Book Club: Conquest and Empire

[Fiona]

Hello Murray, and welcome to the site. I hope you will enjoy it here. There are a lot of people who, like yourself, are very well-read and knowledgeable. (ie not me, lol!)
I am very pleased that you wanted to comment on a point that I had made. I had not seen the passage you quoted, from Diodorus, before, and I agree with you that it alone is sufficient evidence for the state of Macedon when Philip took over, so you have put that niggle to rest, thank you!
It is quite extraordinary to contemplate the Macedonians being afraid of the Paeonians and the Illyrians at this time. That was quite some turn-around that Philip achieved there. Thank you very much for this interesting answer,
Fiona

[Fiona]

2:4 The Aegean Coast

Well, the focus of the book is the mechanics of conquest and empire, and here we are getting right down to it, with a great variety of places that are dealt with in different ways. I thought this chapter was well-balanced between the political and the military, though depressingly critical in tone throughout.
I found the snide reference to the Anglican Collect for Peace to be outrageous.
(O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom…)
Alexander never claimed that his service was perfect freedom, and to state that he did is just preposterous. It makes it very difficult to take any of Professor Bosworth’s other value-judgements – of which there are many – seriously.
We read very little here about which cities were inhabited by Hellenes and which were not, which must surely have made a difference, and might have shown more of a pattern in Alexander’s dealings with them. Perhaps that might have detracted from the general air of arbitrary dealings and ad hoc decisions which is being created.
Oh well… trying to be positive – the writing is great, and the summer’s campaign admirably summarised. I guess it’s fair enough to call the dismissal of the fleet ‘a blunder’, I can see why it might seem so, though doubtless his reasons seemed good at the time. He thought he could win by capturing the coastal cities, so there is no need to make it sound like a completely daft thing to do. I need RLF’s comment on this to cheer me up:
“It was a strategy shot through with short-term danger. Nevertheless finance and numbers made it the one sound option. Alexander, at least, had the foresight and daring to pursue it to its hazardous end.”
This was a commander so short of cash that he couldn’t really afford a fleet. Yet the donations for temples, the keeping of tributes at the same level, and the remitting of tributes on some occasions, pass by without any mention of the real generosity they entailed. In a book whose focus is the getting of empire, I’d have thought it worth a passing mention that this proves that getting rich was not part of the motive.
As for Halicarnassus, well, obviously Arrian has just slurred over Memnon’s awesome victory over the incompetent Alexander.
You have to laugh or you’d cry.
Fiona

[Paralus]

Alexander never claimed that his service was perfect freedom, and to state that he did is just preposterous. It makes it very difficult to take any of Professor Bosworth’s other value-judgements – of which there are many – seriously.

You are, seemingly, easily outraged. The Lydians – a non Greek ‘nation’ – will not have been treated as Greeks. That they “had exchanged masters” is the best description of what had transpired. It is what happened to other ‘nations’ that were subjects of the Persian Empire and not Greek. Are we to suggest that the Babylonians were given freedom and complete remittance of tribute in both money and produce?

If criticism is to be made it is more properly directed at Bosworth’s inclusion of Lydians (and other non-Greeks) in any programme of “freedom and autonomy” (more below).

We read very little here about which cities were inhabited by Hellenes and which were not, which must surely have made a difference, and might have shown more of a pattern in Alexander’s dealings with them. Perhaps that might have detracted from the general air of arbitrary dealings and ad hoc decisions which is being created.

That is because the material does not always specify who or which might be this or that. Many cities might well be identified as “Greek” and “other”; just as many are not so clear. Defining exactly what is Greek and non-Greek is not exactly black and white – especially after so many generations under and co-existing with Persian rule.

As for the Greek cities (those clearly such), it all comes down to one’s interpretation of what is termed “The League of Corinth” and its “mandate”. Bosworth footnotes Badian in this discussion but does not, in any way, fully agree with him on the matter. For a discussion that might better illuminate your view see “The Pax Macedonica and the Freedom of the Greeks of Asia (with an Appendix on the Chronology of the Years 323- 301)”, Epeteris tou Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon 20 (1994), 1-84.

I guess it’s fair enough to call the dismissal of the fleet ‘a blunder’, I can see why it might seem so, though doubtless his reasons seemed good at the time. He thought he could win by capturing the coastal cities, so there is no need to make it sound like a completely daft thing to do. I need RLF’s comment on this to cheer me up:
“It was a strategy shot through with short-term danger. Nevertheless finance and numbers made it the one sound option. Alexander, at least, had the foresight and daring to pursue it to its hazardous end.”

This was a commander so short of cash that he couldn’t really afford a fleet. Yet the donations for temples, the keeping of tributes at the same level, and the remitting of tributes on some occasions, pass by without any mention of the real generosity they entailed.

It was a “daft” thing to do. Although Lane Fox is correct with the money and numbers, allowing the Persian fleet free run in the north Aegean was not strategically sound. Memnon’s death brought an end to the Persian campaign of reclamation of the northern Ionian coast and the islands. Alexander could not have foreseen this and it was most fortuitous.

The reason the fleet was demobbed was lack of finance – triremes are most expensive women to maintain and Donald Trump would balk at stumping for any number – and the fact that Alexander could never match the Persian numbers. The resultant “deny the Persians ports” was the only real alternative. Had Alexander failed in any significant seaport siege he will have paid dearly.

As for Halicarnassus, well, obviously Arrian has just slurred over Memnon’s awesome victory over the incompetent Alexander.
You have to laugh or you’d cry.
Fiona

The sarcasm is unwarranted. I’d suggest you read both accounts (Arrian and Diodorus). Arrian, indeed, has glossed over his hero’s near disaster at this siege. Much ink Arrian spends on the time consuming Tyre siege but his account of Halicarnassus suffers compression and glossing worthy of Diodorus in his most ruthless “Reader’s Digest” mode. The defence was organised by Memnon but not by him alone. The Athenian “renegade” generals Ephialtes and Thrasybulus also bulk large. The Macedonian victory, like Issos to follow, was a near run thing. To read Arrian only gives one the impression that “the Great” took this city without much of any loss or huge effort. The reality was far more bloody and close run.

I have matters to address on this siege with Agesilaos (Break in the MAcedonian Line thread) when I eventually get around to it. For now a swim in the pool prior to the virtuous couch is in order (its been 40c here today.... again).

[Semiramis]

This was a commander so short of cash that he couldn’t really afford a fleet. Yet the donations for temples, the keeping of tributes at the same level, and the remitting of tributes on some occasions, pass by without any mention of the real generosity they entailed. In a book whose focus is the getting of empire, I’d have thought it worth a passing mention that this proves that getting rich was not part of the motive.

Hi Fiona,

This can be viewed as part of the propaganda Bosworth praises Alexander for in the previous chapter - that other essential component of conquest. More of an investment with an eye to the future control of taxes, treasuries, lavish palaces and other possessions, than generosity alone. Raising tributes would hardly make the new conqueror any more popular than the previous Persian overlords. Records show other Great Kings having to contend with rebellions (in Egypt for example) when they raised tributes to finance wars. Alexander's situation was not as stable as the Achaemenid empire was during those occasions.

[Fiona]

Hello Paralus, it is nice to see you back, did you have a good camping trip?

You are, seemingly, easily outraged. The Lydians – a non Greek ‘nation’ – will not have been treated as Greeks. That they “had exchanged masters” is the best description of what had transpired. It is what happened to other ‘nations’ that were subjects of the Persian Empire and not Greek. Are we to suggest that the Babylonians were given freedom and complete remittance of tribute in both money and produce?

Well, yeah, outraged because that was a first reaction, you know? I'd only just read it. Not arguing a bit that they'd just 'changed masters' - my outrage is reserved only and purely for the attributing to Alexander of the claim that his 'service was perfect freedom'. It wasn't - but he never said it was.

As for the Greek cities (those clearly such), it all comes down to one’s interpretation of what is termed “The League of Corinth” and its “mandate”. Bosworth footnotes Badian in this discussion but does not, in any way, fully agree with him on the matter. For a discussion that might better illuminate your view see “The Pax Macedonica and the Freedom of the Greeks of Asia (with an Appendix on the Chronology of the Years 323- 301)”, Epeteris tou Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon 20 (1994), 1-84.

Crumbs, Paralus, I'm only just reading Bosworth, I'm not sure I'm ready for articles in journals that have Greek titles. I'm sure it will illuminate someone, but not a person who still has to think very hard to remember which is which out of Lydia and Lycia. I'll take your word for it!
I know I have read somewhere, and can't remember where, the comment that even the 'Greek' cities that were 'liberated' looked on this with a jaundiced eye, having been liberated before with mixed results.
I'll watch out for your thoughts on the siege in that other thread. Thanks for learned comments!
Fiona

[Fiona]

This can be viewed as part of the propaganda Bosworth praises Alexander for in the previous chapter - that other essential component of conquest. More of an investment with an eye to the future control of taxes, treasuries, lavish palaces and other possessions, than generosity alone. Raising tributes would hardly make the new conqueror any more popular than the previous Persian overlords. Records show other Great Kings having to contend with rebellions (in Egypt for example) when they raised tributes to finance wars. Alexander's situation was not as stable as the Achaemenid empire was during those occasions.

Hi semiramis,
that's very interesting that you say 'propaganda that Bosworth praises Alexander for', because I'd never thought of anyone using propaganda in a good or praiseworthy way. I guess I am thinking of it purely in terms of something like the Berlin Olympics in 193-something - a thing you do to make your bad regime look good. So do you think I am understanding the word propaganda incorrectly, or is Bosworth claiming Alexander's regime was bad, yet praising him for it all the same?
As for the generosity v. eye to the future thing, well, Bosworth is very keen that 'we may not go beyond the material at our disposal'. As we have no clear evidence of Alexander's motives, and no record of his personal thoughts, then we can guess, he might have thought this, because of a, or he might have thought this, because of b, but we can't be certain either way. As so often, I should think that one's conclusions will be based on what one perceives his character to be.
Fiona

[Paralus]

As so often, I should think that one's conclusions will be based on what one perceives his character to be.

Or on the basis of plain, ordinary practicalities. There would be no practical gain in raising the levels of tribute; there is a plain gain in lowering or removing. From memory Alexander applied punitive penalties against the wavering Prienne. Antigonus Monophthalmus certainly saw great practical gain in engaging in similar propaganda excercises during the fiercely political atmosphere of 315-11. At bottom, these Greek states existed in a state somewhat reminiscent of the Athenian Empire.

Hello Paralus, it is nice to see you back, did you have a good camping trip?

Indeed I did. Blew an absolute cyclonic NW gale on the Sunday into Monday: I was preparing an introductory speech for my landing in Semiramis' front yard! Still, 18-22 deg C was far better than Sydney's 42!

Crumbs, Paralus, I'm only just reading Bosworth, I'm not sure I'm ready for articles in journals that have Greek titles. I'm sure it will illuminate someone, but not a person who still has to think very hard to remember which is which out of Lydia and Lycia. I'll take your word for it!

Shouldn't write yourself down. I have the paper curtesey of a most kind forum member and, if I could find a way to scan it into a suitably sized file, I'd email it to you. The word "illuminate" was mis-chosen; more apt would be "in tune with" your view.

That bit about a jaundiced eye and seen it all before is quite true. Certainly sounds like my rather more cynical view. Agesilaos was going to do all this remember?

[marcus]

I guess I am thinking of it purely in terms of something like the Berlin Olympics in 193-something - a thing you do to make your bad regime look good. So do you think I am understanding the word propaganda incorrectly, or is Bosworth claiming Alexander's regime was bad, yet praising him for it all the same?

Hi Fiona,

Propaganda is usually thought of as a "bad" thing, and considering its uses it could very often be perceived as such; but propaganda is merely the art of persuading someone to your point of view, so it doesn't have to mean that the regime was "bad". It is true that we most often think of it in the context of the Nazis (the Berlin Olympics were 1936, by the way), or the Stalinist USSR, and it so happens that those regimes were "bad".

The cutting of the Gordian Knot was a typical propaganda stunt, helping Alexander to establish more firmly his claim to be Lord of Asia. It should not necessarily follow that calling it propaganda means that Alexander was a bad person (or, indeed, that he *didn't* have a claim to be Lord of Asia - although ultimately his claim was only by right of conquest).

It's a little bit like the word "bias" - people usually think of bias as being "unfair" or "untrue" (and I even saw that on a worksheet produced by our English department at school, today); but bias is nothing more than a point of view (which could, but doesn't have to be, unfair or untrue). In fact, we tell our GCSE students not to use the word, because they can't get past the negative connotation.

ATB

[Semiramis]

Hi semiramis,
that's very interesting that you say 'propaganda that Bosworth praises Alexander for', because I'd never thought of anyone using propaganda in a good or praiseworthy way. I guess I am thinking of it purely in terms of something like the Berlin Olympics in 193-something - a thing you do to make your bad regime look good. So do you think I am understanding the word propaganda incorrectly, or is Bosworth claiming Alexander's regime was bad, yet praising him for it all the same?

I think we both have similar understandings of the word propaganda to be honest. Taking Marcus' explanation into account, for me, it has always had the meaning of those in power trying to convince the less privileged. Bosworth is identifying the successful military or propaganda skills that made the empire possible, not to be confused with glorifying or excusing the brutality of conquest and empire. In 'Alexander and the East - the Tragedy of Triumph', Bosworth compares the Spanish Conquistadors and their tactics (including propaganda) to Alexander's.

I agree that praising someone for something with negative connotations seems like an oxymoron. However, in this forum, we often praise Alexander's military tactics. Aren't we essentially praising the techniques for inflicting violence and death on human beings, so others can be terrorized into subjugation?

During our discussions on the movie '300' - I managed to praise Leni Riefenstahl's cinematic skills in 'Triumph of the Will'. There is no question that it is an anti-semetic and racist Nazi propaganda movie. I may have expressed admiration for Rommel's military tactics at some stage as well, without feeling the need to clarify my anti-Nazi stance. By that token, I guess one could say that the Berlin Olympics would have been a praiseworthy propaganda coup for the Nazis had it not been for the great Jesse Owens.

As for the generosity v. eye to the future thing, well, Bosworth is very keen that 'we may not go beyond the material at our disposal'. As we have no clear evidence of Alexander's motives, and no record of his personal thoughts, then we can guess, he might have thought this, because of a, or he might have thought this, because of b, but we can't be certain either way. As so often, I should think that one's conclusions will be based on what one perceives his character to be.
Fiona

I agree. It's near impossible to form a perception of his character given the lack of material. I guess this is why most of my conclusions take the most parsimonious route (read boring ) given the available information. Even the accounts we have are questionable. Take the Gordian Knot story Marcus mentioned - are we sure this really happened?

[Semiramis]

Indeed I did. Blew an absolute cyclonic NW gale on the Sunday into Monday: I was preparing an introductory speech for my landing in Semiramis' front yard! Still, 18-22 deg C was far better than Sydney's 42!

Given the current single-digit temperature range in my front yard, even a windy 18-22 C sounds much preferable.

[Fiona]

Or on the basis of plain, ordinary practicalities. There would be no practical gain in raising the levels of tribute; there is a plain gain in lowering or removing. From memory Alexander applied punitive penalties against the wavering Prienne. Antigonus Monophthalmus certainly saw great practical gain in engaging in similar propaganda excercises during the fiercely political atmosphere of 315-11. At bottom, these Greek states existed in a state somewhat reminiscent of the Athenian Empire.

Absolutely, I wouldn't argue with that. My only point would be, is it fair to assume that Alexander would do the practical thing because it was practical? I'm thinking of all the times when he didn't, like not consolidating, but going off to conquer India as well, and throwing a cup at Attalus and going off into exile, and giving away so much that Perdiccas asked him what he was keeping for himself, and drinking medicine given him by a possible poisoner.
It seems to me to be at least possible that if he was feeling generous to the liberated cities, he'd be generous whether it was practical or not, and whether or not he could afford it, and whether or not it would do him some good in the long run.
Fiona

[Fiona]

Propaganda is usually thought of as a "bad" thing, and considering its uses it could very often be perceived as such; but propaganda is merely the art of persuading someone to your point of view, so it doesn't have to mean that the regime was "bad". It is true that we most often think of it in the context of the Nazis (the Berlin Olympics were 1936, by the way), or the Stalinist USSR, and it so happens that those regimes were "bad".

The cutting of the Gordian Knot was a typical propaganda stunt, helping Alexander to establish more firmly his claim to be Lord of Asia. It should not necessarily follow that calling it propaganda means that Alexander was a bad person (or, indeed, that he *didn't* have a claim to be Lord of Asia - although ultimately his claim was only by right of conquest).

Thanks, Marcus, for this interesting explanation. it just shows how easily words can gather connotations and come to be understood in ways that they don't really mean. I'll try not to get too bothered, in future, when I read about propaganda from Alexander. We often read that he was aware of the value of image, and good publicity, to use very modern terms, and in that sense, the propaganda idea isn't so very different.
Fiona

[Fiona]

I agree. It's near impossible to form a perception of his character given the lack of material. I guess this is why most of my conclusions take the most parsimonious route (read boring ) given the available information. Even the accounts we have are questionable. Take the Gordian Knot story Marcus mentioned - are we sure this really happened?

It's a tricky thing with the sources, isn't it? We just can't be certain exactly what's true, and yet if we start rejecting bits, it's all too easy to keep the bits we like and reject the bits we don't like. For myself, I think it's safer to believe all of it.
But I didn't mean that we couldn't form a perception of his character. Quite the opposite, in fact - I'd have said that we have enough stories to help us form a pretty good picture of his character, and that that is what can help us come to some conclusions about his likely motives for various actions. (That's the bit I meant we hadn't the evidence for, very often - his motives.)
The trouble with that is, he was such a complex character, that almost any picture we come up with is likely to contain elements of truth.
Fiona

[amyntoros]

Hi semiramis,
that's very interesting that you say 'propaganda that Bosworth praises Alexander for', because I'd never thought of anyone using propaganda in a good or praiseworthy way. I guess I am thinking of it purely in terms of something like the Berlin Olympics in 193-something - a thing you do to make your bad regime look good. So do you think I am understanding the word propaganda incorrectly, or is Bosworth claiming Alexander's regime was bad, yet praising him for it all the same?

I'm late posting this response, sorry. I wrote it this morning but was sidetracked by other events on the forum, and now I see we've moved on somewhat. Still ... I'm going to sneak it in anyway.

I have no problem with the use of the word propaganda, especially as the strict definition of it is "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". There are instances where the word propaganda in the injurious sense could be applied – the time in India when the mercenaries were supposedly planning to escape, the statements made against Callisthenes, etc. – but much of the time it was simply helpful to Alexander's image. Personally I prefer to think of Alexander as utilizing "public relations" wherever he could. I mean, really, he had to be the first - and probably the best - spin doctor in history!

Best regards,

[jan]

Hello Fiona,

What a fascinating discussion this became. We can learn more from the discussion group than we thought...I am especially impressed with the number of sayings that are attributed to Philip, posted by Amyntoros.

One struck me as being quite relevant to understanding Alexander's decisions regarding Parmenio. I had always wondered why it is that Parmenio and Alexander seem to have a conflict in giving counsel and advice and in accepting and using it. Perhaps Alexander was reacting to his father's own feelings about Parmenio after all...I have often suspected that and this seems to confirm it to me.

That unfortunately is normal and natural as I do know that many children tend to rebel against parental advice and I am wondering at how often Alexander disliked being compared to his father, especially when it took such a disastrous turn with Kleitos.

The incident about Philip's recognizing a friend resonated well with me. I liked that one very much. In my opinion, Philip exercises great judgement.

Altogether, I like Philip very much if all these sayings that are attributed to him are truly his.

If legend is correct, Alexander was destined for his role in history, and could not have been better prepared than to have been born from Philip. Philip is certainly necessary to know to understand the reason for Alexander's success, even if his motivation had been to do better than his father/mentor. Alexander always rises to the challenge, doesn't he, and none could be more challenging for him than his own father.

Thanks, Fiona, for initiating such a great discussion. Jan