Alexander & Traitors

[Cyrus]

Someone like Betis who doesn't betray his country and defends Gaza bravely, is killed by Alexander in the worst way but a traitor like Mazaios who surrenders Babylon to Alexander, is appointed as the governor, it seems Alexander just wanted to conquer cities and it was not important for him what would happen later!

[Halil]

Hello CyrusI don't know if you are new to the study of Alexander, but, if you aren't, this is a rather simplistic statement to make. Have you studied the whole situation of these cities and their alliances and the relationships to the empire of the day? If you have, you should recognize that it's not so easy to say who was a traitor and who was behaving in their people's best interests. Look at today's politics and the men in power and you will know what I mean.Regarding Betis, I don't have access to my sources at the moment, but I remember someone recently made a posting regarding why Alexander may have punished Betis in this way. Perhaps doing a forum search on Betis would give you a new perspective regarding this incident.There is a popular movie set in the 1880's in the "Wild West", where someone punished a man in the way that Alexander punished Betis, and considering the man's crimes and the nature of the man, few people watching the movie seemed to consider the punishment excessive. But then, in that case, all the facts were known. It's just a thought. It is so easy to judge people when you don't really know them.Regards
Halil

[Halil]

I forgot to add that many scholars question whether this whole Batis/Betis/Baetis (sp?) incident really happened or whether it was not an invented story. Sadly for unwary or careless historians, some ancient moralists were not above inventing examples to illustrate their sermons when they could not find suitable true ones.Halil

[Cyrus]

As far as I know, Betis was loyal not only to the Persians but the people of Gaza who strongly supported him!"The people of Gaza, who seem to have been very courageous and very loyal to their masters, whoever they might be, refused to open the gates to the army of Alexander the Great (332 B.C.). He was forced to begin a regular siege, which lasted two months and cost him many men. After storming the city, Alexander laid waste to Gaza, put the men to the sword, and sold the women and children into slavery. He afterwards allowed the place to be re-colonized; but the new-comers were of a different stock from the old inhabitants. The Philistine stronghold made way for an Hellenic city" (Diodorus Siculus, XVII, xlviii, 7; Arrian, II, xxxvi; Quintus Curtius, IV, xxxiii).

[Halil]

CyrusI wasn't disputing the facts of what happened to Gaza, only mentioning that the story connected with Batis was not accepted by everyone as true. Regarding whether Batis led his people wisely or not, compared to Mazaeus, Batis's people were destroyed. Mazaeus's people were left unharmed.There is a line in Arrian (?) which may be significant to what I was suggesting: "People from neighbouring tribes were settled in the town." There may be a wealth of knowledge in this line that is lost to us today. Also a mention that Alexander used the new town as a stronghold, suggesting that the new population where loyal (grateful?) to Alexander. Maybe that needs investigation/explanation? I still maintain that your original statement was not well thoughtout.I think it was Jona who recently gave an interesting reason as to why Mazaeus may have felt that Alexander was now his rightful king instead of Darius as the predictions of his own religion were being fulfilled by Alexander. So by Mazaeus's standards, he was following the advice of his own religion. (Correct me if I've misunderstood your basic idea, Jona.)Regards
Halil

[Cyrus]

I don't want to say that Betis took a wise decision or Mazaios, on that situation maybe Mazaios's decision was more logical than than Betis, but I talk about Alexander, I think he shouldn't rely on people like Mazaios because on other situations, these people would certainly take decisions against him.