Alexander the Great Failure- John D Grainger

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Just want to differ with you, Phoebus, on one point.
Obviously being able to do something doesn't necessarily make it right, but I would argue that much of Alexander's spending was centered on making what he saw as a necessary evil possible. That is, the continuation and fruition of the military campaigns that made the conquest of his empire possible.
I don't think Alexander saw conquest as a necessary evil. While I disagree with Paralus that his express goal was hunting around for free people to enslave -- all it meant to most average people was that the surplus value of their labour would be creamed off by a different elite -- I don't think it's plausible to doubt that the man loved to fight and loved to conquer. It was his life, and, in his mind, not only a worthy calling, but a divine one. And his people, in general, agreed; when they argued with him they never said anything like, "We should just live happily and peacefully within our borders because conquest is bad." The Persians didn't have anything against conquest as a concept either, else they wouldn't have had an empire; nor the various Greek city-states, as they'd worn each other out in wars as each tried to dominate the others. War as a noble calling, albeit sometimes tragic, is the key theme in the whole Homeric ethos, to which Makedonians unapologetically aspired.

With regard to the question of producing heirs, I was thinking about this further yesterday, and it really was a tricky thing for a Makedonian king, with several sets of Skylla and Charibdis to walk through. Obviously he should marry fairly young, so as not to risk getting killed in battle before siring heirs at all -- but who should he marry? There was always the risk, as Amyntoros pointed out, of offending one noble house by marrying into another. He could avoid this by marrying only foreign princesses to cement his victories and alliances -- something that was probably sometimes required. But then he risked offending all the noble houses by choosing none of them... and having people question the legitimacy of his heirs because they aren't full-blood Makedonian, as Attalos did with Alexander.

Then there was the question of, how many heirs to produce? Too few and you might end up with none, setting up for a succession war among other noble houses. Too many, especially from different mothers, and they might have a succession war among themselves. It wasn't as if the king could precisely control how many heirs he had, either; he might be infertile, one or more wives might be infertile, the babies might turn out to be stillborn, girls or defective boys, wives might die in childbirth, kids might die of diseases, etc. etc. etc. He had to make calculated gambles.

I think what a king would have wanted the most would be to produce several competent sons who were willing to work as a team for the good of the kingdom, rather than off each other, so that if the eldest were killed in battle, the second could take over, and so on. Alexander had, as an example, an ancestor who had done just that: his grandfather, Amyntas III. When his oldest son, Alexander II, died, his second, Perdikkas III, took over, and on his death the third son, Philip II, became regent for Perdikkas's infant son Amyntas IV, and was acclaimed king later. I think the fact that Philip didn't have Amyntas killed, when he might prove a threat on reaching manhood, bespeaks not only the practical need for male heirs, but affection for his late brother... which Alexander III, of course, didn't share, having never known him. Proving, of course, that even this relatively stable model had its dangers... it might even boomerang on the king himself if his tight team of sons decided to team up against him.

Still, it argued for choosing one main wife and begetting heirs from her; without being raised by competing mothers, they'd more likely get along. But then what if that one wife proved barren, or produced only girls, etc. ...? And so the thorny problem goes. History proves that sustaining dynasties in general, in cultures where kings risk their necks on the battlefield, is a very difficult thing, and depended very much on sheer luck. I'm sure it's one reason they eventually quit risking their necks.

The odds of ensuring a stable succession were tough enough for a king who survives long enough for his heirs to grow up; note that two out of three of Amyntas's sons died, so that one more death would have wiped the line out. For one who dies young, before his sons are old enough to build their own power-bases of followers... I wonder how many examples history can furnish us, of a fighting king of a warlike people who died 32 or younger and was succeeded by his progeny, whether they were infants or 12-year-olds on his death. I'm going to guess very, very few.

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

Post by Phoebus »

karen wrote:I don't think Alexander saw conquest as a necessary evil.
Neither do I. I was rushing, and I phrased my thoughts poorly. I may see conquest as a necessary (depending on the time and place) evil, but I should not have ever implied Alexander necessarily did.

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

Post by Paralus »

karen wrote:I don't think Alexander saw conquest as a necessary evil.
No, he did not see it as evil in any way. Necessary but not ever evil.
karen wrote:While I disagree with Paralus that his express goal was hunting around for free people to enslave -- all it meant to most average people was that the surplus value of their labour would be creamed off by a different elite -- I don't think it's plausible to doubt that the man loved to fight and loved to conquer. It was his life, and, in his mind, not only a worthy calling, but a divine one.
He did no exactly “hunt around” for free people to enslave and nor have I said so. His actions do, though, indicate that he was gripped by a strong pothos when reports of another nation, yet to submit, reached him. It occurs in India and is, ostensibly, his expressed reason for the planned invasion of Arabia.

If Alexander had a career it was conquering. He enjoyed it and to do so he then enjoyed the means that most often achieved it: war and the utter defeat and destruction of armies raised to protect independence. He was also very good at it.

Most “average people”, by which I take it you refer to the native populations, had just a little more than their “surplus labour creamed off”. Many were enslaved and transplanted to support the garrison implants of the frontiers. They lived to support these military overlords.

Those in the west seemed only to have changed treasuries into which to pay. The Hellenistic kingdoms to follow would live fine off the labour of the native populations who had no participation in the state and little choice but to support the armies and elites of the their conquerors.
karen wrote: And his people, in general, agreed; when they argued with him they never said anything like, "We should just live happily and peacefully within our borders because conquest is bad." The Persians didn't have anything against conquest as a concept either, else they wouldn't have had an empire
Certainly his army had few qualms – until the end – as they were, in large part, enriched by the sacking and plunder of cities and nations defeated in the field. Instance the attested booty of a lifetimes’ campaigning of the Argyraspids.
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
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:Most “average people”, by which I take it you refer to the native populations, had just a little more than their “surplus labour creamed off”. Many were enslaved and transplanted to support the garrison implants of the frontiers. They lived to support these military overlords.
While I don't disagree with the general thrust of what you're saying, I would suggest that it might be a bit easy to over-generalise both ways. What do we mean by "many"? After all, we don't have any idea what percentage of the native populations actually were hived off into the new foundations. I certainly think that it's wrong to refer to those disposed-of as "surplus labour" because it's very clear that they were not chosen for reasons of over-extended workforce; but there's a danger that people might read what you say as "the majority of the population", and we don't know it was that at all. :shock:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Hi Paralus, hope you enjoyed the dinner. And if that was a shorter answer, I'm not sure I could cope with a long one! Seriously, though, I do appreciate the thought and detail that goes into your answers, even when I'm arguing with you. Just a couple of further points:
Paralus wrote:
You read an argument not made. At no stage did I suggest Alexander should have sat on his behind after Granicus or Issus and watched the public service grow.
You're right, sorry about that - I was misremembering an earlier post where you mentioned Thrace, Cappadocia, etc, but you were talking about them in 323 not 334.
Paralus wrote:
I disagree. Right from the start he was thinking of that glorious victory in the field against the King that would secure his objectives. All else followed. His actions in Asia Minor give a clear indication that his thinking was based on confrontation with and defeat of Darius in the field – one which would be totally decisive. On the way to that confrontation he needed to deal with coastal cities, Memnon’s Aegean war and the administration of what he’d won.
Fair enough - at least you're agreeing that he did give some thought to administration!
Paralus wrote:
Alexander’s appointments at this stage (satrapal) were, almost to a man, military. This will be because the territory needed defence. The military nature of these satraps would soon pay dividends - particularly Antigonus, Calas and Balacrus. What also is notable is the appointment – alongside these satraps – of officials whose job it was to look after the collection of tribute. Nicias in Lydia (Arr. 1.17.7) is one as was Philoxenus in southwest Asia Minor, Coeranus in Phoenicia and Asclepiodorus in Babylonia.
Yes, Antigonus had to keep the roads open, didn't he? Don't you see these appointments as keeping civilian and military responsibilities in separate hands, though? To the advantage of both? Or do you think the civilian officials were concerned with tribute only?
Paralus wrote:
And Parmenio was a traitorous mongrel plotting the murder of Alexander. Curtius says many things. Whether he was a lust crazed rapist or not Alexander, and the army, could well do without him. The charges may or may not have been true. Either way it is a better than fair bet that the army will not have disagreed with his – and the others’ – removal.
As you say, the charges may or may not have been true, and something so 'convenient' will always raise suspicion, but my point really is that the question of morality was at least around at the time (or at Curtius' time), and it isn't just a modern viewpoint.
Paralus wrote:
Alexander had no such qualms with Cleomenes’. This fellow, appointed to look after the tribute from Egypt, ran his own grain racket – and essentially the satrapy – to his immense profit. Restricting grain exports during the famine of the 320s he reaped a fortune from the duties and taxes as well as buying up the resultant surplus and on selling it at triple the price. He was smart enough to realise that some of that profit should also accrue to the king and so, far from being upbraided for his maladministration and abuse of the population, he was promoted to satrap.

The right man for the job apparently. One also of demonstrably high standards.
True, he's not a very moral man at all, is he? :)
But I do think that we shouldn't look for the 'real' Alexander in anything that he did after Hephaistion's death, at least not in things that go against the grain (excuse the pun) of his normal behaviour, and his leniency with Cleomenes, I think, is a case in point.
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

marcus wrote:While I don't disagree with the general thrust of what you're saying, I would suggest that it might be a bit easy to over-generalise both ways. What do we mean by "many"? After all, we don't have any idea what percentage of the native populations actually were hived off into the new foundations.
Yes, I should make it clear that the observation is made with reference to the synoecisms throughout Bactria, Sogdia, Arachosia and India. Without a copy of the sources at the office I can't give numbers - in fact it might be an interesting excercise to attempt a determination of those at some stage.

A reading of the population "engineering" that went on around these foundations or re-foundations gives the strong impression of the re-location and movement of many peoples. Many times it will have been the agglomerating of the surrounding villages into a support base for the newly implanted police force.

That some 20,000 of the implanted Greeks - and this likely does not represent the lot of them - coelesced into one force and moved west on news of Alexander's death indicates that there was a substantial population of the elite class for this native serf labour to support. Hence, one thinks, their numbers will have been reasonably large. This, of course, does not take account of those populations that did not survive Macedonian "reprisals".

In the west it was different but only slightly. Here insurrection lasted from Granicus to Gaugamela - or thereabouts. Antigonus, Calas and Balacrus fought several actions to bring the strong Persian counter attack under control. Outside of the Greek cities though, the local natives will have had little, if any, say in the governance of their lands and will have provided support for the ruling elite. the synoecisms of the east were not exactly necessary here.

Cities such as Antioch say more about how the Seleucids saw themselves - much as Alexandria in Egypt would about its founder.

Enjoy youself in Iran you bugger: I'm exceedingly jealous though I don't see how I'd convince my wife and children that it was a good place to visit. You must take a decent digital camera and you simply must post the resultant images on Photobucket or some such lest I call for ostrka to be cast in your general direction.
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
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

It would be interesting to run down the list of cities and peoples he conquered, and enumerate how many surrendered and essentially just had to change the address to which they sent their tax money and levies of soldiers, vs. how many fought back and had their populations sold into slavery, massacred or whatever. Seems to me Arrian provided a pretty good record of this. This would give us a rough (well, okay... very rough) idea of the proportions of people who were left to live their lives as before vs. those who were not. A project for another day (or someone else.) My feeling is that the former were in the vast majority, and I think this in part because of my rough recollection of how many cities/tribes surrendered vs. how many fought, per Arrian, and in part because shipping off elsewhere a majority, or even a large minority, of the populations of the places he conquered would not have been logistically feasible in those days.

At any rate, Marcus is right that we don't know, so it's unscholarly to state, or even imply, "most," i.e. a majority, with certainty.
No, he did not see it as evil in any way. Necessary but not ever evil.
But you can't justly single him out for that. His culture agreed and so did the major cultures he faced (else they wouldn't have been major). He was taught the techniques by his father (both by example and, I would think, instruction) and the mission of conquering Persia, he inherited from his father. His army had no qualms ever about conquest being a worthy endeavour, and it wasn't just about booty; it was about proving themselves heroes in the Homeric mold, about living, to borrow Pressfield's title, the virtues of war. (I don't agree with that whole ethic; I'm just describing it as it was.)
His actions do, though, indicate that he was gripped by a strong pothos when reports of another nation, yet to submit, reached him.
But every nation was yet to submit to him (most of them had previously submitted to Persia, one way or another) before he got to it; his course wasn't determined by reports, but by a larger plan of his own.
The Hellenistic kingdoms to follow would live fine off the labour of the native populations who had no participation in the state and little choice but to support the armies and elites of the their conquerors.
Can you name any society in that general period -- pre or post-Alexander -- in which anyone but the elite participated in affairs of state, and had a choice whether to support the army and elite?

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

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:Hi Paralus, hope you enjoyed the dinner. And if that was a shorter answer, I'm not sure I could cope with a long one! Seriously, though, I do appreciate the thought and detail that goes into your answers, even when I'm arguing with you.
I enjoyed it immensely I must say. The char kuay teow , butter prawns, beef rending, sambal octopus, chicken rice and hor fun was good. The fish head curry left a bit to be desired: curry my left foot; coconut soup more to the point. Still, amply compensated for by the Sandhurst Ridge Cabernet. And the best thing? Mrs Paralus (should that be Salaminia?) had only the one glass and others showed no interest. So much the better: more for moi!!

Thank you for the nice words.
Fiona wrote:
Paralus wrote:
You read an argument not made. At no stage did I suggest Alexander should have sat on his behind after Granicus or Issus and watched the public service grow.
You're right, sorry about that - I was misremembering an earlier post where you mentioned Thrace, Cappadocia, etc, but you were talking about them in 323 not 334.
Yes: that was the original point. One can argue timescales or whatever (1,000 triremes?) but it seems clear that he had little interest in the seemingly autonomous Thracian kingdom, Armenia or Cappadocia. His eyes were firmly on Arabia and points west as well as his regent in Macedonian who he was replacing with what appears a reluctant Craterus.

Of course we will not ever know if he intended driving north before departure to settle this but, as I say, there is no indication of this.


Fiona wrote:Yes, Antigonus had to keep the roads open, didn't he? Don't you see these appointments as keeping civilian and military responsibilities in separate hands, though? To the advantage of both? Or do you think the civilian officials were concerned with tribute only?
It’s reasonably clear that his early satrapal appointments were more concerned with the territory and its defence. Rightly so: some of the areas he left were hardly pacified and harboured a strong Persian resistance which, after Issus, broke out into a directed insurgency backed by Memnon’s campaign (under orders from the King) to hold or retake the coastal cities and near shore Islands.

The civilian appointments were solely concerned with the collection and management of the tribute.
Fiona wrote:As you say, the charges may or may not have been true, and something so 'convenient' will always raise suspicion, but my point really is that the question of morality was at least around at the time (or at Curtius' time), and it isn't just a modern viewpoint.
Fair enough. My view was that these were quite likely charges of convenience. He had, by this time, a rather recalcitrant, at best, army. Dispatching the murderers of the popular strategos most likely was calculated to help. It certainly didn’t hurt.

There seemed no reason for the running through of Abilutes’ son and I think that some of the others are made to seem worse than they were. The exercise was one warning and it was heeded: Antipater in no way shape or form was going to present himself at court.

Perdiccas and Antigonus learned well.
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
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

karen wrote:At any rate, Marcus is right that we don't know, so it's unscholarly to state, or even imply, "most," i.e. a majority, with certainty.
Our posts crossed in the server I see. Much will have been addressed in my previous effort.

The word used was "many"; most was your word. Again, the reference is to the garrison towns of Bactria, Sogdia, Arachosia and India. There is near constant mention of Ptolemy, Hepaestion or Perdiccas off creating these towns via synoecism. At other times Alexander is transplanting conquered populations, made slaves, to new foundations. I would suggest that the numbers are decent.

Indeed, in the Indus basin he had to convince the residents of particular city to return with promises that that they would keep their possessions. The word, evidently, had spread.

The rest (the Hellenistic kingdoms) is more to balance the rosy view of the the spread of civilisation and Hellenic virtue as the reason for these foundations. Alexandria is a good example: the Egyptians were the constant underclass in their own land. There was never any attempt to integrate them socially or culturally. The Graeco/Macedonian elite essentially lived as a parasite off their labour. So much so that no sooner had the locals been drafted and trained for Raphia - and the battle fought and won - than they promptly took matters into their own hands and attempted to remove the parasite.

That the Ptolemies adopted the trappings of Egypt in no way indicates their becoming Egyptian. Cyrus too was to adopt the trappings of the Babylonians. It was a way of appearing less alien. And, in the same way, you have the frequent (in Near Eastern history) "restoration" of the statues, idols etc.
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
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

The word used was "many"; most was your word.
Paralus, what you wrote exactly was (emphasis added):
Most “average people”, by which I take it you refer to the native populations, had just a little more than their “surplus labour creamed off”. Many were enslaved and transplanted to support the garrison implants of the frontiers. They lived to support these military overlords.


This wording makes it quite plausible that your intended implication was that a majority were enslaved and transplanted. Certainly many (perhaps most) would read it that way, as Marcus noted:
there's a danger that people might read what you say as "the majority of the population", and we don't know it was that at all.
In response to him you wrote:
Yes, I should make it clear that the observation is made with reference to the synoecisms throughout Bactria, Sogdia, Arachosia and India.
...but I did not see that before answering.

I hope you will grant that the ambiguity of the original paragraph cast Alexander in a worse light than he would otherwise be cast.

Seems you and I are both curious about the numbers.

I'm still interested to know:
Can you name any society in that general period -- pre or post-Alexander -- in which anyone but the elite participated in affairs of state, and had a choice whether to support the army and elite?
Karen
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Ahem.! Before we begin adding emphasis:
karen wrote:While I disagree with Paralus that his express goal was hunting around for free people to enslave -- all it meant to most average people was that the surplus value of their labour would be creamed off by a different elite -- I don't think it's plausible to doubt that the man loved to fight and loved to conquer.
If I am guilty of anything it is of being too slack to use the “quote facility” and of misplacing the quotation mark around your phrase which I was addressing. Hence the remark: "by which I take it you refer to..."

And yes, the view is of the action taken in the eastern satrapies and the numbers do interest me. I must – time permitting with S’pore relos in town (I’m the chef for Friday night and a drink is on tonight) – have a scan of the extant material.

I wonder if anyone has attempted it?
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
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

But you still did write "most," Paralus, and the meaning of the sentence doesn't change even if it's referring to a point of mine. I stand by my "most" (as I said, I think the overall numbers would likely confirm it) and still dispute yours, as a blurring of fact.

I don't know whether anyone has attempted it... it may be that the historians all decided that they'd be "barking mad" to do so, as you wrote of me when I was trying to add up how many people died as a result of Alexander's campaigns. (You were correct, perhaps, as I never did finish... for most incidents there are simply no numbers.) Perhaps Amyntoros knows.

Cheerio, off to bed...
Karen
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

karen wrote:But you still did write "most," Paralus, and the meaning of the sentence doesn't change even if it's referring to a point of mine.
Well, no, I copied “most” as I did “average people…” from your post. It was that which I was addressing. The actual words, I thought, made that plain. As well, I thought I’d made the point that I was referring to the Eastern frontiers plain – even though I went to pains to subsequently make clear my meaning:
Paralus wrote:Most “average people”, by which I take it you refer to the native populations, had just a little more than their “surplus labour creamed off”. Many were enslaved and transplanted to support the garrison implants of the frontiers. They lived to support these military overlords.
Without speaking for him, Marcus seems to have understood when he asks the meaning of the word I used:
marcus wrote:
Paralus wrote:Most “average people”, by which I take it you refer to the native populations, had just a little more than their “surplus labour creamed off”. Many were enslaved and transplanted to support the garrison implants of the frontiers. They lived to support these military overlords.
While I don't disagree with the general thrust of what you're saying, I would suggest that it might be a bit easy to over-generalise both ways. What do we mean by "many"?
But, as a gentleman and being no cad, I shall allow you the “ambiguity of the original paragraph”.
Can you name any society in that general period -- pre or post-Alexander -- in which anyone but the elite participated in affairs of state, and had a choice whether to support the army and elite?
If one ignores the institution of slavery, Greece. That, though, was not the original point. That point was that these towns and Alexander’s rule was no Athens in Asia writ large. These peoples were not “liberated from the Persian yoke”, rather the owner of the yoke changed but its nature remained largely consistent. There was a ruling class and a subservient class. Participation in the affairs of the city or state in the conquered Persian east was limited - just as in the homeland - to the Greek/Macedonian population. This was no grand Hellenising crusade throughout the Persian Empire to bring enlightenment to those oppressed by the Persians.

Oddly enough, given that these cultures flourished under Achaemenid rule, they might be forgiven for thinking that the oppression was coming from the west?

See you in the morning...er..evening..depending what time it is wherever.
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
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

These peoples were not “liberated from the Persian yoke”, rather the owner of the yoke changed but its nature remained largely consistent.
In a way yes. But we must take into account the cultural changes and other elements. For example many Persian Empire citizens being educated in a different way, which leads in a different way of thinking. Also, in the occassion of assembling an army, Alexander wouldnt probably assemble 300.000 or more Persians as the Persian Kings used to, due to different strategy. Plus, the soldiers were treated differently, and not all like just sheeps for slaughter, as the Persian Kings used them.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios wrote:
These peoples were not “liberated from the Persian yoke”, rather the owner of the yoke changed but its nature remained largely consistent.
In a way yes. But we must take into account the cultural changes and other elements. For example many Persian Empire citizens being educated in a different way, which leads in a different way of thinking. Also, in the occassion of assembling an army, Alexander wouldnt probably assemble 300.000 or more Persians as the Persian Kings used to, due to different strategy. Plus, the soldiers were treated differently, and not all like just sheeps for slaughter, as the Persian Kings used them.
Efstathios, I feel like you've gone finishing, hooked me, and I'm now being "reeled in." :lol: Still, I can't help but ask … When did the Persian Kings use their soldiers as sheep for slaughter and how did the situation differ from Alexander's treatment of Persian soldiers in his army? I understand the use of different strategies in that Alexander had never felt the NEED to assemble an army of the magnitude you have stated, but that doesn't indicate a different treatment of his soldiers, Persian or otherwise. Remember too that Alexander died before he had used the bulk of his Persian forces in any campaign, although various Successors used them to their advantage.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Post Reply