He was a shrewd tactician - I'm not sure he was a shrewd politician. A shrewd politician probably wouldn't have trusted Satibarzanes, for example. Alexander always believed the best of people, and then was disappointed when they let him down. I don't think shrewd politicians do that much.Semiramis wrote:
Doesn't it seem like Bessus - being an Achaemenid - had a more legitimate claim to the throne than Alexander? It can't be surprising, then, that he would have supporters from the ranks of the satraps. Surely Alexander would have expected local opposition - especially in the Persian heartland - to his usurpation of the empire? Early twenties or not, can we really go along with the idea that a shrewd politician like Alexander had only envisioned rose petals and rice from that area after a bloody invasion?
As for Bessus, yes, from his point of view, his claim was good, but not from Alexander's. He hadn't usurped the empire, he'd conquered it - so from his point of view, being an Achaemenid wasn't relevant any more.
What was he expecting? To move east, satrapy by satrapy, and take things as he found them, I think. For all he knew at Hecatomplylus, Bessus was planning to welcome him into Bactria in return for hanging onto his local power - and he probably would have done. Once Bessus had made his move, though, the situation changed, and Alexander reacted accordingly.
Well, there can, actually - be some doubt, I mean - because I've got some. His undoubted success could just as easily have built upon rapid assimilation of information and fast action, combined with short term planning.Semiramis wrote:
Simply looking at the map of Alexander's numerous wars and conquests, there can be no doubt about at least short to medium term planning on Alexander's part. He would not have been so successful otherwise. The Mediterranean, Egypt, Persia, India all contained highly organized civilizations that were already ancient by Alexander's time. They would not have become so if they were easy to conquer. As for long-term vision, one could always argue that Alexander, from a young age, had an appetite for organized violence that simply could not be sated.
I don't think we see anything like medium-term planning until he gives orders for the construction of boats for the Indus, long before he gets there.
Indeed, yes, I have noticed this too, and in this I think he is a little unfair, as Alexander did not have the opportunity to experience the Romantic Nationalists and their subsequent de-bunking. He looks at Alexander's actions through 20th century eyes, and seems to think Alexander should have known better. This was a man who thought you could tell what was going to happen by looking at the insides of a dead animal. It may be almost impossible for us to enter the mindset of the ancient world, but I think we should try.Semiramis wrote: Your description of Alexander's wars of aggression, mass killings and enslavement, razing of cities, terrorizing of entire populations etc. as "adventurous", "interesting" and "exciting" reminds me of some of the popular ideas from the Romantic Nationalists. It has been argued that the popularization of this view of war through culture was what made the two world wars in the 20th century possible. Poetry, literature, paintings or even opera primed the population in Europe to accept war as something positive.
However, once the great wars had been fought, much of the cultural contribution from the soldiers in those very wars seem to paint a less glamorous picture violence and conquest. From what I can glean from his writings, Bosworth, of all the historians of Alexander that I have come across, has been most averse to glorifying violence or repression.
Fiona