Alexander as Scottish gentleman

[marcus]

Dear all,I *finally* received my copy (from Amazon) of the second volume of WW Tarn's "Alexander the Great". (Getting hold of Vol 1 is driving me nuts!).Now, I haven't read this since I was at university, which was more years ago than I care to reveal; so my knowledge of Tarn's take on Alexander has all come from what other writers say about it.He certainly does view Alexander through rose-tinted spectacles, and I was particularly amused by his piece on Parmenion's death - wherein he is 'forced to admit', ultimately, that it was murder pure and simple, and that Tarn's best efforts cannot exculpate him.I have to say, however, that I haven't had the heart to venture into his "Brotherhood of Man" chapter... All the bestMarcus

[alejandro]

Hi MarcusFunny you mention Alexander as a Scottish gentleman (the usual interpretation of TarnGÇÖs favourable view on Alex). It reminded me of another link between ATG and Scotland. Maybe you read it already somewhere else, but every time I re-read it I find it refreshing.Here it is:This question crops up a lot. LetGÇÖs knock it on the head, shall we. Take a quick look at John KeeganGÇÖs words on the issue. The following opens his account of Alexander in his book GÇÿThe Mask Of CommandGÇÖ, where he contrasts different modes of generalship as evinced by Alexander, Wellington, Hitler and Grant. GÇ£Imagine a Highland Napoleon. Imagine a Bonny Prince Charlie with European ambitions who, having won back Scotland from King George II, sets off at the head of his clans not just to conquer England - a mere preliminary - but to cross the channel, to meet and beat the French army on the Somme, then journey south into Spain to besiege and subdue its principal fortresses, return north to challenge the Holy Roman Emperor, twice confront and defeat him at the head of his forces, seize his crown, burn his capital, bury his corpse and finally depart eastward to cross swords with the Tsar of Russia or the Sultan of Turkey. GÇ£Imagine all this compressed into, say, the years 1745 - 56, between the princelingGÇÖs twenty second and thirty third birthdays. Imagine on his death, at the age of thirty two, the crowns of Europe shared between his followers - Lord George Murray ruling in Madrid, the Duke of Perth in Paris, Lord Elcho in Vienna, John Roy Stewart in Berlin, Cameron of Lochiel in Warsaw, a gaggle of tartaned chieftains braying for whiskey in the small courts of south Germany, and London garrisoned by a crew of bare kneed highlanders. GÇ£Finally, imagine most of this Jacobite empire enduring into the nineteenth century, parts of it into the twentieth, and its last fragment into the twenty first. GÇ£Thus is it possible to grasp how extraordinary was the career of Alexander the Great. The distances and obstacles of the enterprise defeat the imagination - and they have, indeed, no parallel in any reality except that of AlexanderGÇÖs own life. The world has, of course, known conquerors of extraordinary ambition in its time: Attila the Hun whose horsemen rode from Central Asia to the gates of Rome in the fifth century; the Arab successors of Mahomet turned back into Spain by defeat on the banks of the Loire in the eighth century; and the sons of Genghis Khan, whose Mon

[alejandro]

GÇ£Thus is it possible to grasp how extraordinary was the career of Alexander the Great. The distances and obstacles of the enterprise defeat the imagination - and they have, indeed, no parallel in any reality except that of AlexanderGÇÖs own life. The world has, of course, known conquerors of extraordinary ambition in its time: Attila the Hun whose horsemen rode from Central Asia to the gates of Rome in the fifth century; the Arab successors of Mahomet turned back into Spain by defeat on the banks of the Loire in the eighth century; and the sons of Genghis Khan, whose Mongols menaced Venice and Vienna in the thirteenth. Napoleon, a devotee of the Alexanderr epic, came close to re-enacting it in the years between Rivoli, 1797, and Moscow, 1812, as again did Hitler in whom some gobbet of classical learning also nourished an admiration for Alexander.His orgy of victory was, of course, even more telescoped in time than NapoleonGÇÖs, who in turn gave battle more often than ever Alexander did.
GÇ£Yet the achievements of none of these earth shakers quite match those of the original. Napoleon and Hitler scarcely ventured beyond their own continent. Attila, the Arabs and the Mongols broke the boundaries of Asia but only scratched the heartland of Europe. Alexander, by contrast, first made himself master of the Greek world, then translated himself to another, the Persian Empire, and finally ventured into a third in India. At his death in June 323BC, he had subdued the largest tract of the earthGÇÖs surface ever to be conquered by a single individual - Genghis KhanGÇÖs shortlived empire excepted - and ruled as overlord, emperor and king from mount Olympus to the Himalaya.GÇ¥Hope you liked itAlejandro

[Linda]

For another Scottish angle (more William Wallace than John Buchan I suspect), Oliver Stone is apparantly depicting the Macedonians in the same cultural relationship to the Greeks/Athenians as the Scots (or Irish) were to the English: the wild barbarians and the dominant "posh" culture. Of course, the Scots never managed to dominate the English in the way the Macedonians did in Philip/Alexander's time - not militarily anyway :)Is Tarn worth reading?

[beausefaless]

Dear Marcus,Parnenio was a thorn in Alexander's side from Granicus on, don't get me wrong, Parmenio was a very good commander and he followed orders on the battle field for the most part, but the old crony of Philip was just a big pain in the ass! Parmenio argued with Alexander how every campaign should be fought, when, how, and where, I mean if it was up to Parmenio Alexander never would have gotten anywhere near Babylon and sometime in the future Darius would have regrouped and made every attempt to get his revenge. Just before Parmenio's death Alexander gave Parmenio command of the supply lines and sure enough he really screwed that up big time by routing and distributing all the supplies the way he felt fit, that was the straw that broke the camel's back, Alexander had enough, as far as I'm concerned Alexander did the right thing and Philotas, at Fara, showed he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed but that's just my opinion.
All the best,Andrew

[Pete]

The nation of Scotland has always been fractured
either by class or religeon The Scots have never once put an army into the field
that unquestionably represented the entire nationPolitics and class were always the great divider
Later the reformation completely split the nation into north and southIf Alexander had faced united Greek opposition
and had civil strife at home in Macedonia, his
expedition may never have happened.

[S]

Greetings Andrew,
(Laughing) Yes! As I said, keep your friends close, your enemies closer. (Or, perhaps, as another adage says, "if you have to kill a snake, kill it once and for all?") Still smiling,
Sikander

[marcus]

Yes, Tarn is worth reading, although it is best to keep the more recent scholarship in the back of one's mind.There's a certain arrogance in his writing which I found quite amusing - he refers obliquely to a paper that he wrote in 1938 merely by saying "people couldn't have reached that conclusion before 1938"... and it's only by checking his bibliography that you realise why. (Well, it was amusing, but you had to be there, I suppose!).All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,I imagine opinion will always be divided about Parmenion. I certainly have never made up my mind. Half the time I would agree with you wholeheartedly, the rest of the time I can't see how the man Philip considered to be the best general in Greece could have been so wrong so much of the time. I suppose his disagreements with Alexander were to do with strategic objectives and the conduct of the war - neither of which would make him 'wrong', necessarily... just that he had a different approach from Alexander.I'm intrigued that you say he screwed up the logistics when he was in Ecbatana, though. I'm not aware that there's any mention of the sources of what he was doing there, whether or not he did it well.All the bestMarcus

[Dimitrios]

Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: CHAPTER ONE In the eyes of many Greeks outside of Macedonia, Philip and his subjects appeared backward and barbaricGÇöthey were like the hard-riding, hard-fighting, hard-drinking cowboys of the lawless American frontier to the socialites of nineteenth-century Boston and New York A example supporting Holt from American History... ANDREW JACKSON GÇó 7th President of the United States ... to the disapproval of Harvard alumnus John Quincy Adams, who called Jackson "a barbarian who could not write a sentence ...
http://www.who2.com/andrewjackson.htmlMacedonia was a tough place that bred a tough population. To survive in the midst of so many enemies on the northern fringes of the Greek world, the Macedonians held fast to the heroic warrior code of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. They seemed a time warp back to the Trojan War and the bellicose Bronze Age. In battles, brawls, and drinking bouts, the Macedonians measured a man from king to commoner by the implacable standards of Achilles and Agamemnon. Regards , Dimitri

[Dimitri]

Hi Marcus, All historians use analogies from there own culture to convey a picture.Of course,no analogy is perfect though most have valid points. Tarn has been critisized by portraying ATG in a sort of Victorianish way somewhat consistent with the morality of his time. The German historians portrayed Macedonia in a similar light,to the Prussians of Germanic world in an era of German unification. After WW2 a school began by Badian portrays ATG as almost Hitler like.Of course Badian experience was in Austria during the Hitler era and was naturally revolted by the 3rd Reich.Thus, ATG as a powerful conqueror becomes a incarnation of Hitler.While Badian criques Tarn and German historians for allowing personal sentiments to rule their conclusions ,he is also guilty of the same crime. Holt an American Proffessor from Texas of course uses the American frontiersmen as his example of ancient Macedonian Homeric world.Naturally,this would strike a cord at a University in the Great State of Texas. Where I give Holt credit is that although he agrees with some of the revisionist movement he states that it has gone way to far in the other direction to the point where it has become a new Orthodoxy as rigid as the old one.
Best Regards, Dimitri

[marcus]

Completely agree with you.That is one of the things that most endeared me to Holt! :-)All the bestMarcus

[Dimitri]

Analogies though pointing out certain similarities that are present in other societies are certainly a good tool to present a picture though all have some flaws. Nation states as we know them today were essentially unknown at the time.Sparta was vastly different then Athens in many respects with elements of Monarchy/Oligarchy present.Macedonia prior to Phillips time was divided into mini Homeric Kingdoms along a ex LYNKESTIS,ODOMANTIS,ORESTIS ect.Phillip united these Kingdoms into essentially one central monarchy under Homeric lines in a very similar fashion to Agamemnon during the Mycenean era.In this respect Phillip created the 1st nation state.Under Phillips rule over the City States was such that while each City State had authority to run its local affairs it must adhere to PHILLIPS FOREIGN POLICYy.Though in no way was it a nation state it certainly set the grounds for what became known as one later one.A nation state must have a singular foreign policy.One could not imagine in the USA for example each state having its own seperate foreign policy ex one signing treaties with Hussein another one advocating war. PHILLIP WAS A GENIUS AND MAN AHEAD OF HIS TIMES!!

Reagards, Dimitri