This is such a fascinating statement. I find the formation of identity a really interesting topic. A lot of modern day nationalists, Greeks and others, insist that their ideas about “us” and “them” stretch back to the mists of time. In many cases this is a difficult claim to substantiate. Nationalist/patriotic sentiment has so little to support it, logically speaking, appeals to (imagined?) history is common.Efstathios wrote:What you need to understand though is that for a very long time, much longer than the Classical and Hellenistic era, the Greeks were as one.
So you’re saying two things. One – Greeks were “as one”. But two – that Alexander and Phillip’s intervention was needed to “unite” them. If the Greeks were “as one” and in need of unity, why did they themselves not understand this concept? Why did Alexander and Phillip need to march in with their mighty armies? Why did Alexander need to raze a city like Thebes, kill and turn people into slaves the same way he did with many other cities he conquered? It’s hard to make a distinction between the terrorizing of the population in Thebes versus say those of Tyre or Gaza. Similar strategy, similar effect of other cities submitting to Alexander out of fear.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, you may perceive Greeks and Macedonians from before the Classical Era and onwards as “one”, but did they perceive themselves that way?
This is where the irony of Athens erecting a statue to Alexander is amusing. I see the evolution of a person from hated conqueror and denier of freedoms to “national hero” over the course of time thanks to the need for national identity.
marcus wrote:Still, there is a serious point to this - the Iraqis should have no particular problem about having a statue of Alexander at Erbil (or nearby) because he didn't "conquer" Mesopotamia in the standard meaning of the word. The Persians were occupiers, whether benevolent or aggressive, and Alexander occupied the area without putting everyone to fire and sword. Indeed, there is a big argument that he stimulated the economy of Babylon massively, before and after his 331BC stay there. The city's standing after 323BC remained high, right up to the point where the Seleucids lost it to the Parthians, even after it had ceased to be a capital.
No reason, as far as I can see, why there should be any problem with the Iraqis having a statue of Alexander there.
What is more “liberating” about Alexander’s conquest in the region that is modern day Iraq than that of the Achaemenids or the Mongols or of Bush? What is the logic behind assuming that the Iraqi people will be more likely to want an Alexander statue than any of the others? If nothing better is found to spend money on in Iraq, perhaps all four empires should have statues erected to them. The proportion of shoes thrown on these could tell us about the current relative popularity of these conquerors?Efstathios wrote:It is exactly as Marcus said it. And the Iraqis would wish to have someone like ATG coming to liberate them instead of Bush.
I hear Iraq has a bit of history and heritage of its own, a significant proportion of it affected by the birthpangs of the new Middle East. As much as any occupied people’s opinions ever mattered, perhaps they would prefer restoration some of the local sites? Fewer tanks damaging the oldest cities in the world?
If Darius’ army was as large as modern historians predict, that region would surely have been stripped of food and water as they marched or camped. Perhaps a statue to the people who had to (and still have to) to suffer for conquerors’ egos would be most appropriate?marcus wrote:The people of Arbela had no choice over who ruled them, the Persians or the Macedonians, and life was hardly any different after the battle from before
Did you by any chance have a moment of amusement when the Babylonians were throwing rose petals on Alexander in Stone's movie? Do you think there was a tear or two in the Pentagon or Downing Street? 
