And it should be remembered that many of the Greeks were far from keen on Alexander. At best they acceded to granting him divine worship because it made no difference to them; at worst they did it because they were terrified of him.Alexias wrote:Saviour from what? The only thing Alexander saved anyone from was the ordinary Macedonian soldier from poverty. I think you’re getting confused between the idolisation of Alexander by the ordinary Macedonian in his army and the worship he requested from the Greek city states. They are two very different things.Asander wrote:“Alexander; for the Greeks, he was the Savior.”
I don't really need to add to that. Allowing women to attend a feast didn't make them equal with the men.Alexias wrote:The women at the feast at Persepolis were courtesans, it was their job to be decorative and entertaining at feasts. Treating a woman with deference and respect and granting equal political, social, legal and financial rights with men are, again, two very different things. Women had no political rights, no vote, could not hold public office, were meant to live under the protection of a man and live according to his rules - unless they wished to be seen as prostitutes. I don’t know enough to say whether they could hold property or enter financial transactions in their own right. I suggest you do some research.Asander wrote:“Why do you say that? There are some facts in the ancient sources regarding Alexander that proves he didn't believed in the equal rights for men and women? Did he not permitted the women to stay, along with him, at the feast in Persepolis?”
Image indeed - and the fact that, if his soldiers didn't love him, they wouldn't follow him; and by the time they were in the Makran Desert the relationship was already very strained - Alexander couldn't afford to lose what was left of their affection.Alexias wrote:You obviously haven’t heard of spin doctors. It’s the equivalent of a modern politician kissing a baby. It’s all about image.Asander wrote:“why he did refused the water in a march and why offered his gold to a soldier who was helping his mule to carry the weight?”
I wouldn't want us to go too far on the "spin-doctoring" route, though. Alexander clearly did care about his soldiers' welfare, and he very clearly gained their trust and affection because he never asked them to do anything he wouldn't do himself. Pouring away the water wasn't just a calculated political move, but one born out of the true relationship he had with his soldiers.
Doesn't mean that they were his equal, though!
The soldiers were free to leave when he told them they were free to leave. This happened at very specific times, and until 324 BC the only troops he allowed to leave were the non-Macedonians who had fulfilled the terms of their service - e.g. the Thessalians. Even in 324 he didn't allow all his soldiers to leave if they wanted to - he discharged a very specific group of veterans.Alexias wrote:What stories? I don’t believe we know what terms his soldiers served under and how long they signed up for, but what army can function if everyone can come and go as they please? Yes, non-combatants would have had considerable more freedom to leave, but where else were they going to find such lucrative and prestigious employment – if that is what you are talking about. I am talking about the states Alexander encountered accepting his rule as king, not people obeying his every personal whim.Asander wrote:“Correct me if I'm wrong, but Alexander didn't permitted to his soldiers to leave wherever they want because he will not hold them by force? I think Weigall mentions that. And oh... there are many stories regarding Alexander that dissagree what are you saying above.”
I agree whole-heartedly with Alexias, and with Paralus (although I do think he was a bit harsh in his earlier post). There are plenty of people who are making it very clear that Alexander did not believe in equality. The so-called "Opis Speech" has been dismissed quite comprehensively for about 40 years, if not longer. There is simply no evidence that he believed in equality, if by that people mean the "brotherhood of man". The only equality he envisaged was that everyone was lower than he was.
I would also caution over-use of Arthur Weigall without recourse to other books. Weigall was an Egyptologist, not a Greek/Hellenistic specialist; and although I've never read his book, everything I've heard about him suggests that anyone reading him ought to read some of the more recent Alexander literature - like, anything written in the last 40 years!