My belief is based on the fusion that happened between Greeks and barbarians under Alexander’s rule. If he wanted, as marcus says, to create a solide base for his future campaings, he did create simultaneously a temporary unity between Greeks and nations that he conquered. Starting from this, if he didn’t stop in Babilon and continued further, to his new campaigns, most likely he would proceed in the same manner. His actions at Babilon, when he reconfirmed Mazaeus as a leader with the right to make coin, his actions in Sogdiana, when he offered the liberty of laws (as Weigall sustains), his actions in India, when he reconfirmed Porus as a king after fierce battles, despite the protests of his army, shows that he wanted solid and peaceffuly teritories to fulfill his ultimate goal. To say that he wanted only solid base, it's funny. When I’m thinking at Alexander, this is not enough. To create a solid base – that is the limit where marcus stops based on historical evidence, but Alexander was much more than that - the man himself had no limits. Regarding Porus - why did someone reconfirme an enemy as a king, like Alexander did, if his relation with his ‘macedonian’ army was very bad at the time? This was a measure that breaked the first rule of an war. Why the battle, if afterwards you give back what you have conquered with the price of your own soldiers lives? Only to create a solid base? I don’t think so.
I’m not saying that Alexander departed from Macedonia with the thought to unite all mankind, but I’m saying that he departed from Macedonia without his teacher’s theory about races; and when I’am saying this, I’m thinking at his meeting with Diogenes, the philosopher who believed in cultural universality.
I’m remembering only the cities from Asia Minor (Miletus and Halicarnassus) and Tyre when I’m saying that Alexander first wanted to treat peacefully with those; I don’t know if he proceded in the same way further in his campaign.
A man who payed those who stolen his horse for his keeping, a man who permitted to an deserter to go home together with his woman, a man who refused the water because his soldiers had none – this is Alexander.
A man who sought only to create a base from his future conquests – this is not Alexander.
I remember that in a documentary named The True Story of Alexander the Great, made with the participation of Brian Bosworth and Peter Green, it’s says that Alexander, at Siwa, received the confirmation that he was destinated to rule the ‘empire of the world’. Or, an ‘empire of the world’ it’s defined by the unity of nations that are included in him.
This ideas are just a starting point for me, and really I want to know on what base did Tarn made his theory.
Never give up