Alexander's Sulking

[rocktupac]

There were many recorded bouts of Alexander's intense sulking after an event, usually either caused by drinking or his soldiers. Do you think these emotional outbursts were genuine in nature or were they simply tactical moves used more for persuasion?

I tend to think that Alexander was genuinely upset by certain events, such as the murder of Cleitus and the Macedonian mutinies. He was a man of passion and wasn't afraid to show his emotions.

But what do the rest of you think about this?

[jasonxx]

I think Alexanders shows of remorse were varied. Clietus I feel genuine. But I also think he had the cunning of his dad and some of it was to suite the purpose.

Im in the minority that feels the Beas mutiny was overplayed. I guess Im the only one that feels Alexander was aware he had gone far enough. Well aware of the uprisings and the continual pains in the backside Bactria and the eastern Provinces caused. He could keep hammering them but victory lasting was out of the question. I feel he wanted a way out and although he may have pretended to be upset about turning back. Turning back was the best thing to do. He saves face and his soldiers basically carry the can for turning back.

Similaly its like Iraq today. The Alies are in a no win situation and i would wager they would love such an excuse to get out of there. We know Alexander could have continued warring but its fare to say he could never really win.Im no soldier etc but if I were Alexander I would want a way out in a way that saves face. pretend to be upset sulk and ok boys your right lets go back.

kenny

[karen]

There were many recorded bouts of Alexander's intense sulking after an event, usually either caused by drinking or his soldiers.

I know of three -- after the killing of Kleitos, on the Hyphasis when the army wanted to turn back, and during the mutiny at Opis. Only one of them can be related to drinking. Are there any others I'm missing?

Kenny, I think that if Alexander had wanted to turn back, he'd just have announced it and enjoyed the delighted reaction of the army. He wasn't given to deception.

Warmly,
Karen

[jasonxx]

Karen

Alexander was the guy trying to out do the gods Heracles etc. Only an opinion it really wouldnt sit with Alexander or his reputation to turn back. Even if he wanted I doubt Alexander would have ceded the fact. To turn back in Alexanders mind would be totally defeated.

His intended goal was the ends of the earth.. I doubt hed ever concede as to turn back. Indeed only an opinion. The Mutiny was the best get out of jail free card. As I said he really didnt turn back nor did the mutineers have it easy. They fought all the way back to the delta and still warring the Makran.

We all have views and thoughts but strategically he had to turn back.

Kenny

[marcus]

Kenny, I think that if Alexander had wanted to turn back, he'd just have announced it and enjoyed the delighted reaction of the army. He wasn't given to deception.

I'm going to do my fence-sitting again, and say that I agree in part with you, Karen, and in part with Kenny.

I think that had he wanted to turn back, he would have just done so, as you say. But I also think that it was impossible for him to conceive of turning back, and that he never would have called it such. He could easily have put a different "spin" on travelling down the Indus, without it ever seeming as if he was not going where he wanted to go.

Therefore, with his initial insistence that he was going towards the Ganges, I have no doubt that that is exactly what he intended to do. From that standpoint, therefore, he was forced to capitulate and "turn back" (although, as we know, his idea of turning back wasn't quite the same as doing a turn in the road and turning left at the end of Acacia Avenue ...). Also, therefore, I think his sulking was absolutely genuine - and the sacrifices that said he should turn back were manipulated, or "read" to say so, either (a) on Alexander's nod, because he knew this was a way for him to save face at being defied by his army, or (b) on the sole decision of the soothsayer, who also wanted to go home and realised what the mood in the camp was like. I would choose (a) myself - Alexander was a lot of things, but he wasn't stupid - by that time he knew he couldn't carry on, but needed to maintain his authority.

ATB

[jasonxx]

Marcus Hail

Were the Beas the Situation as at the Helespont. Troops fresh ready for some hammering then yes hed have presed. So maybe the demoralised troops had a play on his desision. Enen if they had not mutinied I feel as a great commander he would have known it anyway.

I guess eventually a loyal cart horse would pull a cart all day without moaning. But keep driving it and it will eventually tire and die.

So maybe he didnt want to turn back and wouldnt want to be seen to. But in his heart of hearts he must have known it was right to do. I feel the Makran etc was indeed an exploration for a revisit, A quicker faster rout to get back with fresh troops etc to restart kicking Indian ass. At that time it was right to turn back and Im sure Alexanderknew it. In my opinion had Alexander carried on he would indeed have become unstuck.

Kenny

[Alita]

I think Alexanders shows of remorse were varied. Clietus I feel genuine. But I also think he had the cunning of his dad and some of it was to suite the purpose.

Im in the minority that feels the Beas mutiny was overplayed. I guess Im the only one that feels Alexander was aware he had gone far enough. Well aware of the uprisings and the continual pains in the backside Bactria and the eastern Provinces caused. He could keep hammering them but victory lasting was out of the question. I feel he wanted a way out and although he may have pretended to be upset about turning back. Turning back was the best thing to do. He saves face and his soldiers basically carry the can for turning back.

Similaly its like Iraq today. The Alies are in a no win situation and i would wager they would love such an excuse to get out of there. We know Alexander could have continued warring but its fare to say he could never really win.Im no soldier etc but if I were Alexander I would want a way out in a way that saves face. pretend to be upset sulk and ok boys your right lets go back.

kenny

We're talking about Alexander here, right? The man who waged wars while in the grip of full-blown typhus, endured an arrow in his lung and gave orders with a throat wound... If he had wanted to turn back, he wouldn't have chosen the most fatal desert wasteland to pass through in order to do it. That was his consolation prize. His sulking was real; it wasn't his sulking that saved face, it was his consultation of the gods, and then only to appease his men while retaining his own honour. And he only turned back because he actually cared about his men. Had they been all for continuing, we would be speaking Greek here in Australia today. (Hence no Saturday morning Greek school for the kiddies; fate is cruel!).

I'd love to see our national leaders in a sulk from time to time; it would mean they're actually listening to the people.

[amyntoros]

And he only turned back because he actually cared about his men.

Or because he didn't feel he could win any future battles in India without his Macedonians! It was pretty obvious that the Macedonians were not going to go any further, but Alexander had many thousands of soldiers from other countries at that time. Even though the numbers are sometimes disputed - the 30,000 Persians, for example - Alexander still had the largest army of his career at his disposal. I'm always curious as to why he didn't pull an "Opis" at this point and say he would continue onwards without the Macedonians. Assuming that Alexander's generals would have remained loyal to him, the rank and file would have had to return home through the wilds of Bactria and Sogdia without anyone to lead them. It is doubtful, IMO, that they would have done so. So if he really was determined to continue eastwards, why didn't Alexander put this to the test? Just a thought ...

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Something else that has kind if niggled at me about the whole Beas incident. Wasn't Hephaistion off elsewhere with some of the army quelling a revolt, or building an administration (depending on how you want to view Hephaistion). How much of the army was with Hephaistion as Alexander set off for the Outer Ocean to the east.

And, of course I can't find it right now, didn't Alexander have a large number of fresh recruits coming from the west about this time..only to meet up with them after he had already returned from the Beas.

The whole thing has always read a bit confusing to me. Was he in a big damned hurry to get to the Outer Ocean? Not waiting for Hephaistion to return or the recruits to arrive? Maybe he, too wanted the whole mess to be over, but not before he got to the edge of the world. Would the whole combined army have balked? Why didn't he wait for the whole force before continuing on if it was a big "invasion"?

[karen]

The thing is, in war -- and more so low-tech war than high-tech, like today's -- morale is everything, and Alexander knew that. If the morale of the central and most loyal core of his army, the Makedonians, was too low even for him to reverse -- because of distance from home, exhaustion, missing family, the difficulties of marching and fighting in India, etc. -- it was unwise to go on even if they acceded, because they'd fight half-hearted, and that wasn't good enough. I think he'd have assigned a general to lead them home if they'd insisted on that, but I doubt he'd have been comfortable leading an army without that Makedonian core, with their expertise, training, cohesion, loyalty and trust in him. My theory anyway.

Warmly,
Karen

[jasonxx]

Amyntros

My sentiments exactly. I feel if he really was that hard nosed and pressed his most useful soldiers. He would have been on a hiding to nothing. Maybe it was 6 of ane and half dozen of the other. If the Macedonians were frsh and eager we can accept he could have and would have carried on. As you say why not the same tactics as at Opus.

If need he could and would have enforced his will. But Im pretty sure had he done that he was aware he would have come unstuck. It was propoganda and name saving for Alexander I believe.

The quote about the omens etc telling himwhat to do. Im also conviced those omens would say exactly what Alexander would want them to say.

I liken the macedonian Army like the good old Ford Focus. New its reliable will se you through any thing and is pretty nippy. But if you keep driving it. THe tyres wear. The Engine starts packing in and a few problems here and there. Keep pushing it and it will break down.

Following Beas. That macedonian Army at that time would have gradually grinded to a halt and defeat. Was Alexander. The most tactical military genious Ignorant of that possibily I doubt it.

kenny

[jan]

the word sulking annoys me. It is supposed to mean pouting, isn't it? Or do we have a new term for the word sulk. I just wonder which historian wrote this about Alexander...not all of it can be attributed to Callisthenes as he had perished before one of the famous sulks...and the problem with the Macedonians who revolt is that most of them are aged, and are probably suitable for retirement, but like old dogs who just can't give it up, want to have the last word. It is a fact that Alexander could have gone on with all his newly trained and much younger troops, but I believe loyalty to his roots and native and closest companions is what caused his decision to throw in the towel and go along with them. He had already sent many of the older soldiers home times past, and again, he could have done the same. But the real issue here is the sulking, and I frankly cannot picture or believe that Alexander actually sulked, pouted, and behaved like a child at times like this. If so, then he certainly deserves a certain kind of derision for such childlike behaviour. I am just trying to figure out which historian would write this kind of statement about a leader in whom he trusts his life so much...something in it always bothers me and does not ring true...

[rocktupac]

Fo Zeus's sake jan it's just a topic in a message board post, nothing personal or final.

[marcus]

It's not so much that any ancient author said that he "sulked" - which I don't think they did. But the fact remains that his behaviour at the Hyphasis is what many people would describe as "sulking" - if I'd behaved like that my parents would have said I was sulking, and if anyone of a younger generation than I did it, I'd say that they were sulking.

Still, find another word for it if you want to - it's hardly important.

ATB

[athenas owl]

Marcus..I think you hit on why the word sullking is so loaded....I know I bring up teenagers alot and they do definitely sulk..they are masters of it. The use of the word, to me, implys a childish behaviour (did he stomp his foot as well?.) Alexander may have indeed sulked, skulked, pouted, threw a hissy or perhaps for those with a more heroic view of him "brooded" in his tent on the Hyphasis. Or he may have been trying to accomplish what he did later at Opis...

The "sulk" at Opis...I think that was more political and manipulative (and except for the Hyphasis, it worked), but that's just me. I wouldn't call his reaction to Hephaistion's death sulking, but full out meltdown, and the three days after the murder of Cleitus more along those lines, as well.

By using the word sulk, it does make a choice, aware of it or not, to reduce his behaviour to a tantrum. Though he did seem fond of the three day event in each case..