Equal to Demosthenese with the Mouth

[amyntoros]

****If Philotas was innocent a simple declaration would stop the tortures anyway,and he wouldnt go into any details.****I think you have a complete misunderstanding about the purpose of torture. The whole idea was to get the victim to admit to the crime, and a continuing declaration of innocence would only prolong the torture. It really had nothing to do with justice at all and was only a means to an end - to produce an admission of guilt. The torturers certainly didn't stop if the victim said "I didn't do it." Best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

****If Philotas was innocent a simple declaration would stop the tortures anyway,and he wouldnt go into any details.****I think you have a complete misunderstanding about the purpose of torture. The whole idea was to get the victim to admit to the crime, and a continuing declaration of innocence would only prolong the torture. It really had nothing to do with justice at all and was only a means to an end - to produce an admission of guilt. The torturers certainly didn't stop if the victim said "I didn't do it." Best regards,Amyntoros

[jan]

Well, Kenny, I am inclined to believe that Alexander spoke extemporaneously; however, I am more concerned about who recorded his speeches so that posterity learned of them. This is one time that Callisthenes, the historian, really wins his argument, as he is quite correct in his assertion that it is the historian who is responsible for Alexander's fame and record.

[jan]

Well, Kenny, I am inclined to believe that Alexander spoke extemporaneously; however, I am more concerned about who recorded his speeches so that posterity learned of them. This is one time that Callisthenes, the historian, really wins his argument, as he is quite correct in his assertion that it is the historian who is responsible for Alexander's fame and record.

[marcus]

The difficulty is, of course, that the speeches, as we have them, are as written by Arrian and Curtius (mainly - the speeches are 'fuller' in those two writers) and they don't always say the same things. On the one hand, it is likely that in many cases the essence of what Alexander said has been put across, but in words constructed by the writer; on the other, it is possible that the writer put words into Alexander's mouth in order to make him say what the author wanted him to say.There is certainly nothing to indicate that any of the speeches that we have are Alexander's own words. Even if they were, and it is Callisthenes whom we have to thank ... well, Callisthenes would have polished the essence of what Alexander said into a good rhetorical exercise, anyway, rather than reporting what he actually said (hey, maybe we can spread a new Internet rumour, that Alexander had a stutter.)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

The difficulty is, of course, that the speeches, as we have them, are as written by Arrian and Curtius (mainly - the speeches are 'fuller' in those two writers) and they don't always say the same things. On the one hand, it is likely that in many cases the essence of what Alexander said has been put across, but in words constructed by the writer; on the other, it is possible that the writer put words into Alexander's mouth in order to make him say what the author wanted him to say.There is certainly nothing to indicate that any of the speeches that we have are Alexander's own words. Even if they were, and it is Callisthenes whom we have to thank ... well, Callisthenes would have polished the essence of what Alexander said into a good rhetorical exercise, anyway, rather than reporting what he actually said (hey, maybe we can spread a new Internet rumour, that Alexander had a stutter.)All the bestMarcus

[alejandro]

Dear Efstathios and Michael,I think at this point it is a good idea remembering what an author (Renault?) said about Philip (and I think can be applied to Alexander as well): GÇ£He never did something for just one reasonGÇ¥ (or something along these lines).Did Philip hire Aristotle because he wanted the best tutor for his child? Yes, Tarn-ites will reply. Or because he was well connected with a potential ally in the crucial lands around the Hellespont? Yes, Badian-ites will answer. But, I say, why not both? Certainly it was a win-win situation, and two good causes are better than one when deciding oneGÇÖs actions, arenGÇÖt they?The same can be said about the son: Did Alexander keep Athens and Sparta alone because he respected their long and full of honour histories? IGÇÖm pretty sure he did. Or did he do it to have a quiet internal front while leading his expedition against the Persians? Well, probably he also took this into account.What I want to stress is that we donGÇÖt need to consider he did something or didnGÇÖt do something else for a unique reason, but that usually there are several arguments that are analysed and play a role. Generally the course of action that is supported by most of the arguments (or by the most powerful ones) is the one taken.IGÇÖm pretty sure Alexander had (at least some residual) affection for Parmenion, but the weight of the arguments against keeping him alive was (at least in AlexGÇÖs view) greater than those in favour of it. ThatGÇÖs why he ended up sending the assassins.Our perceptions on Alexander will certainly play a role on how much weight we attach to each argument, but I think we frequently cannot attribute any single action to just one motive. And considering all the potential reasons for an action is what makes a debate interesting, doesnGÇÖt it?All the best,Alejandro

[alejandro]

Dear Efstathios and Michael,I think at this point it is a good idea remembering what an author (Renault?) said about Philip (and I think can be applied to Alexander as well): GÇ£He never did something for just one reasonGÇ¥ (or something along these lines).Did Philip hire Aristotle because he wanted the best tutor for his child? Yes, Tarn-ites will reply. Or because he was well connected with a potential ally in the crucial lands around the Hellespont? Yes, Badian-ites will answer. But, I say, why not both? Certainly it was a win-win situation, and two good causes are better than one when deciding oneGÇÖs actions, arenGÇÖt they?The same can be said about the son: Did Alexander keep Athens and Sparta alone because he respected their long and full of honour histories? IGÇÖm pretty sure he did. Or did he do it to have a quiet internal front while leading his expedition against the Persians? Well, probably he also took this into account.What I want to stress is that we donGÇÖt need to consider he did something or didnGÇÖt do something else for a unique reason, but that usually there are several arguments that are analysed and play a role. Generally the course of action that is supported by most of the arguments (or by the most powerful ones) is the one taken.IGÇÖm pretty sure Alexander had (at least some residual) affection for Parmenion, but the weight of the arguments against keeping him alive was (at least in AlexGÇÖs view) greater than those in favour of it. ThatGÇÖs why he ended up sending the assassins.Our perceptions on Alexander will certainly play a role on how much weight we attach to each argument, but I think we frequently cannot attribute any single action to just one motive. And considering all the potential reasons for an action is what makes a debate interesting, doesnGÇÖt it?All the best,Alejandro

[Paralus]

"But they didnt.Because ,A)Alexander had shown his power already and they wouldnt take that risk and B) because no matter how good Demosthenes was in rhetoric,in the end the Athenians thought about their city's well being first."G'day Efsthasios.The question about the Athenians manning 200 triremes and sailing on Pella or Macedonian shipping is with respect to Philip marching to (eventually) engage the Thebans and Athenians at Chaeronea. At this time the Athenians had no idea of Alexander's abilities - they'd not ever seen him in action (nor the Thebans for that matter). Chaeronea was that first time.The question was what would Philip have done if - rather than 10,000 Athenian hoplites showing up at Chaeronea - 200 ships had sailed on Pella behind him?Daydreaming is all...Paralus.

[Paralus]

"But they didnt.Because ,A)Alexander had shown his power already and they wouldnt take that risk and B) because no matter how good Demosthenes was in rhetoric,in the end the Athenians thought about their city's well being first."G'day Efsthasios.The question about the Athenians manning 200 triremes and sailing on Pella or Macedonian shipping is with respect to Philip marching to (eventually) engage the Thebans and Athenians at Chaeronea. At this time the Athenians had no idea of Alexander's abilities - they'd not ever seen him in action (nor the Thebans for that matter). Chaeronea was that first time.The question was what would Philip have done if - rather than 10,000 Athenian hoplites showing up at Chaeronea - 200 ships had sailed on Pella behind him?Daydreaming is all...Paralus.