Alexander the Great Failure- John D Grainger

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

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

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote: 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.
Stathi, without opening that interminable debate, Alexander will not ever have raised such forces because the Persians never did. The logistics - 2,400 year old logistics - make the wielding and supporting of such an army an impossible task.

Any reading of Diodorus' books 18&19 will quickly and succinctly demonstrate the difficulties of massing armies totalling (Eumenes' and Antigonus' together) some 70,000 - the biggest armies operating in the immediate Diadoch period - specifically the billeting and feeding. Indeed the battle of Paraetacene was fought largely over foraging rights to the unplundered Gabiene. After the battle of Gabiene Antigonus has to split his forces (now numbering near to 70,000) so as to provision them. At Issus in 301 we can see some 150,000 men in the field - both sides taken together - and this from, essentially, the entire empire less Egypt. Money was not limiting the size of these arrays but you can bet logistics and provisioning certainly did.

In 190, at the seminal battle of Magnesia, Antiochus III (“The Great”) defended his empire against Eumenes and Rome with 70,000 men and elephants. This was a do or die struggle and his force was assembled from an empire that ran all the way to the Hindu Kush and included all territories in the old empire other than Egypt and the Pergamese territory in north-eastern Anatolia. Aparrently he felt no need to front up with 300-600,000 men as the Greek-Macedonian sources would have the Persians.
Interestingly, Rome settled this issue with two legions, 10,000 Italian allies and some 10,000 from Eumenes of Pergamum.

Hannibal, with some 50,000, was content to defeat some 80,000 Romans at Cannae. Scipio was content to defeat 50,000 odd Carthaginians at Zama. Flamininus was content to defeat 25,000 Macedonians at Cynoscephale. These are all sensible. It is only when we get to the Greeks and Macedonians that The Greeks must defeat 350,000 at Plataea; Xenophon has to face the flagrantly ridiculous figure of 900,000 Persians at Cunaxa; Alexander must defeat 600,000 and 1,000,000 Persians at Ipsus and Guagamela.

There is a serious problem here and it is not with the Persians or the Romans. Only Greeks and Macedonians feel the need to defeat huge hordes. The others are content to defeat armies of continent figures.
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: 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.)
From the "average" Macedonian phalangite's perspective, I would disagree. I'd suspect that there were very few "ordinary" infantrymen marching to war to become Homeric heroes. They marched because they were told to do so: they were employed in the "national" army. Certainly the Thracians, Thessalians and others were there for their pay.

You can bet had there been intermittent pay and little booty the Homeric hero reward will have bitten the dust in quick order. I doubt that any of them were dreaming of the "virtues of war" and homeric hero status as they sweated it out around Tyre.

When they set out from Macedonia for the Hellespont their heads will have harboured dreams of Persian gold and silver and they booty on offer. The Argyraspids certainly knew what they were there for:

Plutarch, Eum 18.1:
...but the Silver-shields shouted to lead him along and pay no attention to his babbling; for it was not so dreadful a thing, they said, that a pest from the Chersonesus should come to grief for having harassed Macedonians with infinite wars, as that the best of the soldiers of Philip and Alexander, after all their toils, should in their old age be robbed of their rewards and get their support from others...
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 »

Amyntoros:

The Persian Kings did not hesitate sending masses of troops against an army that kept literally slaughtering them, either in Thermopylae, or in Gaugamela against the Sarisas e.t.c. Alexander wouldnt have followed the same tactic even if he had the masses that the Persians had. The Persian Kings were mostly depending on big numbers and less on the skill of the troops.

This has been discussed before. Without wanting to diminish the skill of some of the Persian troops, in whole the Greek armies had a far more advanced battle skill. From the use of weapons and training, to the use of Pankration at unarmed combat.

Michael:

I will respond a little bit later to the numbers' issue. There is a big difference between 300.000 and 600.000. The first is doable, the second probably not. Just remember that the Khan was marching with 200.000 horsemen. Most of them Mongols. The Persian Empire had way more man power throught the provinces.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

I have many posts to catch up with, but I wanted to say something here, quickly:

I don't think it's fair to say that Dareius simply kept throwing armies carelessly at Alexander. Each of the three pitched battles (Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela) was fought differently, and, in fact, Granicus was not fought by the Great King.

Issus and Gaugamela lack the detail we would like to have for definitive accounts, but they show us enough that we can say that Dareius had a game plan each time.

At Issus, Dareius hoped that with his Greek mercenaries and Asian cavalry he could match Alexander. Given the quality of these troops (Alexander came to employ the same cavalry, and the hoplites at the very least held their own), I don't see this plan as being far-fetched.

At Gaugamela, Dareius, now without infantry capable of matching the phalanx head-on, decided to use his numerical superiority in cavalry to get a double-envelopment. Again, a good use of his strength and an avoidance of his weakness.

Numbers:
Where numbers go, I believe Dareius enjoyed a numerical advantage somewhere between 2-1 and perhaps as high as 4-1. Logistics are at their hardest when one is invading--and thus limited to the general vicinity for drawing the needed resources and a narrow footprint for his logistical train. Dareius faced neither limitation at Issus or Gaugamela.

This is conjecture on my part, but, with an excellent communication system and command over the vast majority of his empire, a sizeable army could have been drawn from a variety of locations and maintained for some time via a number of trains. Engels theorizes that the one time Dareius ran into logistical trouble was prior to Issus, when his stationary army, far from his heartlands, was consuming faster than it could be replenished.
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Michael:

I find this page very informative about the numbers. It includes most of the specculations and studies about the army size at the Greek-Persian wars of 480.

http://www.metrum.org/perwars/persize.htm

You can see that some of these studies that were proposed at the early 1900 are simply ridiculous, as they say that the Persian army was no more than 25.000 or 15.000 soldiers. It reminds me of famous statements like that something that is heavier than the air, cannot fly, e.t.c. I dont know what was in the minds of those people.

I agree with the writer's oppinion that the size of the army was about 300.000 soldiers or more, and 50.000 horsemen, plus one non combatant for each combatant. Which means around 700.000-800.000 total size of combatants and non combatants. There are good indications that Xerxes doubled the invasion army, from 150.000 soldiers to 300.000 .

Also, one good point is that the Greeks avoided battle for almost two years. We must consider the demographics of Greece at the time. Athens only could gather more than 20.000 soldiers on the field, and Sparta even more. The 100.000 Greeks at the battle of Chaeronea dont seem an exaggerated number. Had the Persians been only 100.000 or 150.000, the Greeks could have faced them easily. In order not doing so, the Persian army must have been way more than that.

And i still believe that it may had been more than 300-400.000. Herodotus may had exagerrated at numbers, but he gives a very good description of battle preparations of the Persians which justifies a very large army size.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Paralus wrote:We’ve been here before about these “cities”.
Aye, we have. :)
Ai Khanum (most likely Alexander on the Oxus) clearly displays all the hallmarks of a Greek implant. The town was already well established – indeed some of the prior Achaemenid traces remain. One can wax lyrical about the gymnasium, theatre and agora but it was for the elite, not the local serfs transferred to serve it or the prior residents forced to serve their military masters.
No argument here...
It is no coincidence that most of these – in fact the great bulk – are implanted throughout the difficult frontiers of Bactria, Sogdia and India. That is because they were garrison towns.
Colonies often start this way.
These were no Athens in Arachosia. They were a hardship and imposition on the locals and resented by the Greeks settled there who lost no time in leaving once they thought Alexander dead.
That they ended up the way they did can be attributed to the fact that, upon his death, Alexander's generals focused their energy and resources on fighting against one another rather than building the empire.

Also, see below.
Alexandria in Egypt was the exception that proves the rule.
Of course it does. It was created in what amounted to friendly territory within the bounds of what Alexander understood to be "civilization". Nonetheless, even Alexandria took some years to grow. It didn't sprout overnight.

The eastern Alexandrias, on the other hand, had everything going against them. Was there an alternative for those eastern provinces, though? What was it, to NOT colonize Bactria, Sogdiana, etc? Of course not. But any effort to the contrary would have started with frontier towns and garrison outposts. Variants of "Fort Wilderness", as it where.

You say that you think it fanciful for anything else to have been intended for those towns. Had Alexander not died when he did, would you seriously argue that his desired endstate for these towns was to serve as depository--and eventual cemetary--for the crippled or infirm? Or would it be plausible that the Greek-speaking inhabitants would decide to revolt while he still breathed? Of course not.

At the very least, we see evidence of an effort to exert some level of regional control. If that is the case, then how can one argue that the alpha and omega of those areas would have been a dusty, cut-off existence?
It is well to remember though that, as elsewhere, the locals were the service staff upon whose back the Macedonians and Greeks grazed.
Agreed.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios wrote:Amyntoros:

The Persian Kings did not hesitate sending masses of troops against an army that kept literally slaughtering them, either in Thermopylae, or in Gaugamela against the Sarisas e.t.c. Alexander wouldnt have followed the same tactic even if he had the masses that the Persians had. The Persian Kings were mostly depending on big numbers and less on the skill of the troops.

This has been discussed before. Without wanting to diminish the skill of some of the Persian troops, in whole the Greek armies had a far more advanced battle skill. From the use of weapons and training, to the use of Pankration at unarmed combat.
Others are responding on military matters much better than I ever could, so I'll only add the following. Although the Greeks and Macedonians had "a far more advanced battle skill" and Alexander used different and successful tactics, it does not follow that the Persian kings thought of their soldiers as sheep for slaughter. IMO, the reason that the Persians lost was because of their long history of military tradition which they were slow to adapt and change. However, it seems like you were implying the kings thought the lives of their men were of no worth, as in "I've got vastly more soldiers so I'll just throw men at the Greeks until the enemy is too exhausted to kill any more of them." Just like the Greeks and Macedonians, the Persians went into battle expecting to win. That the differently trained Persian troops under Alexander would have won their battles, no doubt, doesn't mean that the nature of the "yoke" had changed or that Alexander treated them better, or cared more about them, or that the life of the average Persian under Alexander was completely different, which is what your original response to Paralus seems to imply. Or am I misinterpreting your meaning?
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.
Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Phoebus wrote:
Alexandria in Egypt was the exception that proves the rule.
Of course it does. It was created in what amounted to friendly territory within the bounds of what Alexander understood to be "civilization". Nonetheless, even Alexandria took some years to grow. It didn't sprout overnight.

The eastern Alexandrias, on the other hand, had everything going against them. Was there an alternative for those eastern provinces, though? What was it, to NOT colonize Bactria, Sogdiana, etc? Of course not. But any effort to the contrary would have started with frontier towns and garrison outposts. Variants of "Fort Wilderness", as it where.

You say that you think it fanciful for anything else to have been intended for those towns. Had Alexander not died when he did, would you seriously argue that his desired endstate for these towns was to serve as depository--and eventual cemetary--for the crippled or infirm? Or would it be plausible that the Greek-speaking inhabitants would decide to revolt while he still breathed? Of course not.

At the very least, we see evidence of an effort to exert some level of regional control. If that is the case, then how can one argue that the alpha and omega of those areas would have been a dusty, cut-off existence?
If I may interject a comment of my own here: Do you not think that if the empire had continued, then the development and growth of the eastern frontier outposts would have been no more than a natural course of events? Yes, they had potential to grow into thriving cities under Macedonian rule and influence, but it seems to me that the debate here is about whether this was Alexander's intent when he first founded the frontier towns and garrison outposts. I'm rather inclined to agree with Paralus that it was not. Alexander may have been well aware that the towns would likely grow as a consequence of their very existence, but I doubt that this was his major consideration when he had them built. They were placed at strategic points for the purpose of protecting his newly-won empire - surely their importance to Alexander was the need to maintain a military and governing presence in areas which were far from the center of Persian rule? Growth of the towns, especially if there was a Greek influx, would benefit their strategic importance, IMO, and Alexander would have known that. But even if they did not flourish, he still needed their military presence.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

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

Post by Phoebus »

amyntoros wrote:
Phoebus wrote:
Alexandria in Egypt was the exception that proves the rule.
Of course it does. It was created in what amounted to friendly territory within the bounds of what Alexander understood to be "civilization". Nonetheless, even Alexandria took some years to grow. It didn't sprout overnight.

The eastern Alexandrias, on the other hand, had everything going against them. Was there an alternative for those eastern provinces, though? What was it, to NOT colonize Bactria, Sogdiana, etc? Of course not. But any effort to the contrary would have started with frontier towns and garrison outposts. Variants of "Fort Wilderness", as it where.

You say that you think it fanciful for anything else to have been intended for those towns. Had Alexander not died when he did, would you seriously argue that his desired endstate for these towns was to serve as depository--and eventual cemetary--for the crippled or infirm? Or would it be plausible that the Greek-speaking inhabitants would decide to revolt while he still breathed? Of course not.

At the very least, we see evidence of an effort to exert some level of regional control. If that is the case, then how can one argue that the alpha and omega of those areas would have been a dusty, cut-off existence?
If I may interject a comment of my own here: Do you not think that if the empire had continued, then the development and growth of the eastern frontier outposts would have been no more than a natural course of events?
No, I don't think that's the case at all. No offense, but that assumption requires the least amount of effort and concern on Alexander's part for the region.
Yes, they had potential to grow into thriving cities under Macedonian rule and influence, but it seems to me that the debate here is about whether this was Alexander's intent when he first founded the frontier towns and garrison outposts.
Again, what is the purpose of creating, or reinforcing, regional strongholds if not to have them grow? Why even bother to transplant a servant class? Could the military forces not just levy what was needed to survive? It strikes me as rather obvious that, if Alexander didn't want to further develop the region, he could have saved a lot of grief with his troops and officers by simply calling it a garisson duty that lasted for "X" amount of time.

"Don't sweat it Cleitus, it's only for 2-3 years. I just need you to keep them quiet and under control while we get Persia proper in line with my master plan. After that, forget them, their goats, and their dust."
"Oh, well, in that case... Let's have another drinK!"

Alexander may have been well aware that the towns would likely grow as a consequence of their very existence, but I doubt that this was his major consideration when he had them built. They were placed at strategic points for the purpose of protecting his newly-won empire - surely their importance to Alexander was the need to maintain a military and governing presence in areas which were far from the center of Persian rule?
But how would these towns protect his empire? Alexander spent the better part of, what, 4 years (?) beating down the various chieftains and warlords of those regions. How would a fraction of that force, scattered throughout the land in different outposts, somehow keep everyone in line?
Growth of the towns, especially if there was a Greek influx, would benefit their strategic importance, IMO, and Alexander would have known that.
Exactly. And the idea that military growth alone would have cut it for communities that were obviously intended to include Greek-speakers for the long-term is, in my humble opinion, unimaginitive.

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

Post by amyntoros »

Phoebus wrote:
amyntoros wrote: If I may interject a comment of my own here: Do you not think that if the empire had continued, then the development and growth of the eastern frontier outposts would have been no more than a natural course of events?
No, I don't think that's the case at all. No offense, but that assumption requires the least amount of effort and concern on Alexander's part for the region.
But doesn't your argument require the assumption that Alexander had great concern for the region – a concern other than getting (and keeping) it under control so he could get the heck out of there and move on to further conquests? Ah, I think we may well end up having to agree to disagree. :)
Phoebus wrote:
amyntoros wrote:Yes, they had potential to grow into thriving cities under Macedonian rule and influence, but it seems to me that the debate here is about whether this was Alexander's intent when he first founded the frontier towns and garrison outposts.
Again, what is the purpose of creating, or reinforcing, regional strongholds if not to have them grow? Why even bother to transplant a servant class? Could the military forces not just levy what was needed to survive? It strikes me as rather obvious that, if Alexander didn't want to further develop the region, he could have saved a lot of grief with his troops and officers by simply calling it a garisson duty that lasted for "X" amount of time.

"Don't sweat it Cleitus, it's only for 2-3 years. I just need you to keep them quiet and under control while we get Persia proper in line with my master plan. After that, forget them, their goats, and their dust."
"Oh, well, in that case... Let's have another drinK!"
But levying supplies over the entire time whilst living in the garrison would involve constant time and effort spent by the military men whose main purpose was defense of the very volatile region. Forgive me for throwing a quote back at you, but it would have been very unimaginative of Alexander to expect that his garrisons should fend for themselves and be happy about it! Heck, most of the transplanted soldiers proved to be unhappy with their lot even with a servant class to provide for them! And how could Alexander know or be able to tell them that garrison duty would last for "X" amount of time? He'd had the greatest difficulties of his campaign to date in the region of Sogdia and Bactria. It would have taken a great deal more than imagination to be able to project that within a set period of time those Greek and Macedonian forces would no longer be needed in the area.

And wasn't Cleitus appointed as a satrap, which is a little above being stuck in charge of a garrison town? Actually, if Alexander HAD told him those words above, he might not have been so miserable about the appointment. As in "Okay, as long as I am out of this awful place in a couple of years!" :wink:
Phoebus wrote:
amyntoros wrote:Alexander may have been well aware that the towns would likely grow as a consequence of their very existence, but I doubt that this was his major consideration when he had them built. They were placed at strategic points for the purpose of protecting his newly-won empire - surely their importance to Alexander was the need to maintain a military and governing presence in areas which were far from the center of Persian rule?
But how would these towns protect his empire? Alexander spent the better part of, what, 4 years (?) beating down the various chieftains and warlords of those regions. How would a fraction of that force, scattered throughout the land in different outposts, somehow keep everyone in line?
Well, the fraction of Alexander’s force wasn't all that small a number. How many Greek soldiers revolted after Alexander's death and tried to return home? 10,000 was it? Or 20,000? – I honestly can’t remember. Then there's the fact that they DID keep everyone in line whilst Alexander was alive, although not without difficulty. Plus, if you consider them an insufficient number "scattered throughout the land in different outposts" to keep everyone in line then why did Alexander leave them there in the first place? Given his experiences in the region he certainly couldn't have been confident there would be no reprisals or rebellion or outside attacks after he left – that the transplanted Greeks and the natives were put together in order live in peace and harmony from thereon in. Now that would have been extremely foolish thinking on his part, IMO.
Phoebus wrote:
amyntoros wrote:Growth of the towns, especially if there was a Greek influx, would benefit their strategic importance, IMO, and Alexander would have known that.
Exactly. And the idea that military growth alone would have cut it for communities that were obviously intended to include Greek-speakers for the long-term is, in my humble opinion, unimaginitive.
Unimaginative if you think so, but it still doesn't follow that his intent wasn't purely militaristic when the garrison towns were built. As I said before, we may have to agree to disagree. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

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

Post by Paralus »

Amyntoros has dealt with much of this already. At the risk of doubling up…
Phoebus wrote:
These were no Athens in Arachosia. They were a hardship and imposition on the locals and resented by the Greeks settled there who lost no time in leaving once they thought Alexander dead.
That they ended up the way they did can be attributed to the fact that, upon his death, Alexander's generals focused their energy and resources on fighting against one another rather than building the empire.
It can be well argued that Alexander’s marshals were more constructive than was he. In the end, their horizons became limited to their kingdoms which they concentrated upon.
Phoebus wrote:
Alexandria in Egypt was the exception that proves the rule.
Of course it does. It was created in what amounted to friendly territory within the bounds of what Alexander understood to be "civilization". Nonetheless, even Alexandria took some years to grow. It didn't sprout overnight.
Sprout it did though and at a much better pace and to a much better end because it was not a military garrison town.
Phoebus wrote:Had Alexander not died when he did, would you seriously argue that his desired endstate for these towns was to serve as depository--and eventual cemetary--for the crippled or infirm? Or would it be plausible that the Greek-speaking inhabitants would decide to revolt while he still breathed? Of course not.
“depository--and eventual cemetary--for the crippled or infirm?” A little exaggeration for effect can go a long way.

I doubt Alexander was terribly concerned about these towns outside of the fact that they accomplish the job he’d created them for. And, they were created to achieve an end: defence and policing.

As to any revolt, of course they’d stay in line; stay that is until he was dead or news that he might be could reach them. Their actions speak volumes.

Phoebus wrote:At the very least, we see evidence of an effort to exert some level of regional control. If that is the case, then how can one argue that the alpha and omega of those areas would have been a dusty, cut-off existence?
The ruins of Ai khanoum scream it: the world (artistically) had passed this transplanted island by. The Greeks settled there (forcibly) resented it and wished nothing more than to return to the world they knew. About this Alexander cared not one whit.
Phoebus wrote:But how would these towns protect his empire? Alexander spent the better part of, what, 4 years (?) beating down the various chieftains and warlords of those regions. How would a fraction of that force, scattered throughout the land in different outposts, somehow keep everyone in line?
The Army of 13,500 left with the satrap of Bactria and Sogdiana, Amyntas, counted for so little? That, plus the strategically located frontier forts – sorry Alexandrias – will have done the job nicely one suspects
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

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

Post by Phoebus »

Amyntoros,
Forgive me for throwing a quote back at you, ...
No problem! :)
... but it would have been very unimaginative of Alexander to expect that his garrisons should fend for themselves and be happy about it! Heck, most of the transplanted soldiers proved to be unhappy with their lot even with a servant class to provide for them!
I'm sorry, but the reason they were unhappy was precisely because they (correctly) interpreted their lot to be a permanent one. You can't ascribe the same reasons of discontent to soldiers who understand they are simply serving a temporary tour of duty.
And how could Alexander know or be able to tell them that garrison duty would last for "X" amount of time?
I'm afraid you're misinterpreting my argument. I never said the same soldiers would pull the entire length of this "deployment". Alexander showed he had no problem recruiting new soldiers--Greek speakers or Asians. Dumping men from his payroll to get more would have been little problem, I believe.
Paralus wrote:It can be well argued that Alexander’s marshals were more constructive than was he. In the end, their horizons became limited to their kingdoms which they concentrated upon.
Of course it could, given that they had more time than Alexander.
Sprout it did though and at a much better pace and to a much better end because it was not a military garrison town.
Again, location and different circumstances.

I just don't see how Alexander's frontier was substantively different from those of other empires where their early development is concerned--especially when we're talking about the early, formative years of said frontier. Forget how keen his soldiers were about staying there; what was the alternative? Let's say that Alexander decided to skip India and called it a day. Someone still would have had to stay to start up the foundations of empire here. Colonies would have been necessary.
“depository--and eventual cemetary--for the crippled or infirm?” A little exaggeration for effect can go a long way.
Fair enough. On the other hand, am I so far off? What was Alexander going to do when his crippled and infirm settlers died? Was he going to let the towns die as well? Or was he going to settle more people there? If it's the second of the two, we have to ascribe something beyond "garrison town" by default, do we not?

I can't see anyone in their right mind demanding that a bare minimum of unwilling colonists be shipped out to the frontier to maintain a status quo that is upsetting to everyone. I'm really not trying to be snide, incidentally, and I apologize if that's how I came off earlier.
I doubt Alexander was terribly concerned about these towns outside of the fact that they accomplish the job he’d created them for. And, they were created to achieve an end: defence and policing.
But no one's arguing that this was not the case. I'm arguing that it's presumptuous to assume that this was the end-all be-all of those towns. I will repeat the question I posed to Amyntoros (which, no offense to him, I didn't feel was satisfactorily addressed): if these were meant to be mere garrison towns, why were people even settled there? Why did this simply not become a true garrison?

And we haven't even begun addressing Alexander's colossal ego! I simply can't imagine him granting his name to settlements he never intended to be anything more than dirt-towns! :wink:

Alexander died young; it's not fair to argue that the line drawn by his death represented the sum of what he intended (for any number of things). If we're to hold him to task for wanting to visit violence on the Arabs, why not hold him to task for wishing to re-settle people?
As to any revolt, of course they’d stay in line; stay that is until he was dead or news that he might be could reach them. Their actions speak volumes.
Now take the timeline further down by 20-25 years. Take into consideration the social and mercantile developments that would have benefited the Greek-speaking citizens to the extent of everyone else except for the emerging class of Asians who earned status via military service.
The ruins of Ai khanoum scream it: the world (artistically) had passed this transplanted island by.
Under a different set of circumstances than would have existed had Alexander lived.
The Greeks settled there (forcibly) resented it and wished nothing more than to return to the world they knew. About this Alexander cared not one whit.
Of course not! What was the alternative? Well, obviously, it would be to let people live in peace and not pester them with accepting an authority born of conquest and enforced by arms... But, assuming that's not an option? The same as most every other empire, I would imagine.
The Army of 13,500 left with the satrap of Bactria and Sogdiana, Amyntas, counted for so little? That, plus the strategically located frontier forts – sorry Alexandrias – will have done the job nicely one suspects
I have to disagree. Compare the amount of time and soldiers Alexander needed to force those regions into submission with the force he left after the conquest.

Cheers,
P.[/i]
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

failure to marry

Post by jan »

:roll: Thanks Amyntoros, for posting some quotes from the book. I have not found this book yet to read and maybe digest, so I appreciate your thoughtfulness in sharing this with all members. The idea that Alexander is a failure for wisely using discretion in his personal affairs sounds like Grainger is not a free thinking man, but another product of conditioning. Oh, that always separates the enlightened gods from the slavish, conditioned ordinary man....(man as in generalization)! Thanks, You are helping to make my day!

Oh ye gods, I am going to quote Wordsworth again...but I will refrain...this has really hit home with me...Thank Heaven I am a true Aquarius! Ye gods, I would rather be...etc.etc.etc.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Phoebus wrote:
I doubt Alexander was terribly concerned about these towns outside of the fact that they accomplish the job he’d created them for. And, they were created to achieve an end: defence and policing.
But no one's arguing that this was not the case. I'm arguing that it's presumptuous to assume that this was the end-all be-all of those towns. I will repeat the question I posed to Amyntoros (which, no offense to him, I didn't feel was satisfactorily addressed): if these were meant to be mere garrison towns, why were people even settled there? Why did this simply not become a true garrison?]
I thought she’d answered the question quite well. The first reason people will have been settled there was because these soldiers took up residence with their wives, camp-followers, and children. That the basics of a Greek town were granted will have served notice that this was no simple tour of duty. The expectation will have been that numbers of the natives were to be trained in their defence and that the garrison soldiers put down roots. Their children (and so on) will have come to manhood as soldiers in the polis and, a fortiori, frontier defence force just like home in Greece. The locals, drafted by synoecism or doled out as slaves after defeat, supplied the labour force for the community.

Of course these were frontier garrison towns. Of course there was – as with other empires – little other choice. None of which means these were intended ever to be a Cassandreia or Alexandria in Egypt. They were there for a specific task and the basics of life were provided to allow the garrison troops something approaching a normal life.

The transplanting of populations – especially after resistance or revolt – was something the Persians had practised as well. Often the servile populations of these Alexandrias were also transplanted. Removed from their lands and homes, these people now had only the Alexandria and its Greek master class to become “attached” to.

Craterus and Antipater got the drift. They were planning to send the Aetolians to “the eastern front” once they were done with them.
Phoebus wrote:I can't see anyone in their right mind demanding that a bare minimum of unwilling colonists be shipped out to the frontier to maintain a status quo that is upsetting to everyone. I'm really not trying to be snide, incidentally, and I apologize if that's how I came off earlier…
That “bare minimum” amounted to some 20,000 which the Macedonians under Peithon had to convince – by massacring a goodly few – their lot was permanent. And this will not have been all of them.
Phoebus wrote:
The Army of 13,500 left with the satrap of Bactria and Sogdiana, Amyntas, counted for so little? That, plus the strategically located frontier forts – sorry Alexandrias – will have done the job nicely one suspects
I have to disagree. Compare the amount of time and soldiers Alexander needed to force those regions into submission with the force he left after the conquest.
The province was quite settled when he departed. The leaders of the Iranian resistance were dead and the “worst” of the locals were defeated and transferred as farming fodder for the Alexandrias. More importantly, Alexander had contracted a highly political marriage to seal the co-operation of the most important local power broker.

An army of 13,500 under the satrap, Amyntas, and Greek garrison troops in the many Alexandrias was quite sufficient – as it proved even after Alexander’s death.
Phoebus wrote:[If we're to hold him to task for wanting to visit violence on the Arabs, why not hold him to task for wishing to re-settle people?
I do not necessarily hold him “to task” over the transplanting of peoples. His father had done it and the Persians before him. I will though hold to task those (and I’m not suggesting, necessarily, that you are one) who hold that these towns were all intended to become Athens in Asia. That the prime motivation for them being the quite silly notion that they would educate the local population in notions of proper (Greek) civilisation; that they were to become the shining lights-on-the-hill of Hellenism and civilisation in a barbarian world and that they would provide the savage and backward locals with the delights of Greek culture: the tragedies, comedies and the notion of democracy.
Phoebus wrote:And we haven't even begun addressing Alexander's colossal ego! I simply can't imagine him granting his name to settlements he never intended to be anything more than dirt-towns!


Alexander’s ego seems to have clearly been colossal. I’m afraid though, that when it came to new foundations, his imagination appears to be sorely pedestrian.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

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

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:
Phoebus wrote:
... I will repeat the question I posed to Amyntoros (which, no offense to him, I didn't feel was satisfactorily addressed): if these were meant to be mere garrison towns, why were people even settled there? Why did this simply not become a true garrison?]
I thought she’d answered the question quite well.
I'll (hopefully) answer the new posts in detail later but for the time being I did want to tell Phoebus that I don't mind being addressed as a male. :wink: It's been a long time since I signed my posts "Linda Ann" - way before Phoebus joined us - and my forum name certainly adds to the confusion. I never meant to hide my gender though. Years ago "Amyntoros" was the first Alexander-associated name that wasn't already taken on Yahoo Groups and I continued to use it on other forums.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Post Reply