Book Club: Conquest and Empire

[marcus]

re: the subjectivity of rivers, etc.

ever been to the Jordan RIVER - i thought i could jump across it.

Yes, I know what you mean! At the "Baptism Site", particularly, all it needs is a short run up and you could cross to Israel (or to Jordan, depending on which side you're on to begin with) without getting your feet wet.

What's more, there doesn't appear to be any customs/immigration post!

ATB

[jan]

I really appreciate the list of sources that are online. What I had been referring to is an electronic book which one can carry with you in your purse, briefcase, or whatever, it is quite fascinating, and is sold by both Sony and Border's Book Store.

I meant to have a book of all the stories of Alexander, both fiction and nonfiction, made in this electronic matter.

I just finished reading Diodorus finally as I have wanted to read his history for a long time, and I found it utterly fascinating as he is quoted quite often in many other books about Alexander. I enjoyed reading it enormously, and was reminded of a few things as I went along, many of which I had forgotten by this time, but which readily came back to me.

so thanks again for the list. I am using it all the while...Jan

[Fiona]

2:7 The conquest of the Syrian coast

Back to studying for the Book Club thread after a long break for the holidays and for getting distracted by ‘Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander’ (which is great so far!)

In this chapter, Professor Bosworth sticks to his ‘Conquest and Empire’ focus by concentrating on the sieges of Tyre and Gaza, and events in places that were friendly, like Sidon, are passed over very quickly. Here we have a close look at the mechanics of conquest, rather than the politics, as the sieges are examined in great detail. Politics does come into it, though, especially with regard to the homecoming ships coming over to Alexander.
I am full of admiration for the way he has summarised the events so clearly, pulling everything together. Maybe not as brilliant as David Lonsdale’s version, which practically takes you inside Alexander’s head and shows why people call him a genius, but still, very impressive.
This chapter leaves me with a few questions, and of course as always, I hope other readers will post their own impressions and questions too.

Why does he think that for Alexander to sacrifice to Melqart would have been a ‘striking display of his sovereignty’? I mean, clearly the Tyrians thought so too, because they said no, but why did they think so? What’s the harm in a sacrifice? I can’t see anything in the sources about it being a king’s role or anything like that, unless there is something in this Menander of Ephesus mentioned in the footnote, but this I do not have. Maybe it’s just that they thought that letting him in at all was a bad idea, and the sacrifice thing was just an excuse on one or both sides.

Where does it say that the Tyrians had built an inner wall and filled it with earth and stones? I can’t find this reference. If that’s right, then it’s amazing that they were able to breach the wall at all.

IMHO the siege of Tyre is notable for cleverness and savagery on both sides. So why does Bosworth think it’s OK to sanitise the Tyrian savagery as ‘anti-personnel equipment’ but call Alexander’s savagery a ‘gruesome massacre’? How even-handed is that?

Why does he say Parmenion was driving through Syria? It gives the impression of another important engagement taking place elsewhere, but wasn’t that just the transport of the treasure from Damascus, and wouldn’t that have been finished by now?

Finally, I wish we could have had more about the sea-creature of enormous size…
Fiona

[marcus]

Why does he think that for Alexander to sacrifice to Melqart would have been a ‘striking display of his sovereignty’? I mean, clearly the Tyrians thought so too, because they said no, but why did they think so? What’s the harm in a sacrifice? I can’t see anything in the sources about it being a king’s role or anything like that, unless there is something in this Menander of Ephesus mentioned in the footnote, but this I do not have. Maybe it’s just that they thought that letting him in at all was a bad idea, and the sacrifice thing was just an excuse on one or both sides.

I'd have to go back and read up on the siege myself, but I have always worked on the basis that they considered it a bad idea to let Alexander in. They did say that he was welcome to sacrifice at the old temple in the old town - which they probably couldn't (and didn't) stop him from entering; but if the Tyrians were intent on being neutral, then to allow one of the leaders in would be seen as negating that neutrality.

IMHO the siege of Tyre is notable for cleverness and savagery on both sides. So why does Bosworth think it’s OK to sanitise the Tyrian savagery as ‘anti-personnel equipment’ but call Alexander’s savagery a ‘gruesome massacre’? How even-handed is that?

Yes, I know what you mean.

Well, on the one hand, all the Tyrians' "savagery" was against the Macedonian attackers, and therefore not against civilians, whereas the Macedonians, when they took the city, massacred the civilians as well as those who had actively defended the city against the invaders.

On the other hand, it had always been an accepted rule of war that, if a town/city resisted an invader, then when it fell the entire city and its population was fair game. It continued to be an accepted rule of war for hundreds of years - basically until sieges themselves became obsolete.
So the Macedonians were not acting differently from any other besieging army (especially when one remembers just how long the siege lasted). So it was a gruesome massacre, but it is a bit harsh to describe it as is Alexander was the only general to initiate such a gruesome massacre at the end of a siege.

ATB

[Taphoi]

IMHO the siege of Tyre is notable for cleverness and savagery on both sides. So why does Bosworth think it’s OK to sanitise the Tyrian savagery as ‘anti-personnel equipment’ but call Alexander’s savagery a ‘gruesome massacre’? How even-handed is that?

Hi Fiona,

I am finally moved to comment in this thread in the light of this excellent question.

From a modern perspective in a world where there is a United Nations Organisation and a Geneva Convention, many people will regard Bosworth's views as reasonable. The Tyrians were being attacked in their homes, so a few excesses were excusable, but Alexander was a rampaging conqueror who should have exercised magnanimity and restraint in victory.

Actually, I suspect Alexander would have liked to behave like that at Tyre. He did behave like that in other cases. The retribution that he inflicted at Tyre was atypical. Why did he do it?

I think he probably had no easy legal or politically acceptable alternative. From an ancient perspective, envoys operated literally under the protection of the gods. It was a violation of sacred law (i.e. sacrilege) to slay them. Knowing this, the Tyrians nevertheless executed Alexander's envoys [Curtius 4.2.15]. Why did they do that? Probably, because everyone in Tyre then knew that it would be a fight to the death, since Alexander would be obligated to inflict dire retribution, if he took the city. It would be normal for there to have been a faction within Tyre who advocated surrender on negotiated terms, but the faction who were determined to resist held the upper hand. The latter chose to silence the peacemakers through executing the envoys and thereby stiffened resistance (but to no avail). In a sense, therefore, the resistance faction chose the fate of the city: victory or death!

Could Alexander nevertheless have chosen to be merciful? Remember that his envoys probably included senior Macedonians who will have had many relatives in senior positions in Alexander's regime. They will have expected retribution AND it was their legal right in the circumstances. Alexander could only have been merciful by quashing sacred law.

This is the reality of what happened at Tyre, so it is a pity that it is so badly misunderstood from the modern perspective.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

From a modern perspective in a world where there is a United Nations Organisation and a Geneva Convention, many people will regard Bosworth's views as reasonable. The Tyrians were being attacked in their homes, so a few excesses were excusable, but Alexander was a rampaging conqueror who should have exercised magnanimity and restraint in victory.

That is quite correct. As Peter Green has remarked more than once: historians' views cannot help but be framed within the constructs of their own times. Thus Tarn’s compelling need to find concord and a “brotherhood of men”: a unity of man under Alexander.

The notice for the murder of Alexander’s envoys only occurs in Curtius. Arrian clearly describes the diplomatic exchanges – including the details of the envoys from Tyre to the Macedonian which included the son of the king of Tyre which Alexander sends back to Tyre informing them of his commencement of operations after their refusal. The Vulgate also carries this description (Diodorus neatly summarises it out). Only Curtius notes a second embassy of Alexander, this in the context that the ensuing siege might be time consuming.

On the whole the full account of Arrian – who also notes the Tyrians attempted neutrality in refusing to admit any Persian or Macedonian to sacrifice within the temple – is, to me, the more likely.

In reality, I dare say there was little enough Alexander could have done to stop the massacre that was occasioned by several months of ingenious infliction of pain and bloodletting. The Macedonians were not likely in any mood for conventions of their time or our own by the time they took Tyre down. A similar fate was to befall Gaza which, too, decided to resist and to suffer the inevitable.

One might also recall that little magnanimity was offered the towns along the Tannis in Bactria / Soghdia.

[Taphoi]

The notice for the murder of Alexander’s envoys only occurs in Curtius. Arrian clearly describes the diplomatic exchanges – including the details of the envoys from Tyre to the Macedonian which included the son of the king of Tyre which Alexander sends back to Tyre informing them of his commencement of operations after their refusal. The Vulgate also carries this description (Diodorus neatly summarises it out). Only Curtius notes a second embassy of Alexander, this in the context that the ensuing siege might be time consuming.

On the whole the full account of Arrian – who also notes the Tyrians attempted neutrality in refusing to admit any Persian or Macedonian to sacrifice within the temple – is, to me, the more likely.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that Curtius or his source (probably Cleitarchus) made up the murder of Alexander's envoys. There is nothing in Arrian to contradict it either - Arrian or Arrian's source simply omitted these details of the run-up to the siege. Diodorus is explicit that the Tyrians were covertly siding with Darius, whatever they told Alexander about trying to be neutral.

Note that Curtius explicitly points out that the murder of the envoys violated the "Law of Nations". See also Livy 39.25.10:

Now things had come to such a pass that he did not shrink from doing violence to their envoys, who were sacred [sancti] by the law of nations

Alexander had to treat the Tyrians as criminals rather than prisoners, because they had blatantly violated internationally recognised religious law. Sad but true.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

Diodorus is explicit that the Tyrians were covertly siding with Darius, whatever they told Alexander about trying to be neutral.

Should we be taking Diodorus at face value here, though? Not that it really matters - they were professing neutrality, which is more to the point, I think.

Alexander had to treat the Tyrians as criminals rather than prisoners, because they had blatantly violated internationally recognised religious law. Sad but true.

While I agree to some extent, I would add, however, that the Tyrians were not all responsible for the deaths of the envoys, so I'm not sure we can so easily use this violation of international "law" to excuse the massacre of so many Tyrians. So, while I agree with you on this up to a point, I think we should accept that it goes hand in hand with Paralus' point - that there probably wasn't anything Alexander could do to stop his army, once they were inside the city. (He probably didn't particularly want to, either.) See my original response to Fiona.

ATB

[SKY]

Hi Fiona - I trust you have read Lonsdale's book (Lessons In Strategy?) Can you (or anyone else)
give a short review? Is it worth getting?

Thank you kindly
Sky

[Paralus]

It is extraordinarily unlikely that Curtius or his source (probably Cleitarchus) made up the murder of Alexander's envoys.

No more “extraordinarily unlikely” than that no other source mentions envoys from Alexander seeking a peaceful settlement after having his nose put seriously awry with the refusal that Arrian (and Justin) attribute as causes belli for the siege.

The detail in Arrian – noting the Tyrian king’s son as ambassador – would suggest that it is unlikely that he had any second embassy to leave out.

There is nothing in Arrian to contradict it either…

There is absolutely nothing to confirm it either. Nor is there in Diodorus, Justin and Plutarch. The argument from silence is hardly compelling.

Alexander had to treat the Tyrians as criminals rather than prisoners, because they had blatantly violated internationally recognised religious law. Sad but true.

I imagine he had to treat the Gazans and the occupants of several cities along the Tannis in the same fashion.

[Taphoi]

...the Tyrians were not all responsible for the deaths of the envoys, so I'm not sure we can so easily use this violation of international "law" to excuse the massacre of so many Tyrians.

Arrian 2.15.6-7 says that the Tyrian envoys were sent "by the community [koinos]" and that their king was away with the Persian fleet. Diodorus 17.41.1 says that the Tyrians took a "pebble-vote" to decide to send their women and children to Carthage. If the Tyrian community took a similar pebble-vote on killing Alexander's envoys (which would seem likely), then it is easy to see why Alexander may have blamed all the participants in that vote for the outcome.

There is absolutely nothing to confirm it either. Nor is there in Diodorus, Justin and Plutarch. The argument from silence is hardly compelling.

With all due respect, it is you who is arguing from silence. I am arguing from the statement at Curtius 4.2.15.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Fiona]

Reading all these terrific posts with great interest, I am wondering if perhaps the killing of envoys mentioned by Curtius is a different version of the events described by Arrian a little later on (I'm not sure how you count the numbers - I think it might be 2:24:?? - anyway, the bit that says:
"There was another reason, too, which roused them to rage; the Tyrians had taken some prisoners on their way from Sidon; these men they had subsequently dragged up to the battlements, cut their throats in full view of the Macedonian army and flung the bodies into the sea."
This is just after the part where Arrian is describing the massacre in the fallen city, so maybe his sources said prisoners were killed, and Curtius' sources said envoys were killed? That might explain why Arrian appears to have missed out the bit about the envoys, because as far as he was concerned, he had the right version.
It would seem strange for Arrian to miss out anything that helped explain Alexander's behaviour.

It was very hard, in sieges, on those who would have been prepared to surender, but were out-voted, knowing what the outcome of resistance would be if they failed. Taphoi's point about brutality from hardliners stiffening the resistance of all seems a very good one in these circumstances.
The actions of the Tyrians were extreme, both in killing of envoys/prisoners and flaunting it, and in their 'anti-personnel' methods, but I do agree about it being more excusable in defenders. But it's like, the more they did, the more they were asking for trouble if they eventually lost.
Alexander and the Macedonians had so many scores to settle. But even then, it does seem clear that anyone who was prepared to take sanctuary in a temple could save his life (though presumably not his liberty).
Fiona

[Fiona]

Hi Fiona - I trust you have read Lonsdale's book (Lessons In Strategy?) Can you (or anyone else)
give a short review? Is it worth getting?

Thank you kindly
Sky

Hi, no, the book of David Lonsdale's that I have read is called 'Alexander, Killer of Men: ATG and the Macedonian Art of War'. I can't recommend it highly enough, especially for anyone who, like me, looks at diagrams covered with arrows with a certain bemusement.
He's not a historian, he's a strategic analyst, and he looks at all the battles and all the campaigns from the military point of view. He explains military terminology so you understand the difference between tactics and strategy, and looks at everything from an almost timeless perspective, understanding that there are things about war that have never changed and probably never will. Best of all, he explains what no history book, to my way of thinking, has ever explained properly - WHY Alexander was a military genius, why what he did was so clever.
It is like watching the battles happen, with an expert standing at your shoulder and explaining what's going on, and seeing him point out all the particularly brilliant things.
Fiona

[marcus]

If the Tyrian community took a similar pebble-vote on killing Alexander's envoys (which would seem likely), then it is easy to see why Alexander may have blamed all the participants in that vote for the outcome.

That's what happens when one doesn't check the sources. However, I'm not sure that I agree that it is likely that the whole community decided to kill A's envoys, just because they had all agreed to send their own envoys. City council maybe, but I don't see that it follows that the whole community must have made the decision.

Actually, I'm now adding to this post, having checked the references you supplied. First of all, it occurs to me that I do not know what the political set-up was in the Phoenician cities, so I cannot accept without checking that being sent "by the community" indicates that everyone actually had a vote. After all, our government could easily say that "the people" made the decision to invade Afghanistan, because they were the elected representatives of the people ... but it doesn't follow that oi polloi had any say in the matter.

Also, perhaps it is the use of a particular Greek word - but I don't have Diodorus in Greek - but my version just says that they voted, not that it was a pebble vote. Now, to me that doesn't mean that the entire population voted, but could easily mean that the royal council voted, especially as it involved the king's son. What purpose a king if you maintain a democratic system of government?

Sorry, Andrew - not convinced as yet.

ATB

[Taphoi]

I am wondering if perhaps the killing of envoys mentioned by Curtius is a different version of the events described by Arrian a little later on?

I don't think it's likely. Arrian 2.24.3 speaks of Macedonians who had been captured whilst sailing from Sidon - which means captured by the Tyrian fleet. It looks as though casting their victims from the walls into the sea was a favoured Tyrian means of execution of Macedonians, so that Alexander's army could watch the proceedings.

I cannot accept without checking that being sent "by the community" indicates that everyone actually had a vote.

It need not mean that everyone had a vote, but it makes it plausible that the decisions were being taken by votes of large numbers of the citizens.

Also, perhaps it is the use of a particular Greek word - but I don't have Diodorus in Greek - but my version just says that they voted, not that it was a pebble vote.

The verb used by Diodorus derives from psephis being a small pebble. Hence it means literally to vote in the fashion of casting pebbles into an urn (Diodorus says literally that the Tyrians "pebbled" on whether to send their women and children to Carthage). It is also used to describe votes in the Athenian democracy. There is at least an implication in the use of this verb that the voting was on a large scale - not just a show of hands by a few council members.

What purpose a king if you maintain a democratic system of government?

The Macedonians also submitted key issues to a vote of all soldiers of fighting age, despite having a king. Perdiccas had them vote on the implementation of Alexander's Last Plans. The Tyrian king was evidently away when the Tyrians killed Alexander's envoys.

Best wishes,

Andrew