Alexander and his mind

[Paralus]

I've been watching for sometime with some interest. The thread has meandered about and most of what I could add I'd already contributed earlier. The nature of Philip's decisions, the "Macedonian milieu", etc and, eventually, a paragraph synopsis of "my" Alexander. All done. Quite content to read until gob-smacked by this ripper:

In Alexander's youth, the people of your own city-state were 'us' and other Greek city-states were 'them'. By the end of his life, not only were other Greeks no longer 'them', but even Persians weren't. But to expect him to have extended that even to the Indian tribes is expecting too much advance in one man's lifetime. To him - to all Greeks - Indians would still have been 'them' - in other words, not much different to animals, and certainly not worth worrying about. The deaths in India are often used as an example of Alexander's brutality, to which the usual defence is that he lived in a brutal time. My point is rather that he probably didn't see them as fully human, and therefore killing them wasn't (to him) brutal, any more than slaughtering animals at the hunt would have been.

Whoa! That needs addressing - perhaps with a Siberian postcode! In two parts then....

In Alexander's youth, the people of your own city-state were 'us' and other Greek city-states were 'them'. By the end of his life, not only were other Greeks no longer 'them', but even Persians weren't.

Quite right: at the end of Alexander’s life “them” and “us” had reverted back to being what they always were – Greek city-states – and immediately attacked “them”; them being, of course, the imperialist Macedonians. In an alliance of states mind; no Corinthian or Hellenic League here. Not terribly much later other city-states also became “them” as they resumed attacking each other – generally based on whether they supported Macedon or not. And so it would go.

The “League of Corinth” was a “common peace” forced upon a group of unreconstructed recalcitrants at sarisa point. They had been soundly beaten in the field and would now do as they were told. Philip was hegemon and it was he who summoned the council of “delegates” and he who set the policy and the agenda (more below).

By late June/July 323 the League’s “letter”, like the “King of Asia” who’d ignored it’s entire spirit with his “exiles’ decree”, was dead. The same might be observed for any “harmony of races” between Aisans and Macedonians.

But to expect him to have extended that even to the Indian tribes is expecting too much advance in one man's lifetime. To him - to all Greeks - Indians would still have been 'them' - in other words, not much different to animals, and certainly not worth worrying about. The deaths in India are often used as an example of Alexander's brutality, to which the usual defence is that he lived in a brutal time. My point is rather that he probably didn't see them as fully human, and therefore killing them wasn't (to him) brutal, any more than slaughtering animals at the hunt would have been.

Except for that noble talking elephant Porus? Facetious perhaps but, really, that is one almighty and hugely apologetic leap of philosophical logic. It is also excusatory tosh the like of which Plutarch will have been innordinately proud for not even he, relating the murder of the 7,000 Indian mercenaries (Alex. 59.6-7), could find an excuse so easy to hand:

…after he had made a truce with them in a certain city and allowed them to depart, he fell upon them as they marched and slew them all. And this act adheres like a stain to his military career; in all other instances he waged war according to usage and like a king

The sources also imply no such racial view on Alexander’s part. Indeed he is depicted as being intrigued by the philosophy of the “sages” and is described as having much social intercourse with Indians. "Us" Indians. The “friendly” ones of course. Those who opposed him were chased and killed – such as the “philosophers” who reviled the princes who allied themselves with him that he hanged and the 500 or so “sick” at Sangala he had murdered. These, perhaps, were more “them” than the seemingly "us" collaborators.

Interestingly, if we are to take the words of an extremely well educated Greek – Aristotle – that is exactly what the Greeks thought of all Asians – Persians included. Isocrates too wanted these half-humans enslaved as beasts of burden to support the Greek Lebensraum in the east. Many did find themselves doing just that in the garrison outposts of empire.

The slaughter of the Indians has nothing to do with their being "them"; their “otherness”. Alexander had conquered many others in his relentless advance east. Many of these – from Persians and Afghanis to steppes tribesmen (the Saca, Dahae etc) – were forced into service alongside his Macedonians (certainly in the cavalry if not in “light-armed”). It is only the Indians – Taxiles, Porus and their like – that are “sub-human” though? Not likely.

The slaughter of the Indians is little different than the slaughter of the Tyrians, Gazans and Thebans before them: they resisted and did so doggedly. By the time of the Indian campaign Alexander’s troops were quite well acquainted with such slaughter. Their temperament will not have been helped by the nature of the campaign but that in no way excuses the results.

[Semiramis]

Hi Fiona and Pheobus,

Just engaging in my annoying habit of butting into other people’s conversations. I think Fiona brings up a really good point here about “Us” versus “Them” thinking in a war or massacre. I imagine this type of thing has existed as long as there has been conflict, although the identities and mechanisms of “Othering” have varied wildly over times. I wish I could agree with Fiona that that “today we have no problem seeing that whole mankind as us”. It seems that even in the modern day, the “us” versus “them” propaganda technique rears its ugly head every time there is an unjustifiable war of aggression or some other economic incentive.

Let’s take the 19th century educated Europeans questioning whether black people had souls. It hadn’t always been this way. “Race” as a concept simply did not exist before the days of race-based slavery and colonialism. There is no reference to this idea before the 17th century. Slavery had been around in different forms in many societies since (most likely) pre-history. But there was much opposition to the idea once Enlightenment values became popular in Europe. This is where dividing human beings into categories based on apparent innate differences helped justify brutal acts that were otherwise unacceptable to the majority of the population. There was little anti-black writing before the 19th century. But once the advocates (and beneficiaries) of the African slave trade got the propaganda campaign started depicting black people as sub-human, people “educated” enough to come across the latest ideas did start questioning if black people had souls. So Europe could have slavery post-Enlightenment, when the institution did not exist in the “Dark” Middle Ages.

Seeing that “racial” sentiment has such a particular set of circumstances attached to it, I’m wondering if it would be anachronistic to assign similar “racial” motivations to Alexander’s campaigns in India. Aren’t we missing the mark by a couple of thousand years here? There is some work by a scholar called Frank Snowden who researched the lack of what he calls “colour prejudice” during classical times.

Yes, Greek philosophers did at times wonder if “barbarians” or women had souls. But there is plenty to indicate that Alexander did not try to turn all Persians into “slaves” as Aristotle had prescribed was fit for barbarians. Nor did Alexander shy away from massacres before India if he felt it would aid his mission. Thebes, Tyre and Gaza come to mind. Thebans were Hellenes and the Phoenicians of Tyre and Gaza have favourable roles of founder princes etc. in Greek myth. I recall the threat to annihilate an entire Central Asian population when Bucephalus was stolen. These are the people he married into. Then there was the wholesale massacre of the Cosseans after Hephaestion’s death. It’s hard to argue that he saw the Greeks, Phoenicians or Central Asians as “little more than animals”, but he never shied from using violence against them.

To me, the Indian massacres can be seen more as part of a calculated campaign of terror to induce automatic submissions from populations, rather than being due to seeing Indians as sub-human. There’s plenty to suggest he had no problem with the Indians who co-operated with him. Take the two Indian princes in his entourage, who would’ve been invaluable in preparing his campaign or the defeated Porus, who the sources describe Alexander perceived as handsome, noble, brave, regal etc.

There is the story of Alexander discussing philosophy with Brahmins (which I don’t believe) and becoming good friends with one in particular called Calanus (which I do believe). Sources indicate that Alexander insisted on giving Calanus a grand funeral (surpassed in pomp only by Hephaistion's it must be noted) where Calanus immolated himself and that he was rather upset about Calanus’ death.

The city of Musicanus is a great example of how Alexander treated those who submitted well, but those who didn’t brutally. After the initial surrender by Musicanus, the entourage was full of praises for the city, its inhabitants and its hospitality. Even calling its people uncommonly beautiful and going to the extremes of suggesting that must be achieved by only keeping the beautiful babies after birth and exposing the rest (a compliment in those times I’m guessing). None of the examples above support the idea that Alexander viewed Indians as "little more than animals". However, once Alexander’s party had left, the city rebelled. Alexander returned to crucify Musicanus and the Brahmins of the city.

So, to me, the massacres in India don’t arise from viewing the Indians as the ultimate “Them”. They are simply part of the pattern of Alexander’s career. Although the degree of viciousness does seem higher in the Indian campaign, perhaps explaining why people refer to it so often.

For me, Alexander is exonerated from charges of any anachronistic feelings of viewing Indians as sub-human by his long and distinguished list of massacres pre-India and the effectiveness of his methods in terrorizing the local population.

Take care

[Semiramis]

Well, people might not go so far as openly espousing wars of conquest, but they might not see them as such a shocking thing that anyone who indulges them is by that very fact rendered inadmirable. These things happen. They've always happened, they probably always will happen. Courage, daring, and self-sacrifice are admirable whether found in invader or defender, don't you think?

Absolutely. The German general Rommel was admired even by his enemies for his brilliant military tactics during WWII. Thanks to Nazi propaganda, he became a legend in his own lifetime. There are several examples of his treatment of prisoners of war being more humane than his contemporaries. I can admire Rommel’s courage, daring and self-sacrifice in invading hostile foreign lands, but it is still in the context of the deaths and suffering these actions would have caused. I wouldn’t like to lose sight of the fact that the ideology of subjugating “lesser nations” by force – however popular in Rommel’s lifetime in Europe – is personally abhorrent to me. These ideas or actions are no less horrific whether those perpetrating them have positive qualities such as charm, youth or good looks.

'Course they would. He could have been totally hopeless at it, but so long as he'd failed with the same pzazz he succeeded with, you bet people would still be interested. And they'd speak of him respectfully, too.

I’m not sure I would’ve heard of Alexander in that case. Or that this forum would exist for me to slander him in. Robin Lane Fox would probably write about Napoleon and Mary Renault may have had Alexander the Third of Macedon as a comic reference in one of her novels about the dreamy Darius.

Gushing? OK, fair enough - but how about this. I've heard that some people admire Napoleon. I don't, myself - I admit he was a great general, and his life and times are worth studying, but I certainly don't admire him. And I wouldn't waste a minute of my life on a forum dedicated to discussing him.

I agree that studying history can be seen as a waste of time, but I like to tell myself it expands one’s mind etc. etc. At the very least, ancient history still inspires so much passion on these boards! I’ll leave you with the comparison Napoleon makes between himself and Alexander.

“No, Decres, I have come into the world too late. There is nothing great left for me to do. I do not deny that I have had a fine career, but what a difference between me and the heroes of antiquity. Look at Alexander, for instance. After he has conquered Asia, he declares himself to be the son of Jupiter, and the whole East believes him, save only his mother and Aristotle and a handful of Athenian pedants. But if I, nowadays, were to declare myself the son of the Father Eternal, every fishwife would laugh in my face. There is nothing great left for me to do.”

Take care

[Paralus]

Hi Semiramis. There’s much you’ve contributed and just a little that I can do justice to. We, seemingly, agree on much in any case so I’ll touch on a couple of points.

I'm also not in agreement that "Hellenic values" universally called for conquest and war. From my readings, to start a war, one had to show that they were the aggrieved party, indicating that open wars of aggression were not acceptable. About imperialism and conquest, there's more than enough Greek condemnation of Persia on these matters. It seems many viewed the Persian Great Kings as despots and the subjects as mere slaves.

“Hellenic values” – as such – did not “call” for conquest and war. It is well argued – correctly in my view – by Victor Davis Hanson that the Greek propensity for aggression and or war (with each other) was an unavoidable outcome of the Greek city-state polis political mentality. Much was initially driven by ignoring the tenth commandment. In this instance it was a case of the one not only coveting the neighbour’s goods but the farm, outbuildings and land to boot. The Greeks could tell you who went to war when and why generations after the conflict.

By the classical age this agrarian based conflict had become near ritualised. It was further entrenched by the polis system where a citizen’s status and meaning came from his contribution to the polis. Much of this was, necessarily, in war and conflict. Athens – about which the most information remains – eventually empowered the office of “strategoi” with what amounted to near presidential powers. Pericles is, of course, the classic example.

By the end of the fifth century the ritual had its own rules. Mediation and arbitration between states took greater precedence. By the third century it was firmly entrenched. A reading of the Romans’ early dealings with the Greeks quickly presents one with their puzzled reaction to this idea of applying to another power for the settlement of the poleis’ affairs. All the legalese and formulaic arguing and eventual appealing to Rome utterly perplexed the Romans. They eventually tired of it.

A man’s worth came down to how he served his state in war as not all were the landed rich who could finance festivals and other cultural activity. That man needed to be politically active and make his contribution to the governance of the polis and its actions abroad. In short he had to play his part in his city’s self determination. This is what this whole “autonomy of the poleis” came down to.

This is something that Macedonians will not have completely understood. No matter Hammond’s grand arguments for a “constituted” Macedonian state with an enfranchised citizenry under arms as an assembly and the King as the “executive” the average Macedone had no say in the policies that his king decided the state would follow. That king did have to have the tacit agreement of his nobility (or hetairoi) before embarking on his chosen course. This is something that Alexander increasingly paid lip-service to and the resulting tensions are plain to see in the sources. That is another subject though…

War, then, was a part of those Hellenic values. There were rules though – unwritten though they might have been. Demosthenes alludes to same when he notes that Philip is no “respecter of seasons” and has the audacity to campaign year-round.

On imperialism, the Greeks did indeed view the Great King as a despot. The King’s subjects – particularly his Persian subjects – were viewed as less than slaves (following Aristotle and Isocrates and his ilk) because they allowed themselves to be so ruled. They were fit, therefore, only to be so ruled and to support their Greek betters who would never allow themselves to fall to such a position. This will likely also have informed something of the views of Macedon held by the city-states.

The reason why I (and perhaps some others) feel the need to do that once in a while is that we need to put things into context when discussing Alexander. He was first and foremost a conqueror. His "generosity" to Persian women or satraps took place in the midst of bloody wars and sometimes total chaos for the conquered. Mentioning this is not "denigrating" to him…

Indeed it was in the context of bloody wars. We have no idea how he might have treated women had he led Philip’s life. What we see is a conqueror treating the captured women of the royal Persian family in the fashion to which they’d become accustomed. He takes up with Barsine – a daughter of Artabazus directly related to the royal house.

Perhaps a more pertinent question might be how many women died in Tyre, Gaza or India. We don’t know because, to the sources, it doesn’t matter: they only mean something in terms of sales figures from the slave markets.

…As much as I'm fascinated by historical figures like Alexander, I don't like the idea of using the glamour associated with the Alexander myth to ignore or dismiss the suffering that is caused by wars of aggression and conquest.

And a war of aggression and conquest is precisely what it was. The whole revenge motif is simply a plausible cover. Philip, after Chaeronea, enforced upon the city states a common peace. This was done at sarisa point. These recidivist, bellicose states had about as much interest in a “pan-Hellenic” league as they did in marching on the Persian Empire to avenge the wrongs committed against them by Xerxes. Most of these states had long come to some accord with Achaemenid Empire. Some supplied mercenaries to its armies for pay.

The Corinthian League of 337/6 was Philip’s league. He was its hegemon and he (not Macedon or the Macedones) was at leisure to convene it. Its constitution guaranteed that the sympathetic governments he put in place in the city states would remain and Philip directed its policy. In accordance with that he made certain that among the first of its acts was to declare war on Persia on Philip’s and Macedonia’s behalf.

Macedonian imperialism in the east was rubber stamped. Let the conquest begin.

[the_accursed]

Fiona

I wish that Mary Renault was here to answer this, but as she is not, and buoyed up by the encouragement of others who are too shy/nervous to post here, I will try. I think you are right about the glamour. Alexander had star quality. He had youth, looks and charisma. This attracts people who are capable of admiring other people - those who have no problem admitting than someone else is better than they will ever be.
(May I just ask you something? Is there any one human being you can say you truly and wholeheartedly admire?)

There are many people, alive and dead, that I think are/were admirable. Do I admire any of them “truly and wholeheartedly”? That is, the way many people admire Alexander? No. Personally, I think that true human “greatness” is, above all else, a matter of being humane. Which in turn requires being able to feel compassion with other living beings. And so I think you and your shy/nervous friends sell yourselves very short, as you undoubtedly are far more compassionate than Alexander was. Alexander was only “better” at things related to warfare.

The glamour, however does not, IMO, come from his having been the strongest. He could have lost every battle and died in penury, and I would still love him.

I don't doubt that you think that this is true. I, though, don't. Had he lost every battle, then there'd been no “glory”, and thus no glamour. There'd been no books written about him, no Alexander romance to spread his fame, no “imitatio Alexandri”, no Julius Caesar weeping because he'd accomplished little at an age where Alexander had accomplished much, no prophecy about Alexander in the Bible or a Dhul Qarnain in the Qu'ran, neither a Tarn glorifying him nor a Badian criticizing him, no trilogy about him by Mary Renault and no movie about him by Oliver Stone. And had there still been a “pothos.org”, it would have been about the plant.

Under such circumstances, you would barely even have heard of him. He would have been a footnote in history, and would not have seemed the least bit different from the many other footnotes.

Why?
Easy, if I borrow Robin Lane Fox's words - "He did not believe in impossibility; man could do anything, and he nearly proved it."

And he did so through conquest. That is: by killing people. It's what he did “for a living” and for fun. And had Alexander lost every battle, then Robin Lane Fox would never have written this about him, as Alexander would then not have embodied the idea that “man can do anything”.

[marcus]

Let’s take the 19th century educated Europeans questioning whether black people had souls. It hadn’t always been this way. “Race” as a concept simply did not exist before the days of race-based slavery and colonialism. There is no reference to this idea before the 17th century. Slavery had been around in different forms in many societies since (most likely) pre-history. But there was much opposition to the idea once Enlightenment values became popular in Europe. This is where dividing human beings into categories based on apparent innate differences helped justify brutal acts that were otherwise unacceptable to the majority of the population. There was little anti-black writing before the 19th century. But once the advocates (and beneficiaries) of the African slave trade got the propaganda campaign started depicting black people as sub-human, people “educated” enough to come across the latest ideas did start questioning if black people had souls. So Europe could have slavery post-Enlightenment, when the institution did not exist in the “Dark” Middle Ages.

There's much in what you say; but could I disagree and suggest "18th century educated Europeans" rather than 19th century? Although it would be entirely wrong to suggest that everyone had become enlightened by even the middle of the 19th century, the predominant attitude, led by the Humanitarian Movement, had moved on considerably even by the early years of the 19th century. Not so in the Americas, perhaps, but certainly in Europe.

ATB

[tribalshimmy]

I can't believe some of the comments made on this site about Alexander, it makes me wonder why some people are here and if they have any respect for Alexander and his achievements. For me the attraction is the man's charisma and his military genius, the man must have had something for people to be so passionate about him thousands of years later and so, even now, he is inspiring loyalty in people as he no doubt did when he was alive. I'd find better things to do, or other people to admire if I believed he relied on his generals to help him plan battles, that people feared him and that people weren't loyal.
Everybody has their own image of Alexander, everybody has the right to defend that image but go to the sources and check what they say before forming an opinion and don't guess what people were thinking.
And no, I don't view Alexander through rose-coloured glasses, I can see the dark side of his character, but I wouldn't say anything about him without checking my facts first.[/b]

[marcus]

I'd find better things to do, or other people to admire if I believed he relied on his generals to help him plan battles, that people feared him and that people weren't loyal.

I'm sure no-one on Pothos would wish you to go and find something "better" to do ... but while we might not agree on how much help Alexander had in planning his battles, there can't be that many people who have read the sources who believe that Alexander wasn't feared by some people, and that no-one was disloyal to him.

After all, if there were at least two conspiracies against his life (and more, if one accepts that Alexander of Lyncestis was indeed plotting against him), doesn't that smack of disloyalty? I would imagine that there were plenty of Indians who were dead scared of him; and some of the satraps must have been quaking in their boots once he got back from Gedrosia and began to thin their ranks.

So, as far as reading the sources is concerned: yes, of course we should do that; but if we're hoping to find that he was universally loved, honoured and obeyed, I don't think I'll find that in the sources I have to hand.

ATB

[marcus]

I agree that studying history can be seen as a waste of time, but I like to tell myself it expands one’s mind etc. etc. At the very least, ancient history still inspires so much passion on these boards! I’ll leave you with the comparison Napoleon makes between himself and Alexander.

Whoa! Semiramis. Maybe I missed something in one of the forum messages, but who on earth suggested that "studying history can be seen as a waste of time"?

ATB

[Fiona]

I can't believe some of the comments made on this site about Alexander, it makes me wonder why some people are here and if they have any respect for Alexander and his achievements. For me the attraction is the man's charisma and his military genius, the man must have had something for people to be so passionate about him thousands of years later and so, even now, he is inspiring loyalty in people as he no doubt did when he was alive. I'd find better things to do, or other people to admire if I believed he relied on his generals to help him plan battles, that people feared him and that people weren't loyal.
Everybody has their own image of Alexander, everybody has the right to defend that image but go to the sources and check what they say before forming an opinion and don't guess what people were thinking.
And no, I don't view Alexander through rose-coloured glasses, I can see the dark side of his character, but I wouldn't say anything about him without checking my facts first.[/b]

I don't understand it either. I am genuinely baffled why anyone would spend huge amounts of time studying someone they don't even like... if you can equate 'like' with 'admire', which I guess you can. Amyntoros has called it 'fascination' and that makes sense, but I'd have thought that if people are still fascinated, all these years later, then that's proof in itself of Alexander's charisma, and surely someone with that much charisma must have admirable qualities? But no, to hear some people talk, you'd think he was nothing more than a mindless killing machine.
I will never whitewash him, or condone the murder of Cleitus or of Parmenion or the executions at Tyre or make out he was good. As Phoebus recently pointed out very well, 'great' doesn't mean 'good'. But I accept what you very rightly call his 'dark side' because it's part of who he is. Without the dark, you wouldn't get the brilliance either, the two extremes go together.
But can't we admire the leader who mucked in, who led from the front, who stood on the banks of the Oxus until all his men had reached safety? Who leaped the wall at Multan, who kept going further when common sense said consolidate, who poured out his wealth and his own strength without ever counting the consequences? Who honoured Achilles at Troy, who gave his seat by the fire to a frozen soldier, who never gave up?
I could go on, but probably soemone will tell me they're just fairy tales.
Fiona

[Fiona]

Whoa! That needs addressing - perhaps with a Siberian postcode! In two parts then....

Huh? What are you on about with your Siberian postcodes, gob-smacked person? Do you want to exile me to Siberia, is that it?

Quite right: at the end of Alexander’s life “them” and “us” had reverted back to being what they always were – Greek city-states – and immediately attacked “them”; them being, of course, the imperialist Macedonians. In an alliance of states mind; no Corinthian or Hellenic League here. Not terribly much later other city-states also became “them” as they resumed attacking each other – generally based on whether they supported Macedon or not. And so it would go.

It was a broad picture of a general trend, accelerated, I believe, by Alexander, within his sphere of influence. I don't doubt it was happening elsewhere too. Western Europe, for example, where Celtic Tribe A found that their perpetual rivals in Celtic tribe B were not such bad chaps when Tribe C came along. But that's beside the point, really. The point here is mainly that the 'us' and 'them' doesn't mean friends and enemies. It means 'not-other' and 'other'. You know as well as I do that trends in history don't run in straight lines like a train on a track, but more like the tide coming in - in a bit, back a bit, in a bit more. The trend had started that other Greeks, and even Persians, were no longer other. That doesn't mean they were friends! Far from it. As you rightly point out, there were still plenty of wars to come. But the fact that they made alliances actually supports the argument, because from being perpetual rivals they had become people you could make a temporary alliance with. And the marriages at Susa prove that the Persians had become 'not-other'. However fast they were repudiated, the fact they happened at all supports that argument. The speed of Greek alliances after Alexander is in marked contrast to the getting blood out of a stone efforts of Themistocles before Marathon, or even Philip's laboured efforts as hegemon. It's all to do with expansion, with them having had their minds opened to a bigger picture. You're much less likely to think parochially when you've seen there's a big world out there. And the credit for that is Alexander's.

The “League of Corinth” was a “common peace” forced upon a group of unreconstructed recalcitrants at sarisa point. They had been soundly beaten in the field and would now do as they were told. Philip was hegemon and it was he who summoned the council of “delegates” and he who set the policy and the agenda (more below).

Well, exactly - that was Philip. After Alexander, they didn't need to be at sarissa point to make alliances. They just did it.

By late June/July 323 the League’s “letter”, like the “King of Asia” who’d ignored it’s entire spirit with his “exiles’ decree”, was dead. The same might be observed for any “harmony of races” between Aisans and Macedonians.

Hey, I never mentioned harmony of races. Like I'd dare - I'm not that daft. I'm just talking about a more general awareness - among the general population as much as the leaders - that actually, Persians weren't monsters, and maybe even that Macedonians weren't, either. Imagine a veteran who's sat under a banyan tree sharing guard duty with a Macedonian - he may hear his leaders telling him that Macedon is evil, but he's more likely now to trust his own judgement and experience. He's had his mind broadened.

Except for that noble talking elephant Porus? Facetious perhaps but, really, that is one almighty and hugely apologetic leap of philosophical logic. It is also excusatory tosh the like of which Plutarch will have been innordinately proud for not even he, relating the murder of the 7,000 Indian mercenaries (Alex. 59.6-7), could find an excuse so easy to hand:

…after he had made a truce with them in a certain city and allowed them to depart, he fell upon them as they marched and slew them all. And this act adheres like a stain to his military career; in all other instances he waged war according to usage and like a king

It's not excusatory, it's explanatory. 'Tisn't tosh, either. Plutarch was AD - of course he saw Indians as fully human, and felt sorry for them, and thought that Alexander was monstrous to have killed so many of them. He was making the same mistake we do, of not seeing things from Alexander's point of view. Alexander is one of the reasons Plutarch was capable of seeing the Indians as 'not-other'. If the Romans had discovered them first, d'you think it would have been any different? No - because they would still have been very 'other'.

The sources also imply no such racial view on Alexander’s part. Indeed he is depicted as being intrigued by the philosophy of the “sages” and is described as having much social intercourse with Indians. "Us" Indians. The “friendly” ones of course. Those who opposed him were chased and killed – such as the “philosophers” who reviled the princes who allied themselves with him that he hanged and the 500 or so “sick” at Sangala he had murdered. These, perhaps, were more “them” than the seemingly "us" collaborators.

Well, he could hardly sit down and talk to the ones that were fighting back, could he? It is truly remarkable - and a mark of Alexander's greatness, and a cause for admiration - just how quick he was to talk to any of these strange people who would talk to him, and how prepared he was to listen and learn. I did not mean to bring race into it. The main point is the otherness.

Interestingly, if we are to take the words of an extremely well educated Greek – Aristotle – that is exactly what the Greeks thought of all Asians – Persians included. Isocrates too wanted these half-humans enslaved as beasts of burden to support the Greek Lebensraum in the east. Many did find themselves doing just that in the garrison outposts of empire.

Perhaps Aristotle would have changed his mind had he seen what Alexander saw. It is to Alexander's credit that he used his education to think for himself, and did not just believe what the older generation had told him about other peoples.

The slaughter of the Indians has nothing to do with their being "them"; their “otherness”. Alexander had conquered many others in his relentless advance east. Many of these – from Persians and Afghanis to steppes tribesmen (the Saca, Dahae etc) – were forced into service alongside his Macedonians (certainly in the cavalry if not in “light-armed”). It is only the Indians – Taxiles, Porus and their like – that are “sub-human” though? Not likely.

The slaughter of the Indians is little different than the slaughter of the Tyrians, Gazans and Thebans before them: they resisted and did so doggedly. By the time of the Indian campaign Alexander’s troops were quite well acquainted with such slaughter. Their temperament will not have been helped by the nature of the campaign but that in no way excuses the results.

But the further from home they got, the more other the local population would appear. That's why it makes sense that it got worse in India. I'm not trying to persuade you out of thinking of it all as slaughter. You are free to make that judgment on him. Personally, I'm glad it was he who got there first, and not the Romans or the Chinese.
Fiona

[Paralus]

For me the attraction is the man's charisma and his military genius, the man must have had something for people to be so passionate about him thousands of years later and so, even now, he is inspiring loyalty in people as he no doubt did when he was alive.

He inspired both adulation and criticism in antiquity. Any notion that he was universally loved and admired in his time is seriously misplaced.

Marcus has pointed out the demonstrations of a distinct lack of loyalty in the sources. Interestingly it was the scions of the Macedonian nobility who are mentioned as the conspirators in the "better" documented attempt on the increasingly despotic Argead king's life. Funny how sometimes it is the younger generation that are the recidivist conservatives.

Perhaps they were not long in Asia and were more representative of the "older court" and milieu prevailing at Pella? Their ages are not given but this would be a logical explanation: their being confronted with a court and king so far removed from what those in Macedon will have remembered under Philip. Those nobles in Asia resisting Alexander's increasing "Asianising" will have likely found fertile ground here.

I'd find better things to do, or other people to admire if I believed he relied on his generals to help him plan battles, that people feared him and that people weren't loyal.[/b]

It’s a good thing then that you do not believe that Alexander ever needed any such aid from his senior staff (one wonders why he bothered with same) else you’d need to join Alexander’s “first” historian, Polybius (8.10.5-11):

But in speaking of Philip and his friends not only would one hesitate to accuse them of cowardice, effeminacy, and shamelessness to boot, but on the contrary if one set oneself the task of singing their praises one could scarcely find terms adequate to characterize their bravery, industry, and in general the virtue of these men who indisputably by their energy and daring raised Macedonia from the rank of a petty kingdom to that of the greatest and most glorious monarchy in the world. Quite apart from what was accomplished during Philip's lifetime, the success achieved after Philip's death by the aid of Alexander indisputably established in the eyes of all their reputations for valour. While we should perhaps give Alexander, as commander-in chief, the credit for much, notwithstanding his extreme youth, we should assign no less to his co-operators and friends, who defeated the enemy in many marvellous battles, exposed themselves often to extraordinary toil, danger, and hardship, and after possessing themselves of vast wealth and unbounded resources for satisfying every desire, neither suffered in a single case any impairment of their physical powers, nor even to gratify their passion were guilty of malpractices and licentiousness; but all of them, one may say, proved themselves indeed to be kingly men by virtue of their magnanimity, self-restraint, and courage, as long as they lived with Philip and afterwards with Alexander. It is unnecessary to mention anyone by name. And after the death of Alexander, when they disputed the empire of the greater part of the world…

[Fiona]

Just engaging in my annoying habit of butting into other people’s conversations. I think Fiona brings up a really good point here about “Us” versus “Them” thinking in a war or massacre. I imagine this type of thing has existed as long as there has been conflict, although the identities and mechanisms of “Othering” have varied wildly over times. I wish I could agree with Fiona that that “today we have no problem seeing that whole mankind as us”. It seems that even in the modern day, the “us” versus “them” propaganda technique rears its ugly head every time there is an unjustifiable war of aggression or some other economic incentive.

I think you're right, that there's still a lot of us and them about, especially in times of war. Still, at least these days there are some people who've genuinely achieved a state of mind where all mankind is 'us'. Still a long way to go - probably would take an alien invasion to achieve it fully. Nothing brings people togther like a common enemy!

Let’s take the 19th century educated Europeans questioning whether black people had souls. It hadn’t always been this way. “Race” as a concept simply did not exist before the days of race-based slavery and colonialism. There is no reference to this idea before the 17th century. Slavery had been around in different forms in many societies since (most likely) pre-history. But there was much opposition to the idea once Enlightenment values became popular in Europe. This is where dividing human beings into categories based on apparent innate differences helped justify brutal acts that were otherwise unacceptable to the majority of the population. There was little anti-black writing before the 19th century. But once the advocates (and beneficiaries) of the African slave trade got the propaganda campaign started depicting black people as sub-human, people “educated” enough to come across the latest ideas did start questioning if black people had souls. So Europe could have slavery post-Enlightenment, when the institution did not exist in the “Dark” Middle Ages.

Sorry, as I was saying to Paralus, i didn't mean to bring race into it as such. You're saying that because the slave trade was post-enlightenment, it needed some justification which previously hadn't existed? However, the point stands that some people even as late as nineteenth century believed such nonsense, so anyone from 4th century BC, travelling in unknown parts, might be excused for finding the peoples he encountered to be very remote from what he knew and could classify as 'us'.

Seeing that “racial” sentiment has such a particular set of circumstances attached to it, I’m wondering if it would be anachronistic to assign similar “racial” motivations to Alexander’s campaigns in India. Aren’t we missing the mark by a couple of thousand years here? There is some work by a scholar called Frank Snowden who researched the lack of what he calls “colour prejudice” during classical times.

I agree. I don't see any evidence of race itself being an issue in the sense that it became later. It was more just the strangeness of peoples that hadn't been encountered before. At the most, Alexander would have noted with interest that as you went south, people's skins were slightly browner than his was.

Yes, Greek philosophers did at times wonder if “barbarians” or women had souls. But there is plenty to indicate that Alexander did not try to turn all Persians into “slaves” as Aristotle had prescribed was fit for barbarians. Nor did Alexander shy away from massacres before India if he felt it would aid his mission. Thebes, Tyre and Gaza come to mind. Thebans were Hellenes and the Phoenicians of Tyre and Gaza have favourable roles of founder princes etc. in Greek myth. I recall the threat to annihilate an entire Central Asian population when Bucephalus was stolen. These are the people he married into. Then there was the wholesale massacre of the Cosseans after Hephaestion’s death. It’s hard to argue that he saw the Greeks, Phoenicians or Central Asians as “little more than animals”, but he never shied from using violence against them.

I suspect there were different reasons at different times, for Alexander to use extremes of violence. I wonder if this is not another example of his capacity to be both extremes of something at one and the same time, in this case, both ahead of his time, and way behind it. Sometimes, as with the Persians, he rejects Aristotle's notions and thinks in an advanced way. At other times, as with the Cossaeans, he reverts to a Homeric mindset.

To me, the Indian massacres can be seen more as part of a calculated campaign of terror to induce automatic submissions from populations, rather than being due to seeing Indians as sub-human. There’s plenty to suggest he had no problem with the Indians who co-operated with him. Take the two Indian princes in his entourage, who would’ve been invaluable in preparing his campaign or the defeated Porus, who the sources describe Alexander perceived as handsome, noble, brave, regal etc.

There is the story of Alexander discussing philosophy with Brahmins (which I don’t believe) and becoming good friends with one in particular called Calanus (which I do believe). Sources indicate that Alexander insisted on giving Calanus a grand funeral (surpassed in pomp only by Hephaistion's it must be noted) where Calanus immolated himself and that he was rather upset about Calanus’ death.

I think it's fair to say that the early days in India produced more deaths than the later ones, evidence perhaps of a very quick learning process going on.

The city of Musicanus is a great example of how Alexander treated those who submitted well, but those who didn’t brutally. After the initial surrender by Musicanus, the entourage was full of praises for the city, its inhabitants and its hospitality. Even calling its people uncommonly beautiful and going to the extremes of suggesting that must be achieved by only keeping the beautiful babies after birth and exposing the rest (a compliment in those times I’m guessing). None of the examples above support the idea that Alexander viewed Indians as "little more than animals". However, once Alexander’s party had left, the city rebelled. Alexander returned to crucify Musicanus and the Brahmins of the city.

Not by then, no - they were getting used to the place by then, I guess, and treating its cities like any other cities. Friendly if they were friendly, but ruthless if they were not. In a way, it's a compliment. It certainly isn't racist, is it? They remark on the unusual that strikes them, but otherwise, they expect the standards of behaviour they would expect from Thebes, and when they don't get it, there's no mercy for them either.

So, to me, the massacres in India don’t arise from viewing the Indians as the ultimate “Them”. They are simply part of the pattern of Alexander’s career. Although the degree of viciousness does seem higher in the Indian campaign, perhaps explaining why people refer to it so often.

For me, Alexander is exonerated from charges of any anachronistic feelings of viewing Indians as sub-human by his long and distinguished list of massacres pre-India and the effectiveness of his methods in terrorizing the local population.

Well, if he did view them as subhuman, it was in his own way, and not in an anachronistic way. But maybe he didn't - you may very well be right. But as you say, there does seem to be a higher level of viciousness in the Indian campaign, and possibly this is at least part of the reason.
Fiona

[Fiona]

There are many people, alive and dead, that I think are/were admirable. Do I admire any of them “truly and wholeheartedly”? That is, the way many people admire Alexander? No.

Thank you.

Personally, I think that true human “greatness” is, above all else, a matter of being humane. Which in turn requires being able to feel compassion with other living beings. And so I think you and your shy/nervous friends sell yourselves very short, as you undoubtedly are far more compassionate than Alexander was. Alexander was only “better” at things related to warfare.

Well, I'm not speaking for the others here, only for myself, but I don't see myself as a compassionate person. I think I know why Alexander massacred Thebes, and if I'm right, I would have been there, holding his coat.
But seriously, I am that deplorable milksop of whom the English, as C S Lewis said, are the worst :"they declare hanging is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door."

I don't doubt that you think that this is true. I, though, don't. Had he lost every battle, then there'd been no “glory”, and thus no glamour. There'd been no books written about him, no Alexander romance to spread his fame, no “imitatio Alexandri”, no Julius Caesar weeping because he'd accomplished little at an age where Alexander had accomplished much, no prophecy about Alexander in the Bible or a Dhul Qarnain in the Qu'ran, neither a Tarn glorifying him nor a Badian criticizing him, no trilogy about him by Mary Renault and no movie about him by Oliver Stone. And had there still been a “pothos.org”, it would have been about the plant.

Under such circumstances, you would barely even have heard of him. He would have been a footnote in history, and would not have seemed the least bit different from the many other footnotes.

Ah, footnotes! Some of the most interesting people in history are in footnotes. Like Henry Lumsden (English Civil War). What wouldn't I give to know more about him. Alexander would shine out of a footnote just like old Henry does.
But you're making me sad now for all the glorious failures I'll never know about 'cos they didn't even make it into footnotes.
Fiona

[Paralus]

Huh? What are you on about with your Siberian postcodes, gob-smacked person? Do you want to exile me to Siberia, is that it?

No, no, not you - heaven forbid - the quote itself. In cricket parlance: despatch it to the boundary.

But the fact that they made alliances actually supports the argument, because from being perpetual rivals they had become people you could make a temporary alliance with…

…The speed of Greek alliances after Alexander is in marked contrast to the getting blood out of a stone efforts of Themistocles before Marathon, or even Philip's laboured efforts as hegemon. It's all to do with expansion, with them having had their minds opened to a bigger picture. You're much less likely to think parochially when you've seen there's a big world out there. And the credit for that is Alexander's.

No, not at all. You fail to realise that the Greek poleis had been making and breaking alliances for centuries. Many rushed in and out of alliances like some ancient Elizabeth Taylor rushing in and out of marriage. A reading of the history of just Athens in the fourth century will see her allied (and disaffected from) many cities. She began the century forcibly allied with Sparta. She then allied herself with Thebes and Corinth against Sparta. She later constituted alliances with many Aegean states against Sparta. She then allowed her alliance to lapse with Thebes. Having re-constituted the Second Athenian Confederacy she allied herself with Thebes. After Leuctra and Thebes’ invasion of the Peloponnese she repudiated her alliance with Thebes and allied herself with Sparta against Thebes. That's before we get to the "Sacred War" where she chose alliances of convenience to annoy Thebes and Philip.

What is the connecting thread here? Certainly not Alexander. Rarely ever enlightened self interest either; plain ordinary self interest is the thread. Politico-military alliances with "others" to annoy "others" and advance one's own self interest. It is this that underwrites the difficulties Themistocles experienced prior to Salamis or Plataea (Marathon??). Sparta had no interest in engaging Persia in central Greece. It had a huge vested interest in engaging it at the Isthmus or in the Peloponnese. Those states to the north had a similar interest in “medizing”.

Athens had no problems constituting the “Delian League”. It had problems keeping it together once it could no longer point to Persia as an imminent threat.
Mantinea (amongst other Arcadian members) had no problems repudiating its membership of the Peloponnesian League and allying with Athens in 419. This resulted in the seminal battle of Mantinea where Sparta – calling up all year classes – came within an ace of losing everything.

One could go on. The poleis’ proclivity for rushing into alliances and out of same had absolutely nothing to do with Alexander or a “wider world” and everything to do with self interest. Philip and Alexander changed that not one whit. As Lysander is said to have observed: we cheat boys with dice and men with oaths. To the poleis alliances were like drugs and the politicians the pimps.

The “League of Corinth” was a “common peace” forced upon a group of unreconstructed recalcitrants at sarisa point. They had been soundly beaten in the field and would now do as they were told. Philip was hegemon and it was he who summoned the council of “delegates” and he who set the policy and the agenda (more below).

Well, exactly - that was Philip. After Alexander, they didn't need to be at sarissa point to make alliances. They just did it.

You forget: the poleis formed an alliance – in the nick of time – to confront Philip. He destroyed them in the field and constituted a “league” out of the defeated at sarisa point. He then had them declare war on Persia.

After Philip’s death the poleis went back to what they did well: looking to their interests and Athens, had it listened to Demosthenes, will likely have reconstituted its alliance with Thebes. After Alexander’s death they did exactly the same thing. None of this – none – had anything to do with Alexander or anyone else opening their eyes to the wide world out there or how to go about making alliances – sarisa points or not. The alliances were made with no wider world view in mind. On the contrary, they were made with the city-state view firmly in mind.

Hey, I never mentioned harmony of races.

Didn’t say you did: just appended that there as I do.

It's not excusatory, it's explanatory. 'Tisn't tosh, either. Plutarch was AD - of course he saw Indians as fully human, and felt sorry for them, and thought that Alexander was monstrous to have killed so many of them. He was making the same mistake we do, of not seeing things from Alexander's point of view. Alexander is one of the reasons Plutarch was capable of seeing the Indians as 'not-other'. If the Romans had discovered them first, d'you think it would have been any different? No - because they would still have been very 'other'.

You have absolutely no basis for that opinion. To my knowledge the Romans did not ever venture as far as India: they’d enough problems with a resurgent Persia, the Parthians. The Indians were no more “other” than those on their borders. Just as there is no evidence to support the theory that the Macedonians thought Indians so terribly “other” as to justify their slaughter, there is none to state that Plutarch (and those of his time), simply because he “is AD”, somehow had undergone some cultural epiphany with respect to Indians. Diodorus is “BCE”, here is what he has to say (17.84.1-2):

The mercenaries straightway under the terms of the truce left the city and encamped without interference at a distance of eighty furlongs, without an inkling of what would happen. Alexander, nevertheless, nursed an implacable hostility toward them; he held his forces in readiness, followed them, and falling upon them suddenly wrought a great slaughter. At first they kept shouting that this attack was in contravention of the treaty and they called to witness the gods against whom he had transgressed. Alexander shouted back that he had granted them the right to leave the city but not that of being friends of the Macedonians forever.

Apparently the epiphany must occur in the following hundred or more years. It is evident that the source (which certainly was not AD) used by both Plutarch and Diodorus finds this action a disgrace upon Alexander’s record.

I did not mean to bring race into it. The main point is the otherness.
But the further from home they got, the more other the local population would appear. That's why it makes sense that it got worse in India.

No, the main point is the length and hardship of a near decade of campaigning and the dogged resistance offered by the Indians. They are meeting a similar fate to those who resisted as doggedly before them. Nothing whatsoever to do with “otherness”.