Clietus. Parmenio, Philotas,Strapal Purges. Chicken feed

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 am

Post by Semiramis »

marcus wrote: And, as Efstathios says (and I completely agree, which is why I pulled Jan up on this in the first place) Alexander had no policy of total annihilation, much less was it directed at any particular racial group. To make that comparison is incorrect, and ideologically very dodgy.

ATB
Yes, Alexander's policy was indeed different from Hitler's. His policies in Thebes or Tyre were only put in effect against a local population unwilling to submit to him. Or more accurately in Tyre, a population willing to submit to him but unwilling to let anyone but a local King perform sacrifices in the temple as per local custom.

I agree also that Alexander's policies weren't aimed at any particular races. In fact, I don't think the idea of "race" really materialized till about the 17th century. Ptolemy claims Alexander's expeditions killed over 2 million "Asiatics" (Robin Lane Fox's translation), but any number quoted by ancient historians on these topics is always suspect and prone to exaggeration. I don't believe Darius had 1 million troops to face Alexander either. :)
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

If comparisons are odious, Hitler comparisons are ridiculous.

This is not to say that Alexander wasn’t capable of organising and carrying his own massacres. There is the campaign of the river Choes. When the town to which the local population had retired and defended fell, those who did not escape were killed and those captured “were butchered by the Macedonians” (Arr 4.23.4-5); the 7,000 Indian mercenaries who, under an agreement with Alexander, left the town of the Assaceni and camped on a hill only to be surrounded and massacred; Sangala suffered 17,000 killed after the town had fallen and, in the two towns which had joined it in the rebellion where the population had deserted to the hills, the sick who were left behind were “chivalrously slaughtered” (to use Bosworth’s term).

There was, of course, much more this being and abbreviated list of what the Macedonians were capable of. A part of a campaign that Lane Fox (pp 331-33) prefaces with the following:
…there is no other evidence (other than Ammon’s supposed suggestion he would conquer the world) had dreamt of world domination or was fighting to realise such a vague ideal. It is more to the point that he restored the rajahs whom he conquered; he did not inflict his own superiority on his subjects or work off a lasting sense of frustration at the expense of the vast majority of those who surrendered. Patriots and rebels were killed and enslaved by the thousand as always, but there is more of the explorer than the tyrant in the history of the campaign.
And if comparisons are odious, so too are apologia. There exists a cogent reason why Alexander “restored the rajahs whom he conquered” and that is that he had little or no choice. It was that or man a line the likes of the western front with Macedonian armies of occupation. The Assaceni, indicative of the feeling in the area, revolted the moment he was gone. Far from being an act of cultural respect and harmony, it was a restoration of convenience.

This is, of course, the chapter which invokes that marvellously anachronistic defence of punitive outright slaughter: the religious war. This term allows for the righteous slaughter of populations who – for whatever reason – decided they wished to remain free of the imperial yoke.
For boredom is the force in life which histories always omit; Alexander was twenty-nine, invincible and on the edge of an unknown continent; to turn back would have been impossibly tame, for life in Asia could promise little more than hunting and the tedious tidying up of rebellions and provincial decrees…If the edge of the world was Alexander’s ambition, it was a goal which appealed as much to his curiosity as to a longing for power. (ibid)
No amount of starry-eyed descriptions of the “explorer-conqueror” smitten with Indian wanderlust can mask what then transpired. Actions, as always, speak volumes. His troops knew this. They now, as much as those they slaughtered, suffered for what Lane Fox describes as the “explorer” that was Alexander.
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
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

Paralus wrote:If comparisons are odious, Hitler comparisons are ridiculous.

This is not to say that Alexander wasn’t capable of organising and carrying his own massacres. There is the campaign of the river Choes. When the town to which the local population had retired and defended fell, those who did not escape were killed and those captured “were butchered by the Macedonians” (Arr 4.23.4-5); the 7,000 Indian mercenaries who, under an agreement with Alexander, left the town of the Assaceni and camped on a hill only to be surrounded and massacred; Sangala suffered 17,000 killed after the town had fallen and, in the two towns which had joined it in the rebellion where the population had deserted to the hills, the sick who were left behind were “chivalrously slaughtered” (to use Bosworth’s term).
.
Well if we are to depend on Arrian's numbers, you do agree that there were 600,000 Persian forces at Issus and over a million at Gaugamela? :?

Note I am not saying that Indians weren't slaughtered, but if we choose to follow the numbers from the ancient sources, must not we do so consistently?

Not that I'd ever accuse historians of cherry-picking. :lol:
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

I don’t think the numbers here are of importance at all and ought not to be used as a distraction. What should be noted in this debate is that the “captured” Indians were massacred; that the mercenaries who had an agreement with Alexander were slaughtered; that the population of Sangala was killed after the town had fallen; that the sick who were unable to flee from Alexander were slaughtered also.

Also, no, I don't believe we should accept the figures consistently because one could say that Arrian, who obviously admired Alexander, accepted his main source’s high numbers at Issus and Gaugamela because the figures made Alexander and his army look good. By that same token one could argue that numbers given for outright massacres could have been deflated for the same reason. It doesn’t matter though - the figures aren’t important – it is the events that speak for themselves.

Personally, I think it is as simple as this: the army was far, far from the Greek world or the center of Persian rule and Alexander knew that his men were going to have to fight their way back to the west, a more difficult thing to do if one were bringing thousands of captives in the wake of the army. The slavers were likely not equipped to transport massive numbers of captives back to Greek civilization where they could be sold. It is probable too that they did not think Indian men would make desirable slaves. If there was no strong market for them then what would the traders do with thousands upon thousands of captured Indian men? And although there appears to be some founding of cities in India, they were not built to the extent where massive numbers of captives could be used to build them or be sent there as new inhabitants, plus the references to the nature of the Indians suggest that they would not have gone quietly anyway. So what was a conqueror to do? The occupants of one town were taken into slavery, but the sources imply that most of the men had been killed defending it, so here there was a potential use for the remaining women and children. But as for the rest of the vast area and the captured men, the sensible, logical, thing to do was to kill them, unpleasant as it may seem to many in this day and age. My thoughts anyway. :wink:

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

amyntoros wrote: Also, no, I don't believe we should accept the figures consistently because one could say that Arrian, who obviously admired Alexander, accepted his main source’s high numbers at Issus and Gaugamela because the figures made Alexander and his army look good. By that same token one could argue that numbers given for outright massacres could have been deflated for the same reason. It doesn’t matter though - the figures aren’t important – it is the events that speak for themselves.


Best regards,
See, I do not think that numbers would have been deflated, but again inflated. That is applying modern views to men who thought that killing 17,000 was just frickin' awesome, .impressive, glorious and just plain badass, if you'll pardon the expression. The number of "enemy" needed to be huge. Can you imagine any of them admitting that "Well we did storm that city and only killed 1700. We rock!" Not saying it was only 1700, btw.

I would like to know the real population figures for villages and towns in "India" for that period. Someone got some information about that? I realise that population in India may have been significantly higher per sq mile even then. And the standard rate for warfare mortality in India amongst the various kingdoms fighting each other, and for Chandragupta's own rise shortly after ATG's death.

The numbers I believe that are deflated are the casualties of the Macedonians and their allied troops. For Ptolemy to have admitted the high casualty rate at Sangala, I am inclined to think that it was perhaps a primary motivation for the Beas mutiny. The actual number of killed and wounded Macedonians must have been very high there.

Perhaps that same tendency is why there is no ancient figure, inflated or deflated for the Gedrosian disaster. They just couldn't bring themselves to say "This many thousands died, we lost half the Companions, etc". Though they can bring themsleves to say that most of the women and children were killed.

It's like Alexander supposedly slaughtering every Cossaean male from youth upwards after Hephaistion's death, yet just months later Peucestas shows up with Cossaeans in his forces he presents to Alexander at Babylon. So were they all murdered or was it exaggeration?

I do agree with your take in the last paragraph, for the most part, though.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 am

Post by Semiramis »

Paralus wrote:If comparisons are odious, Hitler comparisons are ridiculous.
Hi Paralus,

I see where you're coming from. But it's hard to avoid comparisons. On these boards we often end up mentioning the Romans. Bosworth compared Alexander's doings to the Spanish conquest of the Americas. And Lane Fox, as you say, rather naively assumes that comparing him to British colonial officers would gain the reader's sympathies. Although, to be fair to Lane Fox, most of his book was written in the 70s and perhaps sensibilities were different then? :) The Hitler comparisons will always crop up imho, because they get the most attention by reviewers etc.
athena's owl wrote:I would like to know the real population figures for villages and towns in "India" for that period. Someone got some information about that? I realise that population in India may have been significantly higher per sq mile even then. And the standard rate for warfare mortality in India amongst the various kingdoms fighting each other, and for Chandragupta's own rise shortly after ATG's death.
Hello Athena's owl,

Hm... Not sure if it's possible to answer all of those questions this far down the track. Apparently the population of the entire planet at that time would've been between 40 and 100 million. A rather unreliable "History of India" - by a Greek who claimed to travel there - says there were more people in India than the rest of the world put together. How on earth he could've figured this out is anybody's guess. But your idea that the population density in India was higher is supported by this. So, the higher the Indian population density, the less likely that Arrian's figures were not overestimates. But I agree with you that there is a decent chance that the boys were bragging about the numbers they killed. Things were indeed different then.

I'm not sure there was a "standard" rate of warfare mortality or whether it would compare to Alexander's campaigns, but it's safe to say that both Chandragupta and his celebrated grandson Asoka had to do a decent amount of killing to subjugate the descendants of the same Indians Alexander had so much trouble with. Surviving stone inscriptions erected by Asoka claim that he was so sickened by the killings in the wars he started himself, he converted to Buddhism and decided to follow the path of non-violence. He claims that this was on the advice of his queen, who was a Buddhist nun. Quite the story... :)
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

athenas owl wrote:Well if we are to depend on Arrian's numbers, you do agree that there were 600,000 Persian forces at Issus and over a million at Gaugamela?
Your first response is illuminating. Attack the numbers rather than deal with the actions.

Neat sophistry about Arrian’s numbers does little to disguise the butcher's attitude which pervades the campaign in India. The short list given was exactly that: short. Much more might have been included.

Actual estimates vary of the carnage of India. It is not so much the numbers as the attitude and the actions it produces. That attitude comes through in both source traditions as do the actions. The actual numbers, in and of themselves, are largely irrelevant . The intention is.
athenas owl wrote:I would like to know the real population figures for villages and towns in "India" for that period.
The question of the population numbers of “Indian villages and towns” that you raise proceeds, in my opinion, from the premise that these were mere villages and so could hardly have supported the numbers mentioned. Excuse me if I seem to be “cherry picking” words.

This civilisation (of the Indus Valley) was an ancient and flourishing one. It covered an area greater than the Fertile Crescent and Western Europe. It has been documented as far back as 4,800 years ago. Scientific American, Vol 15, no1. p 27 (2005):
Although the Indus Valley people did not produce monumental stone carvings and did not bury their dead with their wealth, they constructed large cities and made exquisite luxury items that were traded and exported to distant markets in the Persian GulfCentral Asia and Mesopotamia.
This well before Alexander. It goes on to describe that, by 1,000 BC , these cities were charecterised by a distinctive “ideology” and language and had become “competing polities". These were, then, no collections of thatched huts. Alexander certainly saw them as more than little villages. Either that or he was quite happy occasioning substantial loss and suffering among his weary troops simply to capture collections of thatched huts.
Last edited by Paralus on Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
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
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 am

Post by Semiramis »

amyntoros wrote: Personally, I think it is as simple as this: the army was far, far from the Greek world or the center of Persian rule and Alexander knew that his men were going to have to fight their way back to the west, a more difficult thing to do if one were bringing thousands of captives in the wake of the army. The slavers were likely not equipped to transport massive numbers of captives back to Greek civilization where they could be sold. It is probable too that they did not think Indian men would make desirable slaves. If there was no strong market for them then what would the traders do with thousands upon thousands of captured Indian men? And although there appears to be some founding of cities in India, they were not built to the extent where massive numbers of captives could be used to build them or be sent there as new inhabitants, plus the references to the nature of the Indians suggest that they would not have gone quietly anyway. So what was a conqueror to do? The occupants of one town were taken into slavery, but the sources imply that most of the men had been killed defending it, so here there was a potential use for the remaining women and children. But as for the rest of the vast area and the captured men, the sensible, logical, thing to do was to kill them, unpleasant as it may seem to many in this day and age. My thoughts anyway. :wink:
Hi Amyntoros,

Add all of that to the fact that you couldn't sell your slaves to other parts of India. Slavery as an institution didn't seem to exist there. From Arrian-

"This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave."

Even going as far back (2600 BCE) as the Indus Valley civilization Paralus mentions - amazing feats of construction were achieved in cities including sewage, drainage, large public buildings, baths etc., but research is yet to uncover any evidence of slavery.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Ah, dear Athenas Owl, you may regret accusing historians of “cherry picking” the sources because, in that vein, I quote:
athenas owl wrote:It's like Alexander supposedly slaughtering every Cossaean male from youth upwards after Hephaistion's death, yet just months later Peucestas shows up with Cossaeans in his forces he presents to Alexander at Babylon. So were they all murdered or was it exaggeration?
Plutarch (Alexander 72.2-3) says that “Moreover, making war a solace for his grief, he went forth to hunt and track down men, as it were, and overwhelmed the nation of the Cossaeans, slaughtering them all from the youth upwards.” Arrian (7.15.2-3) says “These Cossaeans are mountaineers, and dwell in village strongholds; whenever a force drew near, they would move off in mass, or each as best he could, to the summits of the mountains, and thereby escape, baffling those who assailed them by force. When the enemy had gone, they would again turn to the brigandage from which they make their livelihood. But Alexander reduced the tribe, although he campaigned in winter. Neither the wintry season nor the difficulties of the country stood in his way; nor in his, nor in that of Ptolemy son of Lagus, who led part of the army against them. In fact Alexander found nothing impossible in any military operations he undertook.” Diodorus (17.3.5) says “The king, nevertheless, seized the routes of access into their country before they were aware of it, laid waste to most of Cossae, was superior in every engagement, and both slew many of the Cossaeans and captured many times more.”

So, looking at all the sources, it looks as if many Cossaean men survived. And even if one were to choose to disregard Diodorus (cherry-picking? :wink: ) one could interpret Plutarch to mean that Alexander killed the men who were engaged only against the forces that he led. Perhaps the captives could have been taken by Ptolemy’s forces? Whether or not it was so, it is obvious from reading all three sources that the Cossaeans were defeated in every engagement, but this still does not mean that every man and youth in the country was hunted down and killed.

Best regards,

Amyntoros
__________

PS to Semiramis – many thanks for that reminder about the lack of slavery in India which would explain why captured natives might not have been used to build cities. (Your post came up while I was writing this one, demonstrating just how slow this darn computer is!!!)
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:Ah, dear Athenas Owl, you may regret accusing historians of “cherry picking” the sources
Or cherry picking views one might add.

It is Lane Fox at his most apologetic. A gentleman conqueror must never be accused of such....
Last edited by Paralus on Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Semiramis wrote: Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves;
Oh yes, as is well known on this forum, don't get me started on those defenders of Hellenic freedom the Spartans.

Hypocrisy what is thy name?
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
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Paralus

The Spartans been the defenders of freedom,,, We just had a 2 part documentary of that other shining light of freedom and Democracy and the early Athenian Democracy.

Fair to say they were all with dirt on there hands. The interesting thing with such programes is to put discorn on the Demosthenese and the rest of the high mighty gobs... U know the story stand against the opresive defamers of Democracy... Those Bad Macedonians who will steel our liberties mess with Democracy etc etc...

Well its fare to assume these Athenians messed and threw there weight about before those Barbarian Macedonians turned up..


Indeed Michael Hypocrasy all over the place. Maybe The Macedonian policy of;;

"We are the daddy now, Do as your told or else is more clear than the misty Athenian Idea of Democracy.

kenny
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

Paralus, my use of numbers is telling? Yet it is the numbers that you are using to point out the cruel and heinious nature of Alexnader's Indian campaign. I was pointing out that I have a problem with the the numbers, as I have a problem with all the numbers in the sources. Curtius, using Gaugamela as an example had a much more conservative number, 250K, but having reread Engels again the other day, I wonder quite rightly if even that number is not vastly inflated.

I don't need to defend them. It happened in some form or other.. Finding out what really happened is what interests me.

Amyntoros, yes Plutarch did say from youth on upwards, yet not a few months later, Peucestas shows up with a herd of them "little kids". I am well aware of the other sources regarding this, but my point was that by taking the sources, only one in this case, we can create any scenario we want.

I'm not cherry picking, because I don't care either way, really. Paralus does have a certain POV that I may or may not agree with. Listen, I don't excuse ALexander of anything. It would be pointless. Nor do I think historians should use him to beat their own political modern POVS (not saying this is you Paralus). I want to find that middle that might actually approximate the real man and his times.

As to the Lane Fox crack, I never got the impression that Alexander was a gentleman conqueror from that book. But then he didn't try to compare Alexander to the Greek junta or Nazi stormtroopers so he is an apologist. I went into Green's and Fox's books before I started talking about ATG to anyone. I, too drew my own conclusions.

What I got from Fox was a desire to learn more and I started reading the sources. And read other modern writers. What I got from Green was a book thick with anachronistic POV shoving. All of Alexander's motives MUST be suspect! Say something good about Alexander or attempt to see his actions through his own POV and you are an apologist. Good grief, I'm so leftwing I'm a redneck, but I don't want it in my history. Nor do I want Tarn, who I have never read. I never bought that brotherhood of man malarky. Dr. Pal has interesting ideas, but I certainly disagree with his "UN" idea of ATG.

Semiramis, thank you. That's the point I'm trying to make. There was slaughter in war then. Conquest was the norm. Again I don't excuse it, but I do not need to. Those long dead victims do not need my defense. But I am not going to use their dead shades to advance my modern views either. But I do want to know IF the Macedonians telling their history inflated the numbers of their enemy dead because that would have been their cultural expectation to do so, or vice versa, never admit the heavy toll it was taking on them.

By the same token, I do not view Alexander as some glorious leader shining the blessings of Greece onto a barbarian world. He was a product of his family's, his kingdom's and his own expectations. He was not a product of middle platonists like Plutarch or Roman historians with their own POV to advance. Peeling away those later expectations or value judgements is what I want.

He is not the product of an Oxford don who grows flowers or of other professors who seem to only be able to view him through tthe lens of our own painful, recent totalitarian past.

I run into this elsewhere, where, sadly, the nationalists and "there is no way that Alexander could have had sexual relations with men and here's PROOF!!!!". Oddly enough, there I come off sounding like Green and have been accused of such. I am apparantly only interested in anything that puts a negative light on Greece and Alexander.
:lol:

I do always get a chuckle out of the Spartan struggle for freedom, though. And Athens as well. The actual events of Thermopylae and Salamis, and earlier at Marathon are fascinating as a small dysfunctional group of city states whooping the great Persian invasion, but as far as freedom goes...though, and I may get accused of moral relativism, I'm sure the slave owners DID see it as a fight for their way of life.

Using these events as a standard for modern freedom movements is a bit of a stretch, though, to put it kindly. It's like some politcial blogger who favourably compared George Bush to Alexander the Great. Some things are just best left in the distant past. I was laughing so hard I never could respond to that comparison. How could one with a straight face?
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

athenas owl wrote:Amyntoros, yes Plutarch did say from youth on upwards, yet not a few months later, Peucestas shows up with a herd of them "little kids". I am well aware of the other sources regarding this, but my point was that by taking the sources, only one in this case, we can create any scenario we want.

And my point was that, unless all sources ARE considered, it is, as you describe it, cherry picking - and that is exactly what you did also - chose a single source to reference. I didn't interpret you using Plutarch's statement about the slaughter of of the Cosseans as a means to demonstrate your point above, but to justify doubting numbers given of people killed.

It ought to be noted that just about everyone does this however, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is the nature of the beast and why we have historiographical studies.
As to the Lane Fox crack, I never got the impression that Alexander was a gentleman conqueror from that book. But then he didn't try to compare Alexander to the Greek junta or Nazi stormtroopers so he is an apologist. I went into Green's and Fox's books before I started talking about ATG to anyone. I, too drew my own conclusions.

As Alejandro would say, "comparitively" speaking, Lane Fox does lean more to the apologist camp. :wink:
Semiramis, thank you. That's the point I'm trying to make. There was slaughter in war then. Conquest was the norm. Again I don't excuse it, but I do not need to. Those long dead victims do not need my defense. But I am not going to use their dead shades to advance my modern views either. But I do want to know IF the Macedonians telling their history inflated the numbers of their enemy dead because that would have been their cultural expectation to do so, or vice versa, never admit the heavy toll it was taking on them.

But the question remains, if it was possible to prove that the numbers of enemy dead were inflated, would it make any difference as to how the actions themselves should be viewed? When the Macedonians slaughtered Indians outside the one town who were unspecting and unarmed it is the action that is relevant. Whether there were 2,000, 10,000 or 15,000, or whether the numbers were inflated or deflated isn't of importance unless one is embroiled in a debate about the supremacy of the Macedonian forces, as often happens over Issus or Gaugamela. In the Indian campaigns it is obvious that many were killed, but exactly how many doesn't really matter. If a modern historian or a source is being quoted and happens to use numbers, I still don't see why the focus should be on the numbers and not on what was done.
By the same token, I do not view Alexander as some glorious leader shining the blessings of Greece onto a barbarian world. He was a product of his family's, his kingdom's and his own expectations. He was not a product of middle platonists like Plutarch or Roman historians with their own POV to advance. Peeling away those later expectations or value judgements is what I want.

I agree, but I see concentrating on the numbers of the dead as only leading to a value judgement! I mean, what would be the point in establishing that less Indians died than is stated in the sources. That Alexander wasn't so bad after all? Or vice versa ...

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

I wasn't intending to concentrate on the numbers. It just struck me as I was reading. Again, like I said, reread Engels and am reminded that whole lot of what we assumed and still do in many cases was likely not possible. Though I am still trying to find Hammond's rebuttal of ATG's use of wagons (no access to JSTOR..(I'll have to buy the publication I guess). Unless anyone has a quick synopsis. :D

So I'm thinking about numbers now.

And yes, to our eyes the actions of slaughtering innocents is very bad. I did say I agree with you one the possible motivations of Alexander's actions in India.

Arrian, in talking about the Mallian campaign says that they knew Alexander was on his way, but were caught unaware, because like so many they did not expect him so soon. These were people who had gathered in that city precisely because they were aware that Alexander was gunning for them.

Book Six, chapter iv
Then he sailed rapidly towards the country of the Mallians and Oxydracians, ascertaining that these tribes were the most numerous and the most warlike of the Indians in that region; and having been informed that they had put their wives and children for safety into their strongest cities, with the resolution of fighting a battle with him, he made the voyage with the greater speed with the express design of attacking them before they had arranged their plans, and while there was still lack of preparation and a state of confusion among them.
Book Six, chaptervi
After travelling the remaining part of that day and all the ensuing night a distance of about 400 stades,’ he at daybreak reached the city into which many of the Mallians had fled for refuge. Most of them were outside the city and unarmed, supposing that Alexander would never come against them through the waterless country. It was evident that he led his army by this route for this very reason, because it was difficult to lead an army this way, and consequently it appeared incredible to the enemy that he would lead his forces in this direction. He therefore fell upon them unexpectedly, and killed most of them without their even turning to defend themselves, since they were unarmed.
I hate to disparage the use of the word "innocent" here, because they were defending their territory from an invader. Something I am very sympathetic, too. However, without knowing what you are talking about, someone might read what you wrote and assume that Alexander fell upon a city that had no idea that they were in danger. Well, they were caught unaware, but only because Alexander, as he was wont to do, got there before he was expected.

Not that that excuses Alexande, for those that need an excuser. But it is in some context. He had a specific target, one he viewed as a threat and conveninetly, for him, they were not prepared at that moment.
Post Reply