Hello,
I was just thinking today, after Gaugamela- the reason for continuing the journey was that Darius was still at large, then Bessus etc.etc.- after that it was to see the ends of the earth, which were "just" around the corner.
One thing that interested me was how Alexander kept his men going on and on- over that one next hill, always going towards the distant horizon-
His men turned around the area of the Ganges- 6,7000 kilometres from home- where, if Aristotle had been right, they would have been able to see the ends of the earth.
Now what I was just wondering this morning was, if Aristotle had beleived the ends of the earth to have been China, would Alexander have had reason to go beyond India?
I mean, was it Aristotle who, in reality, defined the limit of exploration/ conquest?
Best wishes,
Dean
To The Ends of The Earth
Moderator: pothos moderators
Dean Hi
I would say so. with all the faultls of the intercity wars. We cant really argue that the Greeks also had the education and the thinkers. Even the basics of many learnings today are based on the Greek thinkers.
People of learning and scientists like Arostaotle must have been the bench mark. I guess even for Alexander crossing the next hill and the next mountain it was all alien and to be honest a little confusing that you think you have got to the end yet you see hundres of miles ahead of you. Maybe he just thought we must be near and keep going a little more.
I would say once he had outstretched the reaches of Aristoltles learnings and began to gather inteligence from locals etc he would have become more and more aware that the world was much bigger than was frst thought. Wich I believe would add to a convenient withdrawal back to securer lands. Maybe the mutiny was there but I am pretty sure the Mutiny served Alexander as much as it served the Mutineers with all the uprisings etc abd the pains in the asses Im sure he was ready to turn back than to continue further east stretching his supply lines and pressing the Macedonians.
Much safet and clearer for a turn around and conquests of the West as Alexander would have been more sure of what was there and what he could realistically achieve. And to make his endevours look greater. As your point what made the troops go on and on. Whatever it was that Alexander had to convince them to follow him and lets not deny these troops actually loved him no matter wha the asked them to do. It was basically the generals and the ruling classes that were against him.
Kenny
I would say so. with all the faultls of the intercity wars. We cant really argue that the Greeks also had the education and the thinkers. Even the basics of many learnings today are based on the Greek thinkers.
People of learning and scientists like Arostaotle must have been the bench mark. I guess even for Alexander crossing the next hill and the next mountain it was all alien and to be honest a little confusing that you think you have got to the end yet you see hundres of miles ahead of you. Maybe he just thought we must be near and keep going a little more.
I would say once he had outstretched the reaches of Aristoltles learnings and began to gather inteligence from locals etc he would have become more and more aware that the world was much bigger than was frst thought. Wich I believe would add to a convenient withdrawal back to securer lands. Maybe the mutiny was there but I am pretty sure the Mutiny served Alexander as much as it served the Mutineers with all the uprisings etc abd the pains in the asses Im sure he was ready to turn back than to continue further east stretching his supply lines and pressing the Macedonians.
Much safet and clearer for a turn around and conquests of the West as Alexander would have been more sure of what was there and what he could realistically achieve. And to make his endevours look greater. As your point what made the troops go on and on. Whatever it was that Alexander had to convince them to follow him and lets not deny these troops actually loved him no matter wha the asked them to do. It was basically the generals and the ruling classes that were against him.
Kenny
Hi Kenny,
I more or less agree with your statement that the men were " in awe" of the man but there were also some pretty hairy moments-
when Alexander is 29- there is the conspiracy of the pages- and Callisthenes is involved but certainly not incriminated- the pages didn't mention his name even after being tortured.
I realise that Calli had perhaps a BIG gob and shouldn't have quoted the Iliad, saying that Patroclus was a far better man and yet death didn't spare him either. but I think that he was innocent and certainly not to be executed without a trial-
but there were two conspiracies which I think show that, around the time he topped Cleitus, there was ill will amongst his men- and perhaps fear that Alexander was becoming a despot or had already become one.
On the whole though I don't think any leader has been so adored.
Best regards,
Dean
I more or less agree with your statement that the men were " in awe" of the man but there were also some pretty hairy moments-
when Alexander is 29- there is the conspiracy of the pages- and Callisthenes is involved but certainly not incriminated- the pages didn't mention his name even after being tortured.
I realise that Calli had perhaps a BIG gob and shouldn't have quoted the Iliad, saying that Patroclus was a far better man and yet death didn't spare him either. but I think that he was innocent and certainly not to be executed without a trial-
but there were two conspiracies which I think show that, around the time he topped Cleitus, there was ill will amongst his men- and perhaps fear that Alexander was becoming a despot or had already become one.
On the whole though I don't think any leader has been so adored.
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
Dean Hail
Your interpretaion of Clietus been killed sound familair. I dont really think Clietus was going on about Alexander been a despot as he clearly wasnt. Ive also in the past tried to puit the indident into perspective. For me it was just a booze fueled row as in todays society. I have seen the best of mates falling out and fighting after a night out on the booze. Things get said and fists start flying.
It juat happened that they were kinda surounded by sharp objects and Clietus got spiked. No police nor man slaughter charges just the order of the day where killing was second nature. Maybe Clietus was pissed off and basically said what he thought.
But SH1t happens.
Kenny
Your interpretaion of Clietus been killed sound familair. I dont really think Clietus was going on about Alexander been a despot as he clearly wasnt. Ive also in the past tried to puit the indident into perspective. For me it was just a booze fueled row as in todays society. I have seen the best of mates falling out and fighting after a night out on the booze. Things get said and fists start flying.
It juat happened that they were kinda surounded by sharp objects and Clietus got spiked. No police nor man slaughter charges just the order of the day where killing was second nature. Maybe Clietus was pissed off and basically said what he thought.
But SH1t happens.
Kenny