Tyranical Label

[iskander_32]

In my studies and readings the word tyrant has often been mentioned about Alexander is this just.If Alexander really wanted to, could he have forced or ordered his troops and officers to continue further than they went,, Did Alexander have the authority and the will to force the issue and to carry on,, Surely as king he must have,, The king according to Macedonians was lord and absolute.Bearing this in mind I wonder just how much Alexander did want to carry on or with hind site he was actually ready to turn back, If he was infact a tryrant I am sure he would not have listened and forced further conquests,, Also if he were a tyrant I doubt the soldiers would have loved him so.Another point with the troops and mutinies,, If they did infact mutiny on the precinct of returning home. Why then did the same troops mutiny to stay with Alexander at babylon for his planned conquests of Arabia and Western Europe,,, I thought these self and same troops mutinied at the Hydaspes to return home. I may be stupid here but there is a slight inconsistency.Can anyone answer this point?I think by Hydaspes thgey were all ready to turn back and probably Alexander needed to save his face a little because its very clear they were willing and able to the point of mutiny for the planned new conquests.Regardskenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,The mutiny at Opis was about Alexander replacing the Macedonian troops with Persians (or the Macedonians' perception that that was what he was intending). Sending large numbers of men back to Macedonia was one of the things that let them to believe this was what he intended to do. So the mutiny wasn't because they didn't want to return home, but because they perceived their relationship with Alexander to be changing.At the Hyphasis it was a totally different kettle of fish. The soldiers had been through close on 3 years of extremely hard campaigning, and on the march to the river they had been exposed to incredibly difficult weather conditions. They then found out that the next stage of conquest was to take them even further, into unknown lands, and they had no idea where it was going to end. So it wasn't so much that they didn't want to continue campaigning at all; more that they couldn't continue at that time, with no end in sight.I doubt there was *any* way in which Alexander could have forced any of his troops to go on without him. It appears that virtually the whole army was against him, so he had no large force that was capable of supporting him and forcing the rest to comply. All the bestMarcus

[ruthaki]

Yes, exactly. And I've been wondering lately what would happen if an army did that today????

[iskander_32]

Ruth Spot on there.Today soldiers dont get the option to decide whom or what they are to die for.All it takes is lies conning the public and armed forces are ordered top fioght and die for politicians who know nothing of dander and loss,, Let Tony Blair, George Bush or even Osama Bin Laden take hold of the sword and do what they demand our soldiers do.I as a Brit am proud of our armed forces but I dont like them dying for a politicians war.RegardsKenny

[jan]

Hi Kenny, I read this post the other day, and had to think about it. I am watching the movie 300 Spartans in which King Xerxes does just as you suggest, act as a tyrant against a resistant officer by pointing out that King Xerxes gives the orders, not otherwise. So it is important to note that in Alexander's case, he presents his case to his following who respond only with silence, and Alexander takes note of their feelings. He does not coerce them into following his lead because his method has always been through persuasion and encouragement. This time he notes that they are not responsive, and he acknowledges it. It is not a mutiny as in the Caine Mutiny. The men do not ever rise up against him. Hadn't you noticed?

[iskander_32]

Jan Hi.Point taken yet hstorically its always been called a mutiny.I watched the 300 Spartans years ago and still do,,, It was that movie that started my journey towards Alexander and my understanding of how divided and to be honest the Ancient Grreks were.One flaw with the movie and the whole story is that we are led to believe it was a solely Spartan job and they were alone,,, In reality there were about 10000 Greek troops.I believe with such a number the Greeks could have held the pass indefinately as it was a bottleneck the Persian numbers would never have told.It was a gesture of suicide really once the Persians got behind them let it be said the Spartans were not alone.Kenny

[Nicator]

Hello Kenny,I would add to Marcus' post that the Macedonians were also shaken to the core from the vicious encounter with Porus' elephants, and terrified of facing some 4,000 more in a battle beyond. As another point, I would add that Alexander was on very shaky ground with his troops at this point. If he insisted on pushing his troops further, he would have put himself in jeopardy...an assassination would not at all be out of the question. later Nicator

[iskander_32]

Jan HailI was thinking about your post regarding the 300 Spartans I like you taste in movies,,, Nothing to do with ATG,,, I also watched Zulu lately and feel the siege at Roarks Drift was exual if not more than the Spartans on that accasion no more than about 150 British- Welsh soldiers held out against a force of 4000 plus Zulus attacking from all sides.Also Andrew , I read your posts on cavalry charges,,, Did you ever watch Taras Bulba ,,, The scene where the Cossaks were mustering their forces to meet the poles it was superb.Regards Kenny