Re: And our survey said ...

[Paralus]

Why thank you Amyntoros, you got 'round to it before I did GÇô and said it better.It was not just Persians who learned Greek either. The history of the Diadochoi kingdoms is replete with "inner circles" of local populations (and expats GÇô the Jews of Alexandria for example) learning the language for benefit of "position" and favour within the imposed regime.
And mistake it not: imposed regimes they were. The starkest example GÇô again GÇô being the Graeco-Macedonian "implant" of Alexandria. All were variations upon a theme. Macedonians who took the trouble to learn the conquered language were in the same minority as was Peucestas.
Alexander's treatment of the cities he encountered was totally determined by the politico-military situation. Resistance occasioned anger resulting in atrocities on the one hand and calculated thuggery on the other. Or - in the case of Greek Aspendus - a massive 50 talent tribute levy (it would not do the "grand Hellenic" campaign image any good to slaughter the recently liberated Greek inhabitants).
Alexandria - by the way - was formed as possibly his first "garrison city" GÇô protecting the important grain basket of Egypt - and his back. Darius' navy was also still active and the Spartans were restive in Greece. It is doubtful Alexander had any inkling of the city of Hellenistic times that would result.
Intriguing that none of the "liberated" Greek cities of Asia Minor were so liberated as to be incorporated into that other political pretence: the "League of Corinth".As to Babylon welcoming the conqueror with "rose petals", what's so surprising about this? Aside from the fact that by this stage of the illustrious city's existence it was growing fields of roses for the purposes of showering its next conqueror, the army of its two hundred year overlord had just been driven from the field. Babylon had long known the folly of resistance once dusted in the field. Its history is something of a revolving door at Macys: rose petals this year, rebellion another. Cyrus would have recognised it in an instant.Paralus

[amyntoros]

Hi Jim,Well, IGÇÖm quite in agreement with you. Alexander always had a good reason for any decision that he made, and setting a ruthless example was one of them. Some strategies may appear as atrocities to people today, but they were often a necessary and sometimes inevitable part of conquest. And that was really my point GÇô not that I see Alexander as a villain (I donGÇÖt), but that these events came about because his true purpose was to acquire the lands, conquer the people, and establish his rule over them. One just doesnGÇÖt do such things in the guise of altruistically spreading oneGÇÖs own culture and GÇ£civilizingGÇ¥ the natives, but that point of view continues to hold sway over many.Best regards,Amyntoros

[JIM A]

However, there is nothing to say that we should *not* judge him by our standards Marcus.the tactics may have changed but the game is still the same.Ex General Sherman did burn Atlanta to distroy the Conferacy's will to resit.While the tactic is different then enslaving civilians and killing its potential armed resisters the desired result is the same. Why did we Yanks nuke Nagasaki and Heroshima.A modern example of terrifying the enemy .Of course most would agree that we saved many soldiers lifes by avoiding a bloody invasion of Japan.If ATG's actions in Bactria saved his tired troops from engaging in a potential costly campaign in terms of time and blood of his troops did he not act in accordance with his responsibility as a General despite measures? I think that the focus of many modern ATG scholars and todays intersest is the so called human side of ATG neglecting the fact that what made him great was that he was a general-conqueror and probably most of his adult life was centered around making militarly related decisions.