Hello again, Phoebus!Phoebus wrote:And I have found it both very enjoyable and refreshing to read yours and Paralus' viewpoints. Sure, we might not agree on everything, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing well-thought out, informed points of view. On a topic such as this, lacking much amplifying data as it is, I wouldn't really dream of converting people to my POV.amyntoros wrote:I ought to finish now by saying that I'm not trying to win you over to my viewpoint but am merely trying to explain my own.
I went to the library yesterday with a list of around ten books from my wish-list which are available for loan. A couple of the books I may never be able to find (or afford) for sale and the rest are books that I'd like to examine before buying. One of the latter is G. T. Griffith's The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. I wasn't sure if I really wanted this book given its publication date of 1935 – scholarship has changed so much since then – but there really aren't that many books on the subject. As it happens, this is definitely a book I want to own. And more than that, Griffith, whilst proposing that it was mostly mercenaries whom Alexander settled in his cities (he states that "clearly they are the part of the army which he could best spare for that purpose") offers an opinion that compares in many ways with your own. I'll post the excerpt here and will add only one small comment. Whereas Griffith speaks of Greeks and Barbarians "side by side" I would say it was more like "above and below." Other than that (and noting that he also mentions Isocrates
) I’ll say nothing because my own opinions are evident in this thread. Just thought you might enjoy this:Best regards,Page 24-25 …These new cities of soldier-hill-peoples were, it is true, necessary for the pacification of the wild hill-peoples in the far-eastern satrapies; but it must be almost certain that they had a deeper significance than that. It was part of Alexander's ideal of empire that his peace should be not merely imposed from without, but should take root and grow spontaneously from within: and his conquered subjects were to be not a stubborn but a fertile and eager soil. He was to be their king, and not a king of Macedonians and Greeks exploiting the conquered. That is the meaning of his Persian clothes and his Persian wife, his encouragement of Eurasian marriages, his scheme for training the young men of his new subjects to be soldiers in his own army. And so too with his new cities. They were to be focuses of Greek life and civilization; or perhaps rather magnets of attraction for the vicinities in which they were placed. In some cases they are known to have been mixed foundations from the first, of Greeks and barbarians living side by side, and this may have been the ultimate object, if it was not the first condition, of every foundation. Such was perhaps the primary function of the settlements; but incidentally Alexander was also putting into practice the cure of Isocrates for the economic problem in Greece. That the new settlers were to prove bad patients was, it may be said, no fault of Alexander. His plan was grand and simple, involving a sublime disregard of the individual that laid it open to the risk of becoming a magnificent failure. It is certain that the Greeks did not take to the new life, but the underlying causes of their revolt from it are concealed. Probably when they found themselves established in their new homes they realized that this was not what they had come forth to see. The natives may have been troublesome – we hear of friction in one city. The biggest trouble may have been nostalgia: perhaps, like the Eretrians carried into captivity by Darius, they missed the sea. Their effort to regain it will be described.