Alexander and ethics

[Efstathios]

Ok, having in mind the ethics of his time, how do you see Alexander in this department? Do you think his actions, and i mean the most brutal ones, like Tyr and Thebes, were no more than what others have also done?

And i think we should also discuss about what were the ethics of his time. The Hellenistic and Classical periods. We should also discuss how people then, saw these things. Because soldiers were fighting for glory and et.c., but how about the commmon people?

I think in some situations we may find common things with modern day's wars, but in some others, not. Like Socrates, and his philosophy, and his teachings, who nevertheless fought as a hoplite and he was a good warrior too.

[derek]

My opinion would be that Alexander was no more than a man of his times. He lived in a brutal age and had a brutal job, so it’s not surprising he turned out that way. Yes, he caused the deaths of a lot of people, but usually no more than he needed and nowhere near the senseless brutality of some of the invaders who’ve come before and since. If anything, Alexander felt complete indifference toward his victims, not caring whether they lived or died. He used brutality as just another weapon in his arsenal, killing or sparing dependant on which would produce the reaction that suited the moment.

Think of him as the businessman who’ll do whatever’s necessary. That’s how I’d say he approached it.

Derek

[aleksandros]

in some sense Alexander must have felt like whoever didnt surrender was just commiting suicide.

He was well aware of his military power and he felt it as an insult by whoever questioned his authority.

its like today's greece to question US authority. its crazy and never happened. and if it did happen and greece was wiped off the map the greek people would not put less blame in their goverment than USA.

i am sure it has to be more complicated but this is how i see it in a few lines.


concerning the ethics of that time we first have to forget about christianity.
the heroic ethic was really strong at that time. a soldier could slain hundreds in his life in the battlefield and never be called a murderer.

andreia was highly valued. back then for one to kill an enemy soldier it meant he had to put his own life on the line. and i believe the same goes for today's soldiers around the world.
alexander was a soldier himself so he has to be judged by soldier-ethics about what he did on the battlefield.

so killing people on the battlefield it was far from 'sinning'.
of course homocide was not acceptable by the ethics of alexander's times.

[Phoebus]

I think the extant record indicates that Alexander was hardly unique in his treatment of battlefield opponents and conquered people.

Does that make what he did it right by today's standards? Of course not. Had Alexander III done what he did in the late 20th century, his actions would have been indistinguishable from those of any number of warlords, ethnic cleansers and war-mongering governments.

[Alita]

He didn't kill for the sake of killing. Alexander had a purpose in mind, a higher purpose perhaps, but you couldn't say those he fought weren't expecting it. All soldiers went into battle with the full knowledge that they could and probably would die. Alexander also accepted this. I'm quite sure he wouldn't have expected to come out of any battle alive but saw each one as a worthy cause to die for. So it kind of balances out.

[marcus]

He didn't kill for the sake of killing.

Although it might look that way in certain circumstances. I suppose there is a big difference between taking a "harsh" approach to opposition, or perceived opposition, and killing purely from bloodlust ... but those Indian mercenaries might have had a thing or two to say about the semantics of that one!

Not entirely sure what the "higher purpose" was, though - can you elaborate?

ATB

[aleksandros]

marcus none of us were there.

absolute exterminations had its purpose in India.

[dean]

Hello,

Alexander and ethics? I think the same as pretty much everyone else- Alexander saw fighting and killing as part of life-

It is of course disputable that Alexander's "moral code" had much more to do with Homer's Iliad- nothing greater than to die on the battlefield or something along those lines- killing wasn't evil- on the battlefield, on the contrary it was the path to "glory"

The moral values were different- was it not a valued "talent" to be a good thief back then? Whilst theft today is not exaclty so highly valued. Morals have changed since then- back then there was no "rule" book on morals - like we have today in the form of a bible.


I am sure also that there will have been a great degree of indifference towards the enemy- wasn't it Tzun Su who said it is a tactical error for any commander to lead his army into battle whilst under the grips of a fit of anger? Alexander's moves were extremely well calculated when it mattered the most and undoubtedly the product of a very clear thinking mind- regardless of whether or not those "moves" involved the massacring of whole towns to stand as an example to other ones.

I don't think that Alexander will have lost much sleep over the numerous people that he either directly or indirectly killed- he had much more important things to do like dream about which incredible feat to undertake next

Best regards,
Dean

[marcus]

marcus none of us were there.

absolute exterminations had its purpose in India.

Er ... yes ... but that's what I was saying - he doesn't appear to have committed wholesale exterminations without a reason. What I was saying, however, was that the Indians themselves might not have perceived it that way.

ATB

[rocktupac]

This is a hard question to answer, especially concerning what the 'common people' might have thought, because their voices are all too often silent in the texts that get handed down to us. But here it goes.

Alexander's actions, even those at Thebes and Tyre, were no less brutal than the actions of other generals or tyrants before him, or after for that matter. What was done at Tyre broke no laws in the ancient world and was possibly even expected. What would have been perceived as unacceptable, and was, was the murder of Alexander's heralds on top of Tyre's walls. And at Thebes it could be said that Alexander alone didn't make the decision to slaughter and raze, it was the wish of the League.

I find Alexander to be quite lenient compared to other conquerors and generals before him. Those that surrendered without a fight were treated well. And even some that did fight, but surrendered in the end, were treated fairly. His treatment of women should stand out perhaps above everything. I can't think of another conqueror in the ancient world that was as kind or caring towards women as Alexander. Women, who were considered fair game when looting, little more than property, were for the large part left alone on the orders of Alexander.

The 'common people', in both Greece and the eastern territories, would most likely have been surprised (or shocked) at Alexander's behavior when compared to the norms of the time. The common Greeks would probably have been appauled by his treatment of the so-called barbarians; and some most likely would like to have seen them all put to death. (We can make a brief comparison to the thoughts of many, not all, Americans today and their feelings toward the common people of the Middle East. It's sad, but I'm sure quite a few have said "they should all be killed" without knowing a thing or two about the people there.) The Persians would most likely have been shocked as well; shocked that this foreign invader, said to be avenging the sacrileges of Xerxes, would end up treating so many of them so well, even allowing certain ones to remain in power and enter into his army. It would have went against all the ethics of the time, and for both peoples.

As far as their views on the mass killing, I don't think it would have bothered either group that much. Of course individuals would be affected (i.e. parents grieving over lost children, and vice versa), but as a whole, the 'War Against Xerxes' Sacrilege' as it may have been called were it reported by todays media, would have been totally acceptable in the eyes of the people at the time. War was a way of life and very common, much as it still is today, as much as we like to argue that we're far more 'civilized' than the ancients. The only thing that differs from then to now, is that in the world of Alexander, war was glorious and a place to win honor and fame. It's funny that, what really bothers the Macedonians following Alexander is not the killing or gore, it's the clothes their king wears. That should tell you something about their ethics.

[aleksandros]

marcus none of us were there.

absolute exterminations had its purpose in India.

Er ... yes ... but that's what I was saying - he doesn't appear to have committed wholesale exterminations without a reason. What I was saying, however, was that the Indians themselves might not have perceived it that way.

ATB

in life you make desicions. some indians surrendered some didnt. most of the latter were exterminated or lost their homes..
i dont think that the thoughts of indians about alexander really matter, since everyone could have his own opinion....
like in the persian wars thebes went with persia and athens stood against and got burnt....not many said Xerxes was only about killing and nothing more....its just war, its about winning, losing and revenge.....and above all, money and power.

[Paralus]

Er ... yes ... but that's what I was saying - he doesn't appear to have committed wholesale exterminations without a reason. What I was saying, however, was that the Indians themselves might not have perceived it that way.

Indeed Marcus. I wonder how the women and children viewed the semantics of the situaion...

Diodorus, 17-84.1-6:

The mercenaries straightway under the terms of the truce left the city and encamped without interference at a distance of eighty furlongs, without an inkling of what would happen. [2] Alexander, nevertheless, nursed an implacable hostility toward them; he held his forces in readiness, followed them, and falling upon them suddenly wrought a great slaughter. At first they kept shouting that this attack was in contravention of the treaty and they called to witness the gods against whom he had transgressed. Alexander shouted back that he had granted them the right to leave the city but not that of being friends of the Macedonians forever.

[3] Not daunted at the greatness of their danger, the mercenaries joined ranks and, forming a full circle, placed their children and women in the centre so that they might effectively face those who were attacking from all directions. Filled with desperate courage and fighting stoutly with native toughness and the experience of previous contests, they were opposed by Macedonians anxious not to show themselves inferior to barbarians in fighting ability, so that the battle was a scene of horror. [4] They fought hand to hand, and as the contestants engaged each other every form of death and wounds was to be seen. The Macedonians thrust with their long spears through the light shields of the mercenaries and pressed the iron points on into their lungs, while they in turn flung their javelins into the close ranks of their enemies and could not miss the mark, so near was the target.

[5] As many were wounded and not a few killed, the women caught up the weapons of the fallen and fought beside their men, since the acuteness of the danger and the fierceness of the action forced them to be brave beyond their nature. Some of them, clad in armour, sheltered behind the same shields as their husbands, while others rushed in without armour, grasped the opposing shields, and hindered their use by the enemy. [6] Finally, fighting women and all, they were overborne by numbers and cut down, winning a glorious death in preference to basely saving their lives at any cost.

Arrian on Sogdia - just a couple of snapshots:

Alexander pursued them closely ; and coming to the place where the battle was fought, he buried his soldiers as well as the circumstances permitted, and then followe d the fugitives as far as the desert. Returning thence, he laid the land waste, and slew the barbarians who had fled for refuge into the fortified places, because they were reported to have taken part in the attack upon the Macedonians.

...but Aristobulus asserts that this city was also taken by storm, and that he slew all who were captured therein.

The first action in the indian campaign:

The city had been surrounded with a double wall. At the second wall the barbarians stood their ground for a short time; but when the scaling ladders were now being fixed, and the defenders were being wounded with darts from all sides, they no longer stayed; but rushed through the gates out of the city towards the mountains. Some of them were killed in the flight, and the Macedonians, being enraged because they had wounded Alexander, slew all whom they took prisoners.

A recurrent theme. There follows , a little later, the slaughter of the "sick". Wonder why the Indians fled to strongholds?

[marcus]

Indeed Marcus. I wonder how the women and children viewed the semantics of the situation...

Diodorus, 17-84.1-6:

The mercenaries straightway under the terms of the truce left the city and encamped without interference at a distance of eighty furlongs, without an inkling of what would happen. [2] Alexander, nevertheless, nursed an implacable hostility toward them; he held his forces in readiness, followed them, and falling upon them suddenly wrought a great slaughter. At first they kept shouting that this attack was in contravention of the treaty and they called to witness the gods against whom he had transgressed. Alexander shouted back that he had granted them the right to leave the city but not that of being friends of the Macedonians forever.

[3] Not daunted at the greatness of their danger, the mercenaries joined ranks and, forming a full circle, placed their children and women in the centre so that they might effectively face those who were attacking from all directions. Filled with desperate courage and fighting stoutly with native toughness and the experience of previous contests, they were opposed by Macedonians anxious not to show themselves inferior to barbarians in fighting ability, so that the battle was a scene of horror. [4] They fought hand to hand, and as the contestants engaged each other every form of death and wounds was to be seen. The Macedonians thrust with their long spears through the light shields of the mercenaries and pressed the iron points on into their lungs, while they in turn flung their javelins into the close ranks of their enemies and could not miss the mark, so near was the target.

[5] As many were wounded and not a few killed, the women caught up the weapons of the fallen and fought beside their men, since the acuteness of the danger and the fierceness of the action forced them to be brave beyond their nature. Some of them, clad in armour, sheltered behind the same shields as their husbands, while others rushed in without armour, grasped the opposing shields, and hindered their use by the enemy. [6] Finally, fighting women and all, they were overborne by numbers and cut down, winning a glorious death in preference to basely saving their lives at any cost.

Arrian on Sogdia - just a couple of snapshots:

Alexander pursued them closely ; and coming to the place where the battle was fought, he buried his soldiers as well as the circumstances permitted, and then followe d the fugitives as far as the desert. Returning thence, he laid the land waste, and slew the barbarians who had fled for refuge into the fortified places, because they were reported to have taken part in the attack upon the Macedonians.

...but Aristobulus asserts that this city was also taken by storm, and that he slew all who were captured therein.

The first action in the indian campaign:

The city had been surrounded with a double wall. At the second wall the barbarians stood their ground for a short time; but when the scaling ladders were now being fixed, and the defenders were being wounded with darts from all sides, they no longer stayed; but rushed through the gates out of the city towards the mountains. Some of them were killed in the flight, and the Macedonians, being enraged because they had wounded Alexander, slew all whom they took prisoners.

A recurrent theme. There follows , a little later, the slaughter of the "sick". Wonder why the Indians fled to strongholds?

But the thoughts of the Indians about Alexander don't really matter, according to Aleksandros ...

ATB

[Alita]

Not entirely sure what the "higher purpose" was, though - can you elaborate?

ATB

I don't mean higher purpose in the way we think of it today: eg. clothe the poor, help the sick etc. His higher purpose had to do with what he'd been taught and what he'd been brought up with. I.e. Achilles' example and his father's legacy.

I think Alexander's path was set before him. However, he showed signs of trying to make it as meaningful a path as possible. For example, he went into battle but he also spared the family of his enemy and showed signs of remorse after his meaningless acts of cruelty. He expected bravery from his men but he also visited them when they were injured.

It's only fair to judge a person by the reactions they produce in the people of their own time; their OWN acquaintances. What did Alexander's men think of him? What did foreign peoples think of him? This is how we'll know how to judge his actions. Remember, this was over 2,000 years ago. How much can change in that time?

[amyntoros]

I think Alexander's path was set before him. However, he showed signs of trying to make it as meaningful a path as possible. For example, he went into battle but he also spared the family of his enemy and showed signs of remorse after his meaningless acts of cruelty. He expected bravery from his men but he also visited them when they were injured. <My bold-face)

Maybe it's because it is too early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of examples of remorse after meaningless acts of cruelty. The definition of remorse is "Moral anguish arising from repentance for past misdeeds; bitter regret." When does this apply to Alexander? He showed remorse after the death of Cleitus, but the murder wasn't an act of cruelty. It is said that he regretted the burning of Persepolis, but regret isn't the same as remorse and, once again, it wasn't an act of cruelty. And I'm also not sure that any perceived act of cruelty (by your/our standards) could be interpreted as having been meaningless in Alexander's eyes.

You've stumped me on this one, Alita! Where's that coffee!

Best regards,