithres surrendered himself and his family to Alexander's mercy following a brief siege of his "rock" a little later (Curtius 8.2.19-33). That Sisimithres should take such a risk tends to lend the lie to Curtius' account of the slaughter of Ariomazes. The Metz Epitome is far more credible on Ariomazes in the light of Curtius' subsequent narrative.

Between the taking of the rock and Sisimithres' surrender Alexander fragmented his forces in pursuit of the enemy. According to Curtius (8.1.2) "… the barbarians were not all similarly inclined: some had been beaten into submission, though the majority had accepted Alexander's authority without military confrontation. Alexander ordered that the latter should receive the cities and land belonging to those who had persisted in their insurrection." Subsequently, Alexander cut down a thousand Dahae; accepted allegiance from some of the Scythians; defeated with difficulty some 2,500 Bactrian exiles and then pardoned their second defection. (I'm sure we all know how Alexander switched tactics in Bactria/Sogdia when his original policy did not work.) Might not these events have played a part in Sisimithres' decision to surrender? How is it possible to take two events in isolation and say that the one must have affected the other simply because it happened 'a little later' as if there was a vacuum in between? Further to this, Frank Holt in his Alexander the Great and Bactria notes on page 66 that there is much chronological confusion in the histories at this point – he calls it a tangle that is all but overwhelming. He does, however, tell us that Oxyartes assisted Alexander in subsequent negotiations with Sisimithres/Chorienes and that they surrendered only after an extensive siege during a prolonged winter. Meaning there's no evidence to prove that Ariomazes and his rock, whatever happened there, was the sole reason or even a strong influence on this outcome.

I have to say that in the light of more recent Middle Eastern history it worries me when Americans say that they see nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him.

I did not say it was "unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who had surrendered to him." I said it is "not unreasonable to believe that Alexander would have inflicted severe punishment here in order to demonstrate to the remainder of the enemy what would happen to them if they sat on their rocks and resisted." I was/am discussing what source excerpts I believe to be credible concerning Alexander. You have manipulated it into a discussion of what you see as my political beliefs impacting on my reasoning and therefore the credibility of my argument. You have NO idea of my politics or my opinion of more recent Middle Eastern history - neither topic has ever been discussed by me on this forum - and by this attempt to discredit me personally, even though you’ve generalized this statement to read Americans, you are making an ad hominem argument. This happens now almost every time that I disagree with your opinion of the sources. It must be apparent to all that we have different outlooks on Alexander. It ought to be possible to disagree with me without resorting to thinly disguised personal remarks and constantly misreading "implications" into my words.

I will leave it to our US members to reflect upon your worries about Americans. And lastly … for your information … I am not American.

Regards,

[jan]

and I thank you and can't wait til you read this book. Sometimes, I think authors may even dare to make what looks like editorial guffaws only to be certain that the reader will do something about it, like look the subject up, or ask questions on Pothos. Police are known to do that often in newspaper stories, and I dare say some professors might do likewise if it suits their purposes. One thing I notice is that Waldemar Heckel likes to compare different people of history to Alexander in this book, so at times one wonders who he may be thinking his readership to be. As a result of just this one footnote, I have researched two other books to see their treatment of this same episode, and nary a one mentions a thing about the flogging. Usually, Heckel mentions the source he is using, but in this case, something became quite garbled, and it may or may not have been intentional.

My problem is that I do not carry the book with me so that when I am writing about this, I am drawing upon memory. But that one particularly annoyed me, not that I believe it had anything to do with the degeneration of Alexander as I do not think that that is a sign of degeneration. Alexander is pretty consistent in his system of punishments and rewards. If Curtius is the only author who mentioned this incident as such, then I am likely to concur with others who sometimes think that Curtius just makes things up to suit his fancy. I read a preface to that effect once upon a time and have not forgotten it.

The real issue then is why Waldemar Heckle is using it in his book, as neither Lewis or Dodge bother to mention it at all. I like Heckle generally because he does at least always consider Alexander's intelligence as the cause of most of his behaviour, but some of his out of the blue statements make me question why he says such a thing. That is about the matter of Hephaestion. All I have ever read about Hephaestion is that he built a bridge with Perdiccas. I ask you, is that a sign of incompetence?

Well, just kidding, but when he decided that Alexander was not just a "spoiled brat" I thought maybe he was speaking to me. That gave me a chuckle!

Back to flogging and crucifying people, it makes sense to me if Alexander would have done that simply because of the nature of the slow death for a man who had jeered and taunted him about flying up the rock! If one is going to include that information, somehow it seems to me that the least he could have done is to discuss it a bit more.

When you read it, let me know what you think about it. My argument is that it is a consistent method of Alexander's reaction to insolence!

[Taphoi]

In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

Hi Amyntoros,

Very happy that you have withdrawn the implication from the above comment that it was okay for Alexander to scourge and crucify people who had surrendered to him in order to appease his army. This arose from the unfortunate juxtaposition of the two statements, since the appeasement of the army seemed intended as the justification for Curtius' accusation not being hostile. I am sure you will agree that if a Pothos comment did say that such bad behaviour from Alexander could be justified by a need to appease his army, then that would deserve to be attacked by other Pothosians.

Perhaps you could be considered an honorary American, since your avatar has lived in New York City for so long

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Theseus]

Okay, I have to get this book! I would love to read a book from a perspecitve like this author seems to have done. I have to get to a book store soon!