A policy of "fusion"?

[Paralus]

I’m sure Semiramis won’t mind my copy and paste of this response from another thread. I feel the subject needs its own space and was going to open a thread myself. This seems as good a starting point as any:

Regarding the mass weddings... It's worth a mention that all the weddings were between the men of the conquering nation and the women of the conquered. Not a single one the other way around. Patriarchy being what it is, this can hardly be considered a move to show the Persians as equals. Any "fusion" was very much on Alexander's terms. I was going to say Macedonian, but seeing that many of these marriages didn't last, I doubt most of the Macedonian men were terribly keen, let alone the Persian women. The decision of course, was made unilaterally by Alexander. Just to clarify, I know marriages among nobles were mostly for political purposes, whether in Macedonia or Persia. But in this case, the Persian noble men had little say in this matter. It's entirely possible that the Persians were further reminded of their conquered status at these weddings, rather than being inspired by a new-found sense of universal brotherhood.

This – the mass weddings at Opis – forms one of the great pilings (perhaps the greatest) upon which is constructed the mirage of Alexander’s “policy of racial fusion”. Semiramis has observed what one might think was the bleedingly obvious: the only fusion at this ceremony was of Iranian women to Macedonian grandees. The comment with respect to patriarchal societies reinforces this: these women were to be married into the new ruling class all of whom were Greco-Macedonian. At no stage, given the high minded ideal of fusion foisted upon Alexander, did he attempt to marry Greco-Macedonian women of the nobility into the former Iranian ruling class. This fusion was a one way street and might better be described as subsumption.
The background to these marriages was the disaffection and “revolt” of the former Iranian ruling class whilst Alexander was off in India. By the time of these weddings only Phrataphernes, Atropates and Oxyartes remained as satraps; the others, installed “on the run” as it were, were gone. Their sons as listed by Arrian (VII 6.4-5) are, like Alexander's pages, virtual hostages at court well away from their cultural roots and are incorporated into the conqueror’s agema.

Alexander, if he did anything, strenuously pressed the claim that he was the legitimate successor to the Achaemenids. Alexander had adopted much in the way of Persian court practice. He dressed in a mixture of Persian and Macedonian and his Macedonian Companions were issued the scarlet of the Persian courtier all of which had much to do with that claim. That said, Macedonians retained all the major military and civil commands and Persians possessed no positions of any real power at court. After the marriages at Opis it was patently apparent that Alexander’s companions were the ruling class of this new empire; the Persians, if they were partners, were very much the junior.

The whole rather more appeals as attempting to separate the races rather than to fuse them in any way.

[dean]

Hello,
initially I had believed that the weddings were a wonderful way to bring everybody together- but of course- you don't have to read Green's bio to see that the weddings was a means to an end. The end was of course a new generation of successors that would be Alexander's way of maintaining Macedonian power into the future.

Alexander, if he did anything, strenuously pressed the claim that he was the legitimate successor to the Achaemenids. Alexander had adopted much in the way of Persian court practice. He dressed in a mixture of Persian and Macedonian and his Macedonian Companions were issued the scarlet of the Persian courtier all of which had much to do with that claim. That said, Macedonians retained all the major military and civil commands and Persians possessed no positions of any real power at court. After the marriages at Opis it was patently apparent that Alexander’s companions were the ruling class of this new empire; the Persians, if they were partners, were very much the junior.

10000 Macedonian soldiers were married to Persian women- however in spite of Alexander's massive plans and strategies- seemingly hardly any such marriage survived- Seleucus' being the most famous- but either way- the results were ephemeral and perhaps the massive weddings were more of a celebration at the end of the conqust of Persia than anything else.

Best regards,Dean.

[marcus]

10000 Macedonian soldiers were married to Persian women- however in spite of Alexander's massive plans and strategies- seemingly hardly any such marriage survived- Seleucus' being the most famous- but either way- the results were ephemeral and perhaps the massive weddings were more of a celebration at the end of the conqust of Persia than anything else.

To clarify - of the 92-or-so officers who married Persian women, we are only aware of one, Seleucus', which survived. We should be careful not to translate that to all the rank and file soldiers whose unions with local women were legitimised by Alexander.

As has been discussed before (but haven't the time to find the thread - Amyntoros will probably put her cursor on it in a moment ), Seleucus' marriage to Apama is the only one we know lasted ... but of course that doesn't mean that his was the only one that lasted.

ATB

[athenas owl]

Amyntoros is more eloquent on the subject...I'll defer to her.

However, of the 10,000...why assume their "marriages" failed. Wasn't that more a defacto recognition of relationships and children? Alexander made a big deal about rearing the kids of the returning soldiers himself, but he died not too long after that and i wonder if those families had followed the homeward bound Macedonians anyway. As it was, many of the Macedonians never made it back across the Hellespont, instead becoming embroiled in the wars in Asia.

At Gabiene, the baggage train that Eumene's soldiers wanted back so badly...it wasn't just loot, but the families of the soldiers...most of whom I assume were not the Macedonian families.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the gist is right.

[Paralus]

... Alexander made a big deal about rearing the kids of the returning soldiers himself, but he died not too long after that and i wonder if those families had followed the homeward bound Macedonians anyway. As it was, many of the Macedonians never made it back across the Hellespont, instead becoming embroiled in the wars in Asia.

At Gabiene, the baggage train that Eumene's soldiers wanted back so badly...it wasn't just loot, but the families of the soldiers...most of whom I assume were not the Macedonian families.

As a general comment, the soldier's "de-facto" wives are a side or ancillary issue. These are the camp followers of the anabasis and it is near certain that they are native. There is no mention (that I can bring to mind) of the army taking families across the Hellespont. Indeed Alexander was to send those who had newly married back to procreate over the first winter.

These families knew only the camp – a situation that was to continue due the instability following Alexander’s death. The bulk of the Macedonians remained in Asia and there are few attestations of them ever returning home (the three thousand dismissed by Antigonus in 319 come to mind). Alexander’s interest was to retain the sons with him and, essentially, draft them into his army.

He promised to take care that they should be brought up as Macedonians, educating them not only in general matters but also in the art of war. (Arr. 7.12)

These would eventually form part of his “personal” army along with the epigoni and would become an army without any national allegiance and the strings attached to same.

The soldiers of Eumenes are the hypapspists or Silver Shields, the longest serving unit of the former Macedonian “national army”. Diodorus (19 43.7) says that “their baggage had been taken, and their children, their wives, and many other relatives were in the hands of the enemy”. Note the reference to extended relatives. This is clear evidence of the nature of these families of the army camp. The camp was the only home known to them. It was the one thing that Eumenes failed to grasp.

Again, it is a side issue. It remains that the only “fusion” was the aggressive “merger” of the Macedonian ruling elite and the women of the former ruling elite.

[marcus]

However, of the 10,000...why assume their "marriages" failed. Wasn't that more a defacto recognition of relationships and children?

That was exactly my point - and Paralus is quite right to say that they are an ancillary point. When talking about the "mass wedding" at Susa, one must make a clear distinction between those 90-odd officers who got married in the big tent, and the 10,000 who had been knocking about with native women for 10 years and whose relationships Alexander recognised with a new set of bone-handled steak-knives.

ATB

[Paralus]

...one must make a clear distinction between those 90-odd officers who got married in the big tent, and the 10,000 who had been knocking about with native women for 10 years .

Absolutely.

...and whose relationships Alexander recognised with a new set of bone-handled steak-knives.

Ha, ha. Do you reckon he might have added pewter wine goblets as well?

[dean]

Hello,

OK Marcus, point taken.

Either way, this thread is dealing with the "policy of fusion" and the only reason I brought up the 10000 guys who got the bone-steak knives was to say that in spite of this amount of guys and another 10000 or more persian ladies- the end result doesn't seem to been anything more than a bit of frolicking in the hay for want of a better euphemism and certainly didn't result in any type of "fusion" or unification of nations.

Also another puzzling part of the puzzle is Sisygambis' strange reaction- I mean would the mother of a defeated king, do what she did, or could it be part of Alexander's spin doctors imagination? It is almost as if she completely embraces him as rightful successor and heir to the Achaemenidian throne- Alexander at the mass weddings got married to two no less of her grandaughters at the wedding.Alexander must have had quite a wedding night!!That is all I can say.


Best regards,
Dean

[marcus]

Either way, this thread is dealing with the "policy of fusion" and the only reason I brought up the 10000 guys who got the bone-steak knives was to say that in spite of this amount of guys and another 10000 or more persian ladies- the end result doesn't seem to been anything more than a bit of frolicking in the hay for want of a better euphemism and certainly didn't result in any type of "fusion" or unification of nations.

Indeed. It might well have signified more than frolicking for many of the men - to be prepared to legitimise their relationships, especially if they had been "married" to these local women for longer than some of them might have spent with wives back home. However, whether or not that is the case, you are quite right to say that it certainly wasn't a policy of "fusion" - for Alexander it meant a new generation of spear fodder; for the men it meant a new set of steak-knives; for the women it probably meant that honour was satisfied!

Also another puzzling part of the puzzle is Sisygambis' strange reaction- I mean would the mother of a defeated king, do what she did, or could it be part of Alexander's spin doctors imagination? It is almost as if she completely embraces him as rightful successor and heir to the Achaemenidian throne- Alexander at the mass weddings got married to two no less of her grandaughters at the wedding.Alexander must have had quite a wedding night!!That is all I can say.

An interesting point. Once Darius was defeated, did Sisygambis decide that there was in fact no one else better suited to rule the empire; or was she a pragmatist, being Alexander's captive (however well he treated her) - at the end of the day, he was playing with a full deck and quite a few extra jokers, while she didn't even have a pencil to write down the scores ...

ATB

[Semiramis]

What's mine is yours Paralus.

Regarding the "marriages" of the rank and file to Asian women, I wonder how many of these women were captives ie. had absolutely no say in this "frolicking". Recognizing these unions, especially monetarily, may have had more to do with placating the soldiers who were dissatisfied with the campaign. Any "honour" for the women would have been mere side effect.

The sons, as Marcus puts so well, would get training to become spear fodder. The fact that the sons were to get a Greek education shows that Alexander was intending for them to be incorporated into pre-existing Macedonian military structure. Where else would he get recruits having exhausted Macedonian manpower? These marriages, the recruitment of the boys and their Greek education have all been presented as evidence for Alexander's desire for "fusion" or "globalization". I prefer the simpler conclusion - like any conqueror Alexander needed an army with a constant supply of fresh recruits who were just placated enough to be obedient to him.

The seating arrangements at Opis again re-enforce a new imperial hierarchy, not fusion. Macedonians in the middle, then Persian nobles, followed by other Asian nobles.

How does Alexander's treatment of the Zoroastrians fit into the "fusion" thesis? Not only did he destroy Zoroastrian temples but also killed the priests. Zoroastrian holy books were preserved by the priests who memorized parts or the whole from childhood. This would have been a serious blow to the religion. Like any good conqueror he was smashing the parts of the religious and political structures of the old guard that he could not put to his own use.

Last but not least, the little people. There is barely any mention of them in history but there's not much to suggest that Alexander did anything extra for "fusion" that the Persian empire wasn't doing already. Setting aside the towns and populations who were destroyed, take Alexander's favourite city - Babylon. Babylonian Astronomical diaries record that grain prices went through the roof during his soldiers' stay. Hard to argue that the average city dweller was feeling too globalized when food is all of a sudden difficult to afford in the most fertile part of the empire.

There is little in Alexander's actions or proclamations (concocted ones aside) to suggest that Alexander had any goals for "fusion" or "universal brotherhood". That we are discussing this at all is probably due to later historians' need to find some justifying principle for those years of bloodshed and destruction.

[Paralus]

What's mine is yours Paralus.

How generous! Accepting the inch and taking some of the mile...

The seating arrangements at Opis again re-enforce a new imperial hierarchy, not fusion. Macedonians in the middle, then Persian nobles, followed by other Asian nobles.

As clear as the Macedonian nose on Ptolemy’s face. The ruling elite sat in the inner circle with the new “Lord of Asia”. The others were, well, others. The great feast had very little, if anything whatsoever, to do with racial fusion and everything to do with recent realities.

This great feast was replicated by the conniving Peucestas in Persis in 317. This too is absolutely nothing to do with fusion and everything to do with cold hard reality. Here Peucestas is chaffing at the bit for command of the satrapal coalition army led by Eumenes. The differences are the altars to both Philip and Alexander in the centre and the Persian grandees that share a central role. This is for good reason: they were needed as were the levies they brought to the assembled army. Peucestas was banking on such feting garnering him much goodwill and the command. In the end it was Eumenes “Macedonians” (the silver shields) who decided.

[athenas owl]

I don't buy the "brotherhood of man" thing at all...or "fusion"...however:


I do have to, once again, come to the "defense" of some of the "camp follower" women. I wish I could remember the topic where we discussed this, perhaps a year or so ago.

There is always the assumption that the women of the soldiers were all captives, held against their will....and yet...wasn't it they who Alexander tried to butter up before continuing his march across India..with extra rations? To me that says, they were not mere two legged chattel but people to be placated and bribed...I think there is a danger of discounting these women (or at least some of them) and their impact.

Of course all the stories are hundreds of years after the fact, told through secondary sources, all men, and none Macedonian...but rather Greek (raises hand to stop that line of argument, just saying the Macedonians may have had a very different view and relationship to women than their neighbours to the south of them) and Latin (no feminists they).

And another possible reason that there were no Persian men married off to Macedonian women at Susa...geography and it's inconvenient distance from the women at home. Certainly we do know of a marriage of a Macedonian royal "princess' to a Perisan Satrap's son some 150/175 years before and the Macedonians were not above marrying outside themselves, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. I don't know that if Macedonian women had been on hand so far from home, Alexander might have done some marrying off that way as well.

As for the marriages of the 90 or so officers, certainly some ditched (or were ditched even) their Persian brides. However, others, like Peucestas, would have kept their bride, especially Peucestas the Satrap of the Persian homeland. Peucestas who adopted the language and dress of his subjects....and what of the other eastern Satraps...we don't know, so we must not assume...though as a whole it is assumed, taken as an article of faith.

Even Lysimachus, later, married Amastris, the niece of Darius III and the divorced wife of Craterus. And this very close to the Macedonian heartland. That he set her aside for one of the children of Ptolemy is another thing. But I don't see it as a rejection of her Persian heritage, rather that Arsinoe was politically more advantageous at the time.

None of this is a defense of Alexander...but just a word of caution about the lens through which we see that time...and about assumptions.

I do think Macedonian women had more power and their menfolk would have accepted possibly, a bit more even from the Persian women...because they were used to this. Just look at the Macedonian royal women...no Attic wallflowers there. The next generation of Macedonian women was right in the thick of the power struggles. Never forget Cynane, who, it was said, actually fought in battle...the half sister of Alexander himself. Not saying it was a feminist paradise, but often I think the Attic model for women is misapplied to Macedon and it's own interactions between the sexes.

And this is not to say that many, many women weren't raped and enslaved...but do not assume all were. As I said, the tellers of the Alexander story were far removed and had their own prejudices and cultural expectations. And Lord knows what was changed or lost because of the Successor Wars. "Retconning" if you will.

[Semiramis]

And another possible reason that there were no Persian men married off to Macedonian women at Susa...geography and it's inconvenient distance from the women at home. Certainly we do know of a marriage of a Macedonian royal "princess' to a Perisan Satrap's son some 150/175 years before and the Macedonians were not above marrying outside themselves, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. I don't know that if Macedonian women had been on hand so far from home, Alexander might have done some marrying off that way as well.

150 years before Alexander, Persia was the all-powerful empire and Macedonia a peripheral vassal state trying to placate Persians and Greeks at the same time. One is inclined to think that any Macedonian princess would not consider herself "above" that marriage, as she would certainly be marrying "up", given the relative positions of Macedonia and Persia at that time. The political situation was very different, so the marriage of a Macedonian princess to a Persian Satrap's son then doesn't necessarily indicate things would stay the same when Macedonia got the upper hand, as it did after Alexander's conquest. I think its telling that there is no record of such a marriage during Alexander's time, with regard to enforcing hierarchies.

I do think Macedonian women had more power and their menfolk would have accepted possibly, a bit more even from the Persian women...because they were used to this. Just look at the Macedonian royal women...no Attic wallflowers there. The next generation of Macedonian women was right in the thick of the power struggles. Never forget Cynane, who, it was said, actually fought in battle...the half sister of Alexander himself. Not saying it was a feminist paradise, but often I think the Attic model for women is misapplied to Macedon and it's own interactions between the sexes.

I agree with you here. Greek models of "no women in politics" did not hold in Macedonian royal household and certainly not in Persia. I particularly love the Greek historians' total horror at the power Persian Royal women held. The harem, far from just being a source of pretty sex toys, participated in succession politics, day to day running of the empire and had its own treasury. I think Alexander was aware of this western Asian tradition from the way he treated Sisygambis and Ada. As Persian tradition puts much emphasis on the mother's lineage as well as the fathers, his and Hephaistion's marriages to the Achaemenid princesses would have given their children legitimacy in the eyes of the Persian nobles the way nothing else could. Assuming the princesses were as good at scheming as their foremothers (is that a word?), I don't find it surprising that Roxane and Cassander had Darius' daughters killed soon after Alexander's death.

I don't know if this model of women participating in the decision-making process would apply to the of the working folk however. We know Persian women could be in paid employment, inherit property and there was a minimum age of marriage. If the Macedonian working class were similar to the Greek cities, Macedonian women would've had fewer rights than Persian women. But that's a big if.

We also don't know the exact status of the soldiers' women. Whether captive, prostitutes or willing romantic attachments, these women were considered dispensable during the Gedrosian march. It seems there were thousands of deaths but the army survived reasonably intact. That leaves us with the conclusion that the "companions" and slaves did most of the dying. As in, the soldiers got priorities with the rations.

[Paralus]

There is always the assumption that the women of the soldiers were all captives, held against their will....and yet...wasn't it they who Alexander tried to butter up before continuing his march across India..with extra rations? .

That last I can’t recall. There was a near rebellion (noted in Curtius, Diodorus and Justin) at the dismissal of the Greek troops in Hecatompylos prior to the march into India. I do not recall any bribing of the camp women though.

The camp wives will have been a mixture. Many will have been “taken” and others might well have gone with the conquerors. Still others might have morphed into same having started as camp followers. In any case, the example of Alexander’s hypaspists at Gabiene shows that these women – and their extended relatives – had firmly become “family” – and just as definitely wives. One can almost hear the call from the opposing camp: “Attahrias! Attahrias! Are you just going to sit there whinging at Peucestas for spoiling yet another bloody victory or trade that pesky Greek general and get me back? Well? Are you? I tell you Attahrias, you old Macedonian goat, if you don’t get of your spotty Macedonian….”

And another possible reason that there were no Persian men married off to Macedonian women at Susa...geography and it's inconvenient distance from the women at home. Certainly we do know of a marriage of a Macedonian royal "princess' to a Perisan Satrap's son some 150/175 years before and the Macedonians were not above marrying outside themselves…. I don't know that if Macedonian women had been on hand so far from home, Alexander might have done some marrying off that way as well.

For the king that could so simply order the restoration of exiles from around the Greek world, the procurement of Macedonian wives for his new Iranian hetairoi will have been no more difficult; a simple matter of requesting they be selected and sent. That he did not even seem to consider this is an eloquent pointer to how the Macedonian nobility might have reacted. This marital policy was strictly a one way street: Macedonians take, they do not give.

As for the marriages of the 90 or so officers, certainly some ditched (or were ditched even) their Persian brides. However, others, like Peucestas, would have kept their bride, especially Peucestas the Satrap of the Persian homeland. Peucestas who adopted the language and dress of his subjects....Even Lysimachus, later, married Amastris, the niece of Darius III and the divorced wife of Craterus. And this very close to the Macedonian heartland. That he set her aside for one of the children of Ptolemy is another thing.

Peucestas is a peculiar example. The evidence would seem to suggest that he was allowed by Alexander to comport himself as a Persian (dress, language, etc) so as to curry the favour of the former ruling class’s homeland (Diod. 19 14.5):

They say that for this reason Alexander permitted him alone of the Macedonians to wear the Persian raiment, wishing to please the Persians and believing that through Peucestas he could keep the nation in all respects obedient.

Lysimachus and Amastris are not a terribly good example. The background to his marriage with Craterus’ former wife was the climactic campaign of Ipsus over 302/1. It is a time of “world war” and great armies are moving: Demetrius is fighting a dragging campaign in Greece against Cassander; Ptolemy, in fulfilment of his obligations, is heading into Coele-Syria at the head of a sizeable army; Seleucus has gathered 20,000 foot, 12,000 cavalry and 480 elephants and is moving towards Cappadocia; Prepalaos, Cassander’s general, has invaded eastern Anatolia and Lysimachus has crossed the Hellespont with an army of invasion. The target is the octogenarian Antigonus Monophthalmus who has mobilised his army, larger than Alexander’s at Guagamela, and is marching to meet the threat.

Lysimachus is that immediate threat and he is forced back in a fighting retreat to Heracleia Pontica where he went into winter quarters. The politically useful marriage to the widow of the Heracleian tyrant Dionysius, Amastris, brought him not only a port and so communications with Thrace but also control over the route that Seleucus would enter Cappadocia by in the coming spring.

Demetrius would return with an army to fight the battle of Ipsus with his father. Antigonus would go down in a hail of javelins and, sometime near to 299/8, Lysimachus would renounce his once useful bride for another more useful, if not youthful, bride. He would – some fifteen years later – find the memory of the affection he once held for her pretext to go to war and recover Heracleia Pontica. Ever a practical man Lysimachus.

[amyntoros]

And another possible reason that there were no Persian men married off to Macedonian women at Susa...geography and it's inconvenient distance from the women at home. Certainly we do know of a marriage of a Macedonian royal "princess' to a Perisan Satrap's son some 150/175 years before and the Macedonians were not above marrying outside themselves, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. I don't know that if Macedonian women had been on hand so far from home, Alexander might have done some marrying off that way as well.

Concentrating on the rank and file and this point, although much of my argument can also be applied to the elite.

One of the reasons Alexander married off the army to their Persian womenfolk could well be that this legitimized the children – and made them, ipso facto, "Macedonians". The men who had not left wives and children behind in Macedonia would have had no opportunity to sire (more) legitimate sons except by marrying into the native population. That they hadn't done so of their own accord is not all that surprising as they appear to have continued to believe that Alexander would be taking them all home to Macedonia at some point. By the time of the marriages it was becoming obvious to all that his intentions lay elsewhere.

I really don't think though that Alexander would have married any Macedonia women to Persians under any circumstance - because (a) he didn't need to create such unions for political purposes - he already had complete control, and (b) it wouldn't have sat at all well with the Macedonians, especially those back home. When Alexander ordered the return of the sick and elderly he specified that their children (and presumably the mothers as well) were to remain with him in Persia. As has been said on this thread, those sons were to be trained as Macedonian soldiers and would henceforth have no allegiance except to Alexander, but the sources also tell us that the men should "not take home to Macedonia a source of conflict between foreigners and children of foreign wives and the children and mothers they had left behind them" (Arrian 7.12.4-7). It is very unlikely then that Macedonians would have accepted their daughters being taken away for the purpose of marrying those same foreigners. As the line was patriarchal, a marriage between a Macedonian woman and a Persian man would have produced only Persian offspring. Such (male) offspring would have been available for military training, of course, but they wouldn't have been "Macedonian". If Macedonia needed husbands for the generation of women who had grown up during the army's absence, isn't it more likely that Alexander would have encouraged unions amongst his own soldiers? I've always suspected that this was part of his reasoning in sending home the sick and elderly, many of whom history was to prove were still very capable of fighting. However, if things had gone differently and the men had made it back home, isn't it probable that a generation of young Macedonian women would have found themselves married to considerably older men?

Hmmm. My argument rather obviously reflects a view that there was no fusion intended by Alexander, only an increase in Macedonian stock to populate his growing "new" Macedonia. It doesn't follow though that he didn't have a respect and even a liking for the Persians. Politics are just politics after all.

Best regards,