Alexander and ethics

[aleksandros]

marcus why do you pretend you dont understand what i am saying???

if Alexander didnt massacre these who stood against him the disaster in Bactria and Sogdia would ve been nothing compared to the indian to come.

he learnt his course well......these tribes were SO brave!

Alexander had no other means to consolidate his authority over them but through fear.
and the worst fear of all is death. and killing the most of whom that stood against him was the most economic way to achieve his goal. thats why he spent 3 years in bactria and only 1 in punjab.

now tell me what the indians thought?????????? since you were there and asked every one of them....

i guess some told you they caused all this by not surrendering to a superior army, some that there was no need for the women and children to be massacred, some that Alexander kills innocent people just for fun, some that he gets a hardon through slaining indian kids, some that all this is a curse from their God and so on.......

the question is what is our psycological evaluation of Alexander, because we are the ones who know more about the man than most of the indians who got killed by his machines.

of course its a very difficult thing to construct his whole psycological profile, but we can shed light in some aspects of his character and god no! i dont think that Alexander had a thing for murdering people. I believe he was too obsessed with the success of his campaign to do aything that would jeopardise it.

i believe the main cause of these massacres was that Alexander thought they were best serving for the objectives of his campaign and nothing more.

[marcus]

marcus why do you pretend you dont understand what i am saying???

Maybe that's because I don't ...

if Alexander didnt massacre these who stood against him the disaster in Bactria and Sogdia would ve been nothing compared to the indian to come.

he learnt his course well......these tribes were SO brave!

Alexander had no other means to consolidate his authority over them but through fear.
and the worst fear of all is death. and killing the most of whom that stood against him was the most economic way to achieve his goal. thats why he spent 3 years in bactria and only 1 in punjab.

I don't think I disagree with you, in general terms. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean about the disaster in Bactria and Sogdia being "nothing compared to the Indian to come".

now tell me what the indians thought?????????? since you were there and asked every one of them....

i guess some told you they caused all this by not surrendering to a superior army, some that there was no need for the women and children to be massacred, some that Alexander kills innocent people just for fun, some that he gets a hardon through slaining indian kids, some that all this is a curse from their God and so on.......

You see, you now appear to be misunderstanding, or just plain not understanding, what I was saying. Of course I don't know what the Indians thought; but one can imagine that the Indians saw no higher purpose than that here were thousands of strangers invading their land, massacring them left, right and centre. They didn't speak the same language, so they could hardly sit down and ask the hypaspists why they were spearing their friends and families. How do most people view an invading army they've never seen before, or even heard of before, that swoops down on them and systematically destroys their livelihoods, and kills their families?

Of course we are in the position of being able to evaluate Alexander's actions, and even provide some form of justification for them - but to say

i dont think that the thoughts of indians about alexander really matter, since everyone could have his own opinion....

is to completely ignore one side of the events. Are we going to say that the attitude of the Iraqis to the US/UK invasion is of no interest, while wondering why the coalition appears to have failed to prevent hostage taking and suicude bombings?

the question is what is our psycological evaluation of Alexander, because we are the ones who know more about the man than most of the indians who got killed by his machines.

Who says so? That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say - as you yourself said in slightly different words, they were there and we weren't! I would hazard a guess that the Indians had a darn sight better idea of Alexander than we will ever have - maybe not of his motives, but they were much closer to him that we can ever be.

i believe the main cause of these massacres was that Alexander thought they were best serving for the objectives of his campaign and nothing more.

Indeed, and I have never disagreed with this. All I said was that the Indians might not have viewed it the same way. I'm not sure how many more times, and in how many different ways, you want me to say it.

ATB

[aleksandros]

i am glad we now understand each other.

i was arguing with those who think Alexander was a bloddlusting conqueror who killed people just to kill.

with the disaster in Bactria i mean the 3 year debacle alexander suffered.

'Of course I don't know what the Indians thought; but one can imagine that the Indians saw no higher purpose than that here were thousands of strangers invading their land, massacring them left, right and centre.'

of course they saw no higher purpose......i dont either unless i though ultimate conquest is a higher purpose!!

'Of course we are in the position of being able to evaluate Alexander's actions, and even provide some form of justification for them - but to say
Quote:
i dont think that the thoughts of indians about alexander really matter, since everyone could have his own opinion....
is to completely ignore one side of the events. Are we going to say that the attitude of the Iraqis to the US/UK invasion is of no interest, while wondering why the coalition appears to have failed to prevent hostage taking and suicude bombings? ''

damn!
when will we cut those stupid anachronisms?
of course we dont care! the massacred populations who only faced alexander's phalanx cannot halp evaluate alexander's motives for the bloodshed!!!!!
you said it! they only know they are geting killed because they are brave enough to protect their homeland from a superior army!

i am going to say to you again that i am arguing with all these only the ones who think alexander killed for fun.

but i can ask you how the hell can the iraqi opinion on the US troops and actions can help us evaluate the goals of USA in the region?
thinking of alexander as one who started a campaign to kill for fun is like says US government invaded iraq for the joy of killing people and not for money and power.

Code: Select all

Who says so? That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say - as you yourself said in slightly different words, they were there and we weren't! I would hazard a guess that the Indians had a darn sight better idea of Alexander than we will ever have - maybe not of his motives, but they were much closer to him that we can ever be. 

oh yes! you said it by your self again before. what did the indians know about alexander? what did the greeks know about Xerxes?? nothing. they just know they are getting killed for resisting. they cant say whether alexander has a thing for innocent blood or not. they just see innocent people dying.
and yes we know better about Alexander.

aleksandros wrote:
i believe the main cause of these massacres was that Alexander thought they were best serving for the objectives of his campaign and nothing more.


Indeed, and I have never disagreed with this. All I said was that the Indians might not have viewed it the same way. I'm not sure how many more times, and in how many different ways, you want me to say it.

of course they didnt view it that way!!!! in my previous post i gave a few possible ways the indian might have viewed it!!!

[amyntoros]

'Of course we are in the position of being able to evaluate Alexander's actions, and even provide some form of justification for them - but to say
Quote:
i dont think that the thoughts of indians about alexander really matter, since everyone could have his own opinion....
is to completely ignore one side of the events. Are we going to say that the attitude of the Iraqis to the US/UK invasion is of no interest, while wondering why the coalition appears to have failed to prevent hostage taking and suicude bombings? ''

damn!
when will we cut those stupid anachronisms?
of course we dont care! the massacred populations who only faced alexander's phalanx cannot halp evaluate alexander's motives for the bloodshed!!!!!
you said it! they only know they are geting killed because they are brave enough to protect their homeland from a superior army!

i am going to say to you again that i am arguing with all these only the ones who think alexander killed for fun.

Two points that I want to insert here:

(1) You said "i am arguing with all these only the ones who think alexander killed for fun." Who ARE these people, Aleksandros? No one on this thread said Alexander killed for fun that I can see. In fact, I'm not sure than anyone ever said Alexander killed "for fun". So who are you arguing with?

(2) You said "of course we dont care!" How is it that you speak for others with such authority?

Best regards,

[aleksandros]

amyntoros i felt that a lot in here and many more out there think of alexander as a bloodthirsty beast.

as for the second one yes. when i want to look for the motives of Alexander's actions i look into his actions and his intentions as he spoke about them. what his enemies thought about their extermination does not help me cause they wont say to me something i dont already know. we can all asume what people who loose their homes and lives feel about they ones who harmed them.

and ofcourse we have very little written by the ones who were killed by alexander's troops in India.
i dont know, maybe you find the things written by zoroastrians about the beast from the west illuminating on alexander's personality.

and excuse me, dont i have the right not to care about peoples opinion in specific subjects if i feel they cant help me out in them?

i ll say again that the fact that alexander killed for some purpose other than sheer joy doesnt glorify or purify his actions.
i just dont believe that he killed people for pleasure.

[amyntoros]

amyntoros i felt that a lot in here and many more out there think of alexander as a bloodthirsty beast.

Okay, I understand now. You are interpreting how other's feel, but you're not necessarily correct. Killing for "fun" or being a "bloodthirsty beast" both imply that Alexander enjoyed killing and I don't see that anyone on Pothos has said that. People choose their words carefully when they post - it would avoid confusion if you respond to what they said rather than what you think they mean.

and excuse me, dont i have the right not to care about peoples opinion in specific subjects if i feel they cant help me out in them?

Aleksandros; in your original post you didn't say "I don't care." You said "we don't care," but I wonder now if that was just a language error. Of course you have the right to your own feelings, although I'm not sure why you would even want to debate a subject if you don't care about other people's opinions. Or why members would want to continue a debate with you if your response is the equivalent of "I don't care what you think".

Best regards,

Best regards,

[aleksandros]

Okay, I understand now. You are interpreting how other's feel, but you're not necessarily correct. Killing for "fun" or being a "bloodthirsty beast" both imply that Alexander enjoyed killing and I don't see that anyone on Pothos has said that. People choose their words carefully when they post - it would avoid confusion if you respond to what they said rather than what you think they mean.

thats correct. you should respond to what i say rather to what you think i mean cause your getting me tired already.

Aleksandros; in your original post you didn't say "I don't care." You said "we don't care," but I wonder now if that was just a language error. Of course you have the right to your own feelings, although I'm not sure why you would even want to debate a subject if you don't care about other people's opinions. Or why members would want to continue a debate with you if your response is the equivalent of "I don't care what you think".

oh god.....
yeah with the we i meant i.
the fact that i dont think the indian's opinion can help me in the evaluation of alexander's motives and objectives means i shouldnt want to debate with people in general and i dont care about other people's opinions????????
what kind of a stupid logical leap is that dude?
r u drunk? lol

[Phoebus]

Yeah, that was completely unnecessary.

I don't know if English is your primary language; and if it is, please don't take offense that I ask you that... But I honestly think you would be better served re-reading Amyntoros' posts for what they say.

They seemed pretty straightforward and logical to me. And I by no means think Alexander was simply a bloodthirsty killer who slew for the pleasure he derived from said act.

[Semiramis]

oh yes! you said it by your self again before. what did the indians know about alexander? what did the greeks know about Xerxes?? nothing. they just know they are getting killed for resisting. they cant say whether alexander has a thing for innocent blood or not. they just see innocent people dying.
and yes we know better about Alexander.

Hi Aleksandros,

I'm only responding to this because you wrote that "we know better about Alexander". To me, the two sentences highlighted in bold are the most important things to know about Alexander. And no one can claim to understand this aspect of Alexander's "glory" better than those who were at the wrong end of it. It's telling that those who surrendered to Alexander were 1. scared, 2. brought valuable gifts to Alexander and opened their treasuries to him and 3. submitted to him in the fashion he expected. What can display a better understanding of conquest, empire and Alexander than those actions? They're not the only things that are worthy of attention when studying Alexander, but I feel they are relevant to a thread about Alexander and his ethics. But of course, I don't expect others to agree with me. I can only speak for myself.

i dont know, maybe you find the things written by zoroastrians about the beast from the west illuminating on alexander's personality.

Do you find the Zoroastrian sources less reliable than the Greek and Roman ones? If so, why?

i am going to say to you again that i am arguing with all these only the ones who think alexander killed for fun.

I'm not sure I've come across any posts claiming this in recent threads. Usually threads discussing massacres and killings have a strong emphasis on this being the necessary strategy for any conqueror. Now, I can come up with a couple of examples that appear truly gratuitous, but they were exceptions rather than rule. You may be fighting a strawman here Aleksandros.

[amyntoros]

oh god.....
yeah with the we i meant i.
the fact that i dont think the indian's opinion can help me in the evaluation of alexander's motives and objectives means i shouldnt want to debate with people in general and i dont care about other people's opinions????????
what kind of a stupid logical leap is that dude?
r u drunk? lol

The next time that you use words such as "stupid' or "drunk" when addressing another member - ANY member - I will delete the whole post.

[aleksandros]

Seramis

Do you find the Zoroastrian sources less reliable than the Greek and Roman ones? If so, why?

yes cause when it comes to history i study history books and not relegion ones. of course i cannot argue with you if you feel that zoroastrian sources help you better understand alexander.
you used the word reliable. well no, i dont find zoroastrian sources less reliable, but they are still the reliable point of view of a priest.

[marcus]

i am glad we now understand each other.

Actually, I'm not sure that we did - but I do believe I understand what you were getting at, now.

So, when you were talking about not caring what the Indians thought, you meant in terms of their thoughts (which I think we all admit we can only guess at) being of use in your understanding of Alexander's "purpose" in butchering them? I was coming from a different angle, which is that the thoughts/feelings of the Indians should not be ignored. If I do indeed understand you, you weren't saying they shouldn't be ignored, just that they don't help with your particular "quest", that of understanding Alexander's purpose?

In which case, it has indeed been a misunderstanding.

damn!
when will we cut those stupid anachronisms?

I think you mean analogies. And analogies are never stupid, so long as they are relevant. In terms of what I thought you were saying, I believe it was a very appropriate analogy.

but i can ask you how the hell can the iraqi opinion on the US troops and actions can help us evaluate the goals of USA in the region?

No, they can't. But, as I say above, that wasn't what I was talking about. As it turns out, that's not what you were talking about either, anyway.

ATB

[marcus]

with the disaster in Bactria i mean the 3 year debacle alexander suffered.

Yes, I know what you meant by that. It was the "as nothing compared to the Indian to come" that I didn't understand. And I still don't. Please clarify - I'm not necessarily going to argue with you, I simply don't know what you meant by that.

ATB

[aleksandros]

marcus i am pretty sure we eventually came to an understanding.

i used the word anachronism cause i find it rather disturbing comparing US imperialism with Alexander's imperialism........

i could also use the phrase 'anachronistic analogy'.

well i am greek and i hope for your equity in my english.

[aleksandros]

with the disaster in Bactria i mean the 3 year debacle alexander suffered.

Yes, I know what you meant by that. It was the "as nothing compared to the Indian to come" that I didn't understand. And I still don't. Please clarify - I'm not necessarily going to argue with you, I simply don't know what you meant by that.

ATB

i meant a debacle would have occured in india even worse than the bactrian one if Alexander didnt mass exterminate certain sites in india.