Moderator: pothos moderators
Semiramis wrote:Why not?Fiona wrote:Amoral by our standards? That would imply that anyone who wages aggressive war is, ipso facto, amoral. I wouldn't go as far as that.
Well, but they weren't called garrisons, were they? They were called cities, with temples and other fine buildings being planned for them.That suggests to me that they were as much for the benefit of the local people as for the soldiers left on garrison duty. Perhaps this is another example of his doing something that at one and the same time, satisfies his hard-headed common sense, and his vision of future possibilities. I do agree that his cities were intended to improve and promote trade. Arrian mentions 'prosperity' at least once, as a given reason for the foundation of a city. No doubt Alexander's own prosperity would be part of this, but for that to happen, in the form of taxes and tributes, the local population would first have had to become prosperous themselves.amyntoros wrote: Hmm, I would say that the cities weren't for the benefit of the lands Alexander conquered, but for the benefit of Alexander! They were either built in strategic defense positions and garrisoned with Macedonians, or, in the case of Alexandria in particular, built again in a strategic position but for the purpose of enhancing trade routes.
I'm really puzzled now, because I don't for a moment think you would have missed a reference, and yet it wasn't Thebes or Persepolis I was thinking of. Yet I can't for the life of me find the reference I'm looking for. Maybe I dreamed it. Stranger things have happened. But the one I have been searching for left me with the strong impression that the injunction against rape was part of standing orders. It concerned two (I think it was two) soldiers who were hanged for the crime of rape.amyntoros wrote:
I’ve argued this before to some degree – IMO it would have been undesirable on Alexander's part to forbid the Macedonian army to rape. He needed his army to be happy and his army desired women. And captive women, even if they end up as “partners,” are initially subjected to rape. It's not important to this discussion how the relationships may have developed further over the years of the campaign; in the beginning it was rape and I am unable to see it as anything else. This was the nature of warfare at the time. That Alexander didn't do so himself, I acknowledge. But he didn't need to.
If I've missed some other reference, please let me know.
I believe this is what you are looking for.Fiona wrote: But the one I have been searching for left me with the strong impression that the injunction against rape was part of standing orders. It concerned two (I think it was two) soldiers who were hanged for the crime of rape.
However, that Alexander ever, even once, forbade rape, supports the view that he could not have been amoral, which was my reason for mentioning it, amongst other examples of moral behaviour.
Fiona
No, not in polite company. For which read those about to be left behind in the middle of nowhere. I’m certain that Alexander didn’t mention “garrison town” when selecting the individuals who’d spend the rest of their natural lives miles from nowhere.Fiona wrote:Well, but they weren't called garrisons, were they? They were called cities, with temples and other fine buildings being planned for them.That suggests to me that they were as much for the benefit of the local people as for the soldiers left on garrison duty.
Totally agree. Waging an aggressive war might be immoral, but I would say that the last thing it is is amoral.Fiona wrote:Well, mostly because of war's continuing popularity. Being amoral - that is, unaware of the difference between right and wrong, unable even to see that there is a difference - is such a rare thing, and aggressive conquerors haven't, through history, been uncommon, so it's hard to see all of them as amoral.
I think it's more usual for the would-be conqueror to come up with some plausible justification. Liberate Ionia, rescue x from Catholicism, rescue y from Protestantism, bring democracy to z, or what you will. This may self-deluding, it may even be dishonest. That would possibly make it immoral, but not amoral.
Fiona
Semiramis wrote:Why not?Fiona wrote:Amoral by our standards? That would imply that anyone who wages aggressive war is, ipso facto, amoral. I wouldn't go as far as that.
And the only thing that this tells us is that Alexander disapproved of his soldiers raping the wives of other soldiers under his command, because it would cause problems within the ranks of his army. This says nothing about whether he, as a matter of course, imposed any injunction against raping the wives and daughters of those who made the mistake of standing up to him when he invaded their country.Callisto wrote:I believe this is what you are looking for.Fiona wrote: But the one I have been searching for left me with the strong impression that the injunction against rape was part of standing orders. It concerned two (I think it was two) soldiers who were hanged for the crime of rape.
However, that Alexander ever, even once, forbade rape, supports the view that he could not have been amoral, which was my reason for mentioning it, amongst other examples of moral behaviour.
Fiona
Furthermore, on learning that Damon and Timotheus, two Macedonian soldiers under Parmenion's command had raped the wives of certain mercenaries, he wrote to Parmenio ordering him, in case the men were convicted, to punish them and put them to death as wild beasts born for the destruction of mankind.
Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.2
I'm curious: do you beleve a single one of those figures?Paralus wrote:It really comes down to guesswork: Arrian says that the 20,000 infantry, offered no quarter by the king, was slaughtered; Diodorus from memory, claims ten thousand dead and I can’t recall Curtius.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the attitude was there. Syracuse, Melos, Aegospotami, and the many known instances where we know that even heavily-laden hoplites felt the need to pursue their fleeing counterparts.Why don’t we just agree that it will have required both. Matters not the capability if you don’t have the attitude to use it.
The political situation wasn't the same the first time as it was the second. Killing the Sacred Band, on the other hand, was not just good policy--it may well have been justified given the course of the battle. I don't recall any record of the 300 select Thebans offering to surrender, and I'd be surprised if this were the case.I might add that there was no “great slaughter” at Chaeronea (such as it is attested). ... The “slaughter”, such as it occurred, was at the Theban end where the “Sacred Band” was surrounded and spitted to death by the phalanx. Oddly enough, this was the end commanded by Alexander. We have, from memory, no reliable Boeotian casualty figure, just “many”.
Perhaps, perhaps not. His army only had 2,000 cavalry (probably a rounded-off number, to boot). I can't really recall how most modern writers assign the splitting of the cavalry force between the two wings (I really am hating not having my books here), and Diodorus isn't very specific.Philip appears not to have surrounded and slaughtered the Athenian wing. Perhaps he possessed no cavalry?
So? I never claimed otherwise. Unless you're arguing Athens isn't a Hellenic state, I'm not sure what your point is here. I said it was a force raised by a Hellenic state. It's an entirely factual correct statement and I can only imagine confusion regarding the force's intra-Hellenic ethnic makeup arising only if the audience was ignorant about the subject matter--and I know this isn't the case for you.“A” Hellenic state which commanded it. It was raised from manyHellenic states.
And yet those cities that survived to our time (as ruins or otherwise) were far from mere garrison towns. However obstinate and unhappy the would-be settlers were about their location, it still doesn't mean that Alexander envisioned a series of military outposts. If Arrian or Diodorus are at all accurate about the legacy he wanted to establish, this was but the opening act for a much grander play.I’m certain that Alexander didn’t mention “garrison town” when selecting the individuals who’d spend the rest of their natural lives miles from nowhere.
Though I generally agree for the most part with what you write, Amyntoros, I must take issue with this. I think what you are saying is that Alexander didn't need to rape because he could easily find sexual partners. If so, you are confusing two things that are not only not the same, but at their essence diametrically opposed -- sex and rape.Amyntoros wrote:I’ve argued this before to some degree – IMO it would have been undesirable on Alexander's part to forbid the Macedonian army to rape. He needed his army to be happy and his army desired women. And captive women, even if they end up as “partners,” are initially subjected to rape. It's not important to this discussion how the relationships may have developed further over the years of the campaign; in the beginning it was rape and I am unable to see it as anything else. This was the nature of warfare at the time. That Alexander didn't do so himself, I acknowledge. But he didn't need to.
Rape and sex being such very different things, it's quite possible for a man to have desire for one and not the other. While all healthy men have sexual desire, a lot of them -- the vast majority, I like to think -- are either not interested in or averse to committing rape. So while Alexander must have had sexual desire (though apparently less than average, if the story about his parents contracting an hetaira to awaken his libido has any truth) I think he didn't rape because he simply had no desire to, and didn't feel it was tactically necessary.Rape is an act of violence, not sex. It is not the result of sexual desire or sexual deprivation. Perpetrators tend to be motivated by control and anger. Part of their gratification comes from gaining power over the victim or discharging anger. For example, heterosexual men have raped gay men as a form of gay bashing, acts based on hate.
Are you a cutting grown from my good self?Phoebus wrote:I'm curious: do you beleve a single one of those figures?Paralus wrote:It really comes down to guesswork: Arrian says that the 20,000 infantry, offered no quarter by the king, was slaughtered; Diodorus from memory, claims ten thousand dead and I can’t recall Curtius.
Beyond that, I reiterate. The main difference between the battles you cite and the ones from earlier in the 4th century (and 5th century) BCE is a matter of scale and capability..
One suspects that, had Alexander been in charge, that they will have followed the enemy for some considerable distance. And, yes, there was cavalry on both of the Spartan wings. No, they were not the Companion Cavalry. They did not pursue though. Rather they were happy to ensure the mastery of the field.The Spartans will fight for a long time, stubbornly holding their ground until the moment they put their enemy to flight; but once this moment comes, they do not follow him up a great way of for long. (Thuc. 5.73)
I was making no such comparison between any first or second time. I was referring only to the battle of Chaeronea in 338. They may well not have surrendered, they may have asked for quarter. We do not know. We know only that Alexander “was the first to break the ranks of the Sacred band” and that they were slaughtered. Indeed their mound has turned up some 254 skeletons. It is most likely this was done on foot by use of the sarissa which far outstripped the hoplite spear in reach.Phoebus wrote:The political situation wasn't the same the first time as it was the second. Killing the Sacred Band, on the other hand, was not just good policy--it may well have been justified given the course of the battle. I don't recall any record of the 300 select Thebans offering to surrender, and I'd be surprised if this were the case.I might add that there was no “great slaughter” at Chaeronea (such as it is attested). ... The “slaughter”, such as it occurred, was at the Theban end where the “Sacred Band” was surrounded and spitted to death by the phalanx. Oddly enough, this was the end commanded by Alexander. We have, from memory, no reliable Boeotian casualty figure, just “many”.
Well the descriptions we have might argue otherwise:Phoebus wrote:I'm not sure where the confusion lies. The very presence of a cavalry force thousands strong necessitated that the Granicus hoplites make their defensive stand where they did. Making a run for it would have been suicide..There was no “chase down” of fleeing foes at the Granicus; nor at the Hydaspes. The infantry, on both occasions, was hemmed in by cavalry and slaughtered by the Macedonian infantry.
Alexander soon checked the pursuit of them (the Persian cavalry) in order to turn his attention to the foreign mercenaries, who had remained in their original postion, shoulder to shoulder – not, indeed, from any deliberate intention of proving their courage, but simply because the suddenness of the disaster had deprived them of their wits. (Arrian, Anab, 1.16)
One, I suppose, could take his or her pick. I rather suggest a combination of the two. The asking for quarter though rings true – to my ears. They were not ever going to seriously make a stand against the entirety of Alexander’s army. In the event, citing the “League of Corinth”, Alexander surrounded and massacred them.The enemy, however, did not resist vigorously, nor for a long time, but fled in a rout, all except the Greek mercenaries. These made a stand at a certain eminence, and asked that Alexander should promise them quarter. But he, influenced by anger more than by reason, charged foremost upon them and lost his horse, which was smitten through the ribs with a sword (it was not Bucephalas, but another); and most of the Macedonians who were slain or wounded fought or fell there, since they came to close quarters with men who knew how to fight and were desperate. (Plut. Alex, 16.13-14)
What I wrote was an admittedly rather flippant comment which wasn't meant to have any reference to Alexander's own sexual desires, just that he was in a different position from his regular army. I was hoping in this instance to keep the focus on the soldiers and not Alexander. That they did also have sexual desires and the need for the company of women is surely uncontested, however their Macedonian wives (if they had them) were far away.karen wrote: As well, to say that Alexander didn't need to rape because he had easy access to sexual partners is to suggest that rape is caused by sexual deprivation. It's not ...
Rape and sex being such very different things, it's quite possible for a man to have desire for one and not the other. While all healthy men have sexual desire, a lot of them -- the vast majority, I like to think -- are either not interested in or averse to committing rape. So while Alexander must have had sexual desire (though apparently less than average, if the story about his parents contracting an hetaira to awaken his libido has any truth) I think he didn't rape because he simply had no desire to, and didn't feel it was tactically necessary.
I had said that Alexander "needed his army to be happy and his army desired women" and your quote above calls them a traditional reward to the army for its work in attaining the victory – part of the spoils. They wouldn't have been a reward or considered spoils if they weren't desirable in some sense and that was my meaning. Whatever the point of rape at the end of a battle, the situation that arose was that Alexander allowed his Macedonian army to take these captive women along with them. They didn't rape and then leave them behind because at the end of the campaign after Alexander offered them payment, around 10,000 of them actually married the women. Which means that once those women were attached to the train of camp followers then it was about sexual desire and/or female companionship. There's been some argument on previous threads that (some of) these women might have gone willingly. The point that I was making was that these "relationships" began with rape and that is a fact that is usually ignored on the forum.In war rape was (and still is) used as a means of driving home the point that the defeated are indeed defeated and helpless, and for the victors to assert their power and control over the defeated. Thus, in my mind, the reason for a king or general to allow an army to do this was that it was both a tactic to demoralize defeated peoples into permanent submission, and a traditional reward to the army for its work in attaining the victory -- part of the spoils, in other words. The reward is not the pleasure of sex: it's the pleasure of the power trip of destruction.
Beautifully put Fiona. To apply this to Alexander, did he actually believe in his own 'plausible justifications' (cf money and power) for aggression? We have to remember that the pan-Hellenism stage of the campaign officially ended, supplanted by the need to avenge Darius' death as the cause for further conquest. For his later conquest in India, sources don't even mention any justification.Fiona wrote:Well, mostly because of war's continuing popularity. Being amoral - that is, unaware of the difference between right and wrong, unable even to see that there is a difference - is such a rare thing, and aggressive conquerors haven't, through history, been uncommon, so it's hard to see all of them as amoral.
I think it's more usual for the would-be conqueror to come up with some plausible justification. Liberate Ionia, rescue x from Catholicism, rescue y from Protestantism, bring democracy to z, or what you will. This may self-deluding, it may even be dishonest.
That would possibly make it immoral, but not amoral.
Mere garrisons or beacons of Hellenic civilization? Do the temples, gymnasia etc. suggest that they were created to impart the benefits of Greek learning and culture to the natives? Here's an interesting factor to consider regarding these cultural centres. Did the local population actually have access to these buildings? Without access, how are the natives to fulfil any visions of Alexander's? Speaking of Alexander's vision, is there any evidence that Alexander harboured a desire to Hellenize the non-Greeks living near these towns? Or were temples simple opiates for the settlers stationed (abandoned?) so far from home?Fiona wrote: Well, but they weren't called garrisons, were they? They were called cities, with temples and other fine buildings being planned for them.That suggests to me that they were as much for the benefit of the local people as for the soldiers left on garrison duty. Perhaps this is another example of his doing something that at one and the same time, satisfies his hard-headed common sense, and his vision of future possibilities.
After Alexander's death, definitely not. Had he lived? I think matters would have been different. The Macedonian state at that time in large part focused on military participation and accolades. Asian participation in the King's army would have been difficult on the long term without some sort of inclusiviness off of the battlefield. The emphasis on teaching those future soldiers Hellenic and dressing them up to the part kind of reinforces that.Semiramis wrote:Mere garrisons or beacons of Hellenic civilization? Do the temples, gymnasia etc. suggest that they were created to impart the benefits of Greek learning and culture to the natives? Here's an interesting factor to consider regarding these cultural centres. Did the local population actually have access to these buildings?]
Part of the plans Alexander had for the future involved large-scale population transplanting. Combine this with the military aspect (above), and one might guess that any social egalitarianism may have come about courtesy of the dillution of native culture and language in favor of a Hellenic standard. Pretty scary, if you ask me.Speaking of Alexander's vision, is there any evidence that Alexander harboured a desire to Hellenize the non-Greeks living near these towns? Or were temples simple opiates for the settlers stationed (abandoned?) so far from home?
I have. I'm asking for yours.Paralus wrote:Are you a cutting grown from my good self?
You have my view of the figures. Ya reads your books; ya forms your view.
Yes to the former, a qualified no to the latter.Again, can we agree that both will have been necessary? And, further, that both were not always present?
Yes, if he had the resources available to him in the late 4th century BCE.One suspects that, had Alexander been in charge, that they will have followed the enemy for some considerable distance.
Therein lies the difference for me.And, yes, there was cavalry on both of the Spartan wings. No, they were not the Companion Cavalry.
If we're just talking about the first battle, then I'm not sure what the issue is. The Athenians broke; we know this. The Thebans, on the other hand, were fighting nearby their city, and the Sacred Band in particular was far less likely to have broken (like the Athenians) or surrendered. Given this... what is the point of raising Alexander's conduct here.I was making no such comparison between any first or second time.
I'm not sure how; take away Arrian's "loss of wits" theory, and what you have is heavily-laden infantry who are probably smart enough to realize they can't run far enough fast enough. I mean, who would they think Alexander would go after? Fleeing cavalry, or the other part of the infantry force--the part referred to as levies? They sensibly took the high ground in a defensive position. Smart move; too bad Alexander didn't prove to be any more forgiving than many of his predecessors.Well the descriptions we have might argue otherwise:
