The Afghan Campaign

[ruthaki]

Scott, thanks for jumping into the fray. You said it all so well!
I agree with Alexandros that compared to the Macedonians the Soghdians were considerably more barbaric. The part in the book about the women being used as mules, if I recall, it was their own people using them that way because they were women who had transgressed in some way according to the rules. Women at this moment in that country are still being downtrodden thanks to what that Taliban did. And they way the tribal lords carry out their battle tactics hasn't changed much either.

Scott, I promise to read Memnon soon. You know I've been dilgently trying to carry on with Shadow so as soon as I get some pleasure reading time I'll dive right in!

[amyntoros]

Amyntoros i disagree with you cocerning the natives of Sogdia and Bactria. I have studied much i think and as far i am concerned they were far more barbaric than they are depicted in the book.

Alexanthros: could you tell me which period of history that you've studied? I didn't think there was any further extant literary evidence concerning the Bactrians and Sogdians at the time of Alexander's conquest. And, as the history of many countries indicates, people and cultures do change over time. I'd be very interested in any references you can give me because I seem to recall that recent archaeological evidence (or was that numismatic evidence?) indicates that they were actually more culturally advanced than is implied in the Alexander histories. Wasn't this mentioned in one of Frank Holt's books? Someone help me out here.

Best regards,

[marcus]

Alexanthros: could you tell me which period of history that you've studied? I didn't think there was any further extant literary evidence concerning the Bactrians and Sogdians at the time of Alexander's conquest. And, as the history of many countries indicates, people and cultures do change over time. I'd be very interested in any references you can give me because I seem to recall that recent archaeological evidence (or was that numismatic evidence?) indicates that they were actually more culturally advanced than is implied in the Alexander histories. Wasn't this mentioned in one of Frank Holt's books? Someone help me out here.

I don't recall offhand whether it's Holt or someone else who suggests the level of 'civilisation' in Bactria/Sogdia at that time. However, I am aware of no literary evidence that indicates the natives to have been as 'barbaric' as Pressfield seems to have made them.

In fact, the only incidence of 'barbarity' of that nature that I can think of being performed by the locals, was when Spitamenes' wife supposedly cut off her husband's head. Other than that, the only description of 'barbaric' behaviour is when Alexander has Bessus tortured, and when later we hear how Bessus is to be executed ... Funny that, isn't it?

ATB

[aleksandros]

They were leaving their dead for the crows and dogs to eat, they killed their parents after an age they became useless, the son-mother mating was a must for the zoroastrian religion too, even centuries later during the kushan empire expansion the Bactrians and Sogdians practised skull modification!
Concerning the women there are still areas in the east today that a woman costs a cow, i ve seen it with my eyes and i feel that things were much harder 2500 years before for people that couldn't believe that the Greeks lived in a place where the sky dives in the sea.

amyntoros have you seen any archeological findings that show an advanced civilization in these places at 300 BC? They didn't have an alphabet they didn't write stuff!

[marcus]

They were leaving their dead for the crows and dogs to eat, they killed their parents after an age they became useless, the son-mother mating was a must for the zoroastrian religion too, even centuries later during the kushan empire expansion the Bactrians and Sogdians practised skull modification!
Concerning the women there are still areas in the east today that a woman costs a cow, i ve seen it with my eyes and i feel that things were much harder 2500 years before for people that couldn't believe that the Greeks lived in a place where the sky dives in the sea.

OK, Alexanthros, one or two problems with this.

1. Please cite references.
2. The business about leaving the dead, etc. is not at all the same as the treatment of people that Amyntoros reported as appearing in Pressfield's book.
3. Do show me where mother/son mating was a must in Zoroastrianism. I've never heard that before.
4. Skull modification is not at all the same as the treatment of people that Amyntoros reported as appearing in Pressfield's book.
5. "I feel that things were much harder 2,500 years before" is hardly likely to convince, now, is it? All Amyntoros asked for was the provision of some references, but unsubstantiated person opinion isn't really cutting the mustard ...

ATB

[marcus]

By the way, I'm not saying that I don't think the Bactrians weren't capable of terrible cruelty. One of my particular areas of study is the relationship between the British Empire and Afghanistan in the 19th century, and I am well aware of what the Pathans were capable of during that time. Even Kipling wrote a poem about how wounded British soldiers had better shoot themselves rather than fall into the hands of the Afghans ... especially the women!

How far we can equate cruel practices with "civilisation" is a moot point, of course, considering the "civilised" British used to blow people from the ends of cannon.

However, if these discussions are going to be of any use, people should try to provide some evidence for their comments. An opinion backed up with evidence is, after all, much harder to refute than one with no evidence.

ATB

[aleksandros]

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander12.html

[azara]

Frank L. Holt in “Into the land of bones” writes that “As part of their religion, the Bactrians literally tossed their dead to the dogs and even hastened the process by letting these hounds execute their old, sick and invalid citizens.” A note indicates that the reference is Strabo 11.11.3, based on “one of Alexander’s men who reported seeing packs of dogs gnawing at the dead, while a few stalked and snapped at fresher meals still alive but helpless against the hounds.”
Now I am grateful to Pressfield for having omitted this; if, in the name of historical realism, he hadn’t , now we would be accusing him of giving an apologetical vision of Alexander’s conquest.
Apart from the bones, the fact is that tribal cultures are deeply alien for people coming from different civilizations. In Italy we have still several remains of “tribal” and “feudal” cultures (particularly in the Southern regions) which a tourist notices five minutes after landing at the airport (as soon as he tries to take a taxi, for example), and which can be utterly infuriating. As for the use of women to do all the heavy and the dirty job, it was common in Italy among some rural populations until the end of II World War, while much less common among the same populations was the wearing of shoes (summer or winter didn’t make much difference). Also in Italy women were the poorest of the poor.
We modern readers try to understand, are afraid to be offensive, find historic justifications for what looks barbaric, but Pressfield’s narrator is supposed to be a man of another age, whose mentality seems to me to have been portrayed rather convincingly.
A note about the content of the novel: the battle of the Polytimetus river is treated from Mattia’s point of view, and that’s all right; but Pressfield doesn’t even mention Pharnukes, the interpreter who was in command of that ill-fated mission. Besides, the question of who made the mistake must have been long debated after the event (remember when Cleitus was killed), but there is no trace of that in the novel.
Best regards
Azara

[marcus]

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander12.html

Woohoo! But there are still no references. I have the greatest of respect for Jona Lendering, but he hasn't put any citations against the narrative, so I'm afraid that still doesn't satisfy me.

Anyway, I wasn't disputing the fact that the Bactrians permitted their dogs to eat the dead. Azara has helpfully pointed to the Strabo reference that Holt cites (and which I checked myself after I wrote my last post). What I am wondering about is exactly what Amyntoros was asking about - references to support your support for Pressfield's portrayal of the Bactrians, as mentioned by Amyntoros.

ATB

[aleksandros]

What's that 'Woohoo" shit?
Are we fighting or something?
I am trying to talk here like everyone else! What's your problem?

Have you read Arrian, Plutrach and Diodoros Sicelus?
These are the only descent refferences about Alexander! If you haven't, then i can't understand why you write in here anyway.

I feel very offended!

[amyntoros]

By the way, I'm not saying that I don't think the Bactrians weren't capable of terrible cruelty. . . .Even Kipling wrote a poem about how wounded British soldiers had better shoot themselves rather than fall into the hands of the Afghans ... especially the women!

Yes, and Pressfield studied that period for his book and seems to have used it, as in, ‘they were like this a hundred or so years ago so they must have been like this 2500 years ago.’ This practice (of Pressfield’s) appears to be the basis for his representation of the Sogdians.

How far we can equate cruel practices with "civilisation" is a moot point, of course, considering the "civilised" British used to blow people from the ends of cannon.

Thanks, this thread needed that.

Now I am grateful to Pressfield for having omitted this; if, in the name of historical realism, he hadn’t , now we would be accusing him of giving an apologetical vision of Alexander’s conquest.

Hi Azara: I understand what you are saying, however, IMO, the book already feels like a highly apologetic vision, although I’m not accusing him of anything. I’ve been giving my opinion, along with the reasons why I didn’t like the book. Frankly, I’m quite surprised at the general response to my post considering that Marcus asked at the beginning of the thread:

It will be really helpful if people, when responding, could put some flesh on the bones - what they did or didn't like about it, for example, rather than just "it's good" or "it's bad" (or whatever).

I did exactly that, and the responses seem to be focusing on an argument that the ancient Bactrians and Sogdians really were abhorrent, uncivilized, uncouth brutes who deserved everything that they got – therefore Pressfield’s book isn’t really a novelization in that respect, and it follows that his treatment of women must be an accurate portrayal of ancient times. If - and I stress the IF - there should be a consensus for this along with an agreement that the Sogdians have changed little in the past two thousand plus years, what will that say about how we view others today?

I think I have to remove myself from this thread. For the first time I’m having difficulty in keeping my emotions at a distance as the last sentence above may indicate.

Best regards,

[marcus]

What's that 'Woohoo" shit?
Are we fighting or something?
I am trying to talk here like everyone else! What's your problem?

Have you read Arrian, Plutrach and Diodoros Sicelus?
These are the only descent refferences about Alexander! If you haven't, then i can't understand why you write in here anyway.

I feel very offended!

Sorry, Alexanthros, no offence intended. But the plain fact is that Arrian, Plutarch and Diodorus do not mention, as far as I recall, these various acts of cruelty that have ended up under discussion. I am simply trying to get to the point where we actually have some evidence for them.

OK, forget it. Otherwise we're going to be sparring more and more, without ever getting to the point and merely moving farther away from remembering what it was all about in the first place.

ATB

[marcus]

I did exactly that, and the responses seem to be focusing on an argument that the ancient Bactrians and Sogdians really were abhorrent, uncivilized, uncouth brutes who deserved everything that they got – therefore Pressfield’s book isn’t really a novelization in that respect, and it follows that his treatment of women must be an accurate portrayal of ancient times. If - and I stress the IF - there should be a consensus for this along with an agreement that the Sogdians have changed little in the past two thousand plus years, what will that say about how we view others today?

And I seem to be under fire now for asking for some evidence for this supposed treatment of women, of which nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps I did not express myself very well, for which I have apologised to Alexanthros; but the fact remains that no-one has yet provided any evidence for it.

So I'm going to remove myself from the thread, too.

ATB

[athenas owl]

The Zororastrians have always exposed their dead to the carrion feeders haven't they. I am not up tp looking up when the "Towers of Silence" first began to be used, but if that religious practice was viewd through the eyes of Pressfield's Macedonian, they would have seen it as barbaric. Whether Pressfield was aware of that POV I kind of doubt.

As for the uncivilsed nature of the ancient Bactrians and Sogdians...who knows for sure? Samarkand and the civilisation around it was pretty much leveled by the Mongol invasions wasn't it? An invasion I don't think they ever recovered from.

[jasonxx]

In the Red Corner Weighing in at 310 pounds wearing the Read trunks. Hailing from Ackrinton Stanley. The former heavyweight champion of the World.

ROcky Marcus Balboa .

In the Blue corner weighing in at a similar weight. Hailing from Detroit Michigan. The Mannasa MaulerSugar Ray Alexandros Robinsin.




Seconds away handbags ready Round 2 ding ding