The Last Campaign

[Nicator]

Hello all again...sorry for overposting tonight, just have a short time to get this done and need some additional input. After Hep's death, Alexander threw himself into battle with the Cossaeans. Renault mentions it to be strictly a punitive campaign (if memory serves), and Green mentions he did it just to take his mind off of Hep (he also calls it extermination, which is so typical of Green). I have no doubt that both of these are true, but what I'm wondering is if there is any info on the specifics of the battle(s) which may have occured?

[maciek]

Well I don't think so. I never saw any detail about this campaign, it looks like every writer is prepairing himself in writing for the final act which is Alexander's death and this campaign is not so importand for them...Maciek

[susan]

It was a guerrilla campaign, so there weren't any fixed battles. I think the Cossaeans were ancestors of the Kurds.Susan

[nick]

Hi Susan -The ancestors of the Kurds are commonly believed to have been the Carduchi, who served in Darius' and other Persian armies; living a little north of the Cossaeans.The heartland of Persia was inhabited by a few 'tribal', 'non-pacified' (and non-Persian) societies: Uxians, Cossaeans. The 'campaign' against the Uxians (331 BC) is described in more detail than that against the Cossaeans. But the situation might have been quite similar.The Achaemenids had hardly bothered about those semi-idenpendent indigenous nations within their terrority; that concept was indigestible to Alexander. But I don't think there is enough circumstantial evidence to link the Cossaeans directly to the Kurds.Best regards -
Nick

[marcus]

My my, Nick, you have been busy, haven't you?I believe Maciek and Susan are right - the only mention of the campaign against the Cossaeans is to say that it happened, and that it was some sort of expiatory campaign for the death of Hephaistion.I would imagine it was like the campaign against the Uxii (my brain's going soft - was that the tribe in Persis/Elam?) - hard, totally uncompromising, and very, very savage...(Ooh, I'm getting excited!) :-)All the bestMarcus

[susan]

Yes, you're right, I was thinking of the Carduchi , and confused the two. I should have checked first.RegardsSusan

[anna]

Cold shower for Marcus!!!!! ;)Well, as far as i remember, it was mainly guerilla war. Cossaeans were a mountaneous tribe, just like Uxii and i guess they did cause some trouble, which required solution. So - the answer is no, there was no major battle of some kind. Noone of contempors mentions it.
What i feel is that many of the anti-Alex writers try to use this bit of information to show us how ruthless and unreasonable ruler he was. Well, of course, he was in fragile condition, and certainly used the opportunity to get some painful things off his chest through the rage. But... I still find it hard to believe that he arranged this expedition only for the sake of slaughtery.I might be wrong, of course... And to remind everyone about Mary Renault - there's no need to take her words (or Green for that matter) for a gospel. They both speculate exactly as we do. They don't have additional sources we don't know about.

[nick]

Hi Anna -You wrote:
"just like Uxii and i guess they did cause some trouble, which required solution"I must stress that independent tribal nations like the Uxians and Cossaeans had enjoyed the freedom to live as sovereigns in their own territories during the era of the Persian empire. Same case with the Pisidians. As long as these peoples showed 'some' kind of servility to the Great King (e.g. voluntarily send some troops in case of war), they were left on their own (and didn't pay tribute). Alexander's attack on the Uxians was provoked because the Uxians tried to maintain their independent status by asking Alexander money for passage through their territory. To Alexander the concept of free 'nations' within his empire was not something he could relate to.So if these people caused "trouble" at all depends entirely of your definition of what a state, or an empire, should be.Above that: he needed something to divert his attention after Hepaistion's death.Regards -
Nick

[Nicator]

Thanks to everyone for all the prompt responses. Yours Nick

[anna]

Hmm-m-m...I think that i wrote "i guess" in quite a many sentences ;)I speculate, you speculate, we all speculate on this forum.
And you know what? All those so-called respected academics speculate as well. ;)I believe there was some logical reason for this campain, and it wasn't JUST the devertion for Alexander. That's all.Ye, we are given the reasons for his expedition against Uxians (thanks for help with spelling). And yet, the Persians were pretty OK about paying them for the right of transpassing. Alexander immediately reacted ruthlessly, as usual, and defeated them. I find it hard to believe, it was less bloody then his campain against Cosseans. What's the difference? Just because it happened after his dear friend's death, we have to believe he went out to kill people simply for the divertion? This time simply there was noone to plead mercy for this tribe as Darius's mother did back then...And yes, Alexander liked to be the central ruler, without some "independent" tribes on his territory. He wasn't the first nor the last to act this way.
All i wanted to point out is - there was nothing new or different in his behavior. He acted exactly as he did before, with Uxians, Pisidians, Mallis (sp?), Cosseans and many-many others.Maybe i wasn't clear enough in my previous post. All i wanted to say is that i don't believe that Hep' death somehow "clouded" his vision and mind and all of the sudden awakened his thirst for murder and slaughter. He acted consistantly all the way.In My Humble Opinion, as usual.Cheers

[Tre]

You are of course, entirely correct.

[marcus]

Hi Anna,As Tre says, you are entirely correct.I guess *our* judgement gets clouded because of the implication in the sources that Alexander undertook the campaign as a catharsis for Hephaistion's death. Whereas he was probably going to do it, anyway, but Hephaistion's death perhaps brought the campaign forward. What we don't know is whether Alexander conducted the campaign any differently in the light of his friend's death (I suspect not - since India Alexander seems to me to have been less likely to give people the chance to submit peacefully than he was at the beginning of the campaign).All the bestMarcus

[karen]

I liken this situation to, say, a contemporary town in the United States deciding to put a roadblock across an interstate highway and tell every driver, "Cough up $50 or you don't cross." Including police in cruisers, army convoys, etc. The authorities wouldn't put up with it for five minutes, and everyone involved would be charged with extortion. Perhaps it was traditional for the nomads to charge for passage, but they were still doing it through force of arms, so that Alexander would have looked upon it as banditry, and a challenge to his ability to keep the peace within his borders.And I doubt he used any more ferocity than usual, or was any more inclined to fight rather than accept submission than usual. If these people were the sort to submit, they'd have submitted to the Persians.Love & peace,
Karen