Alexanders Purges.

[iskander_32]

Hail.Sources and writers as time has passed regulaly condemn and question Alexanders sanity and assumed meglamania at the time he returned to babylon.Its fair to say he had numerous govenors, satraps etc executed for mal government in his abscence.Due to these acts Alexanders sanity has been questioned can this also be put into order and understanding,,, These guys hands were not clean Harpalus been just one example the looting of Cyrus tombanother.When Alexander was away it can,t be dismissed that some of his apointees must have behaved out of order thinking,,, Whilst the cats away the mouse can play as the old saying goes.Whenever Alexander did something that seemed outragious he is condemned outright no understanding as to why.Alexander was indeed gutted by Hepheastion dying as would anyone,,, But I dont believe for one minute he was going round the bend nor at the end of his rope.I could be wrong but I dont think he killed anyone without sound political or personal reasons, I dont believe the executions of the naughty boys was maniacal they were naughty boys and paid the price I guess in simple terms, He didnt just return from India to decide to excecute people just for the fun of it.regardsKenny

[jan]

Kenny, You have hit the nail on the head on the supposed degeneration of Alexander, as it is apparently due to the numbers of men he had sacked as a result of their "playing while he was away".Because he carried out laws that his father had done before him, but without all the criticism of historians because they don't study him as much, Alexander gets criticized for simply following common legal practices known to the Macedonians.The real issue is whether Alexander was correct in donning Persian costumes, adopting Persian ways, such as bowing and scraping, after the Greeks had made such inroads in maintaining freedom for all, and for never having to use signs of obeisance in their homage to their leaders. Alexander seems to have broken faith with his own inner nest of chosen and select men who followed him faithfully; thus, causing many to believe that he degenerates into a Persian character more than a Macedonian character.Beginning with Cleitos and ending with Callisthenes, who after all are fellow Macedonians, Alexander takes on the task of cleansing his own nest with full recuperations. His men began to have doubts and mistrusted him, needing only to be reenforced by his own personal touch. He failed to often show them that he was still "one of them" and so eventually they resisted his call to courage and valor, finally opposing him altogether.Perhaps, as O'Brien suggests, it was all due to wine. But most likely, it was due to readjustments to surroundings and environmental conditions, as Alexander is a quick study in making decisions according to needs.I agree that his decisions are probably based upon sound reasoning, adjusting to circumstances, and is not indicative of alcoholism or megalomania.
Jan

[marcus]

I agree with both of you on the whole. There were a few cases where there isn't enough evidence to say whether the sacking or execution of satraps or other administrators was 'reasonable', although the evidence we do have tends to suggest that Alexander was swayed by others who wanted to denigrate the apparent malefactors.I don't believe these two or three cases are sufficient to suggest that Alexander was acting irrationally or without some due process. On the other hand, even before Hephaistion's death, which might have pushed him too far over the edge, we must also consider that he had just returned from four years of very, very hard campaigning, and had led thousands of men to their deaths in the Gedrosian desert. To come back and find that his administrators had been plotting behind his back, or otherwise governing badly, would certainly have made *my* blood boil. It doesn't excuse summary executions; but I can understand it!All the bestMarcus