pothos.org

Sulking and throwing a temper tantrum are not synonymous. I too have a teenager – diagnosed bipolar since barely out of infancy – and I have experienced tantrums the like of which no one here could comprehend. A sulk is different. If my son only sulked then life with him would be a wholly different state of affairs.

If we are to believe that Alexander killed a satrap with his own hands after returning from Gedrosia then we could perhaps call it a temper tantrum. The events at the Beas and at Opis were sulks.

And yes, the behavior could be called “child-like” from our perspective, but those were different times. Men here until very recently were raised not to show their emotions or, at the very least, to have them under control as an adult if they are to succeed in this world. In Alexander’s time there is multiple evidence of emotions set free and exhibited to the world, whether it be tears from Alexander, tears from the army, drawn swords during an argument, impassioned pleas to soldiers (who today, in contrast, are told what to do and are expected to follow orders without explanation), etc. The culture was different, the society was different, and definitions of adulthood were different. We can’t judge by our expectations of adults today. Alexander emulated the great Achillean sulk, but do consider Achilles’ behavior. What general today could retire to his quarters and refuse to fight (and order the men under his command not to fight also) because he was angry at his allies – and yet still remain a “hero” to those who read about him? Those were different times, with different expectations – a time when men were allowed to demonstrate their emotions. Achilles sulked. Alexander sulked, although he had a better reason and more successful results, at least at Opis. But, all in all, the word isn’t offensive. It is descriptive.

Best regards,

thoughtful introspection and contemplation may be more like it. I dont really believe that Alexander threw a "hissy" or "tantrum" but rather had to lick his wounds and think things over. Placing a renowned leader such as he is in the position of tantrum throwing just does not seem plausible to me...nobody knows what happened inside his tent but that he took time out to think things through as he had no choice but to make accommodations to his own long established army who had accompanied him for so long in this arduous journey. So after having suffered through defeating so many top Generals, and finding that the elements so unkind to his men who have suffered through snakes strangling them, monsoon rains, and loss of equipment and uniforms, he has to realize that his counselors are giving him the best advice to just give it up, throw it all in, and forget his quest to the end of the world. Anybody in theirright mind would realize he needs time out to get himself together, and to do it out of sight, out of mind, of the troops who have spent their lives with him. I still do not believe that he is sulking! Just contemplating and re-evaluating!

What is the ancient Greek word for sulking? Pouting?

I do believe that, like you say Amyntoros, that the definitions of behaviour and adulthood were different. That is why I think the use of the word and it's modern conotation is loaded, because it doesn' t take that into account. It leaves one with the impression of a modern childish behaviour without explaining the ancient differences. And so readers who are unfamliar with the differences take the modern interpretation and run with it and all it's modern negative connotations.

I wasn't saying that sulking and tantrums were the same, sorry if I gave that impression. These are things that are associated with adolescent and childhood behaviours. In this modern culture. Like men who openly display tears. As you and I both know, there's a huge chunk of the population who do not want to think of ATG as a person who would cry..he's a world conqueror and all that! It is those people who read the word "sulk" and apply the modern standard to it..a childish behaviour.

I think about things like this, the use of words. And the effect on the general populace, not the scholars who do or should know enough to know better. There seems little interest in sharing this information with hoi polloi. So, very sadly, often the history books that the general public gets are from people like Doherty and his ilk. My mother sent me Linda Foreman's coffee table book and someone else gave me Michael Woods' book. The use of loaded words and comparisons does have that effect and both books are guilty of it, Woods the more so IMO.

The same can be said in the opposite direction with Mary Renalut's work and "The Nature of Alexander" in particular. As much as I am interested in Hephaistion and the fact that he has suffered from some remarkably bad press, I would not go so far as to call him "brilliant" because we don't know that. Though he certainly wasn't a dumb brute (speaking of utterly loaded words!). I'm trying to think of other popular histories, but they escape me right now.


So Arrian did say ATG withdrew to this tent and did not talk to any of his Companions or troops...and withdrawing and remaining aloof are defintions of sulking in a dictionary, it doesn't take into account the more negative feel of the word to my mind.

Wow, I have to stay away from here..I type way too much.

Though Jan, I do think you give him much more room for doubt than even me!

My point is a lot like yours,Athenais Owl, as I believe that the person who wrote the history selected words which probably do not have the same meaning today as they did then. But since Amyntoros has brought up the subject of Achilles, it is likely that the artististic nature of the historian wanted to use words to connect or parallel the lives of Achilles with that of Alexander. My point is that we should not just take the words of historians to heart so much, but rather, relive the actual experiences to realize what it would be like to be that person at that time. After having endured so much, accomplished so much, it seems to me that a man such as Alexander would have matured and aged in all of those experiences to finally realize that he needs time out to separate himself from the needs of his men so that he can plan and reorganize his life, his future, his decisions. At that time, he had intended to go ahead, but he is stopped and prevented from it, his advisors have told him through the oracles, and this sounds like a face saving effort, that he must not go any further. The omens along with the demands of his men force him to contemplate and to reorganize his plans. (I personally believe that the historians were using whatever propaganda tools that they had at that time to convey their points, but today in our time period, we can certainly appreciate that, can't we? Sorry if this got too seriously into the subject for those of you who are taking offense at such an argument, but I really think that we cannot just accept historians without thinking about what it is that they are saying.) Remember that Callisthenes himself said that he would make Alexander, and that is the point of all any study of a historical record. Who makes you know anything about this person, his biographers, historians, or himself? The point again is that while Alexander may have shut himself out for three days or so, so what? He needed that time, but what is going on in the minds of his men? Anyone could think anything, and some would think positive while others would think negative. No, I do not think that Alexander sat back, feeling sorry for himself, pouted, and sulked. I think he reorganized and replanned, and needed time to do it.

jan wrote: My point is that we should not just take the words of historians to heart so much, but rather, relive the actual experiences to realize what it would be like to be that person at that time. After having endured so much, accomplished so much, it seems to me that a man such as Alexander would have matured and aged in all of those experiences to finally realize that he needs time out to separate himself from the needs of his men so that he can plan and reorganize his life, his future, his decisions. At that time, he had intended to go ahead, but he is stopped and prevented from it, his advisors have told him through the oracles, and this sounds like a face saving effort, that he must not go any further.

At the time Alexander, irritated at Coenus' freedom of language and at the timidity of the other officers, dismissed the conference, but next day he convened the same men once more and angrily affirmed that he himself was going on, but that he would compel no Macedonian to go with him against his will; he would have volunteers as followers of their king. as for those who wished to return home, they might do so, and might tell it abroad to their friends that they had come back, leaving their king surrounded by enemies. After these words it is said that he went back to his tent, and did not admit even any of the Companions that day nor till the third day after, waiting to see if any change of mind on the part of the Macedonians and allies, such as often occurs in a crowd of soldiers, would come over them and make them easier to persuade.
Arrian V.28.2-3

No reorganisation or replanning there, just angry sulking and waiting for his men to come shame-facedly back to him. And "it is said" probably means by Ptolemy and/or Aristobulus, who were in a much better position to say whether he was reorganising or re-evaluating, or having a bit of a strop.

ATB

the line says that he admitted no companions into his tent and remained inside for three days, shutting everyone out. So who knows what he did inside that tent? The paragraph that you cite is interesting and well written. I did not see the word sulk in it one time. Angrily, he stated his position, but no sulking. That is the reason the word sulk makes me wonder, but I appreciate the quotation. I liked it, but while I am at it, I also must say that he did not sulk after having killed Kleitos, but rather greived and repented his act, and stayed and remained in a state of internal anguish...no sulking theire, either.

But to change the subject a bit, a sulky is a great horse! Let's stay friends and agree just to disagree about a case when Alexander closes his closest companions out, and stays to himself. I think him a mental genius, unable to keep his brain from constantly functioning, and even in a case like this, would be too busy thinking ahead to sit and feel self pity! But that is my vision of Alexander....I will have to write my own book I guess too. HUH?

Oh get over it: he sulked.

guess what, only two historians say that he sulked and it is a conclusion of theirs, not anything that Arrian, Curtius, or Plutarch said..the only two who said it are Arthur Weigall and Lewis Cummings but Dodge, Peter Green, Ullrich, and others do not say a word about it...and furthermore, Green and others also say that he did prepare the Persians so I had to laugh...Of all the people to say it, it was Arthur Weigall who is then copied by Lewis Cummings...Plutarch only says that he did not wash or change his clothes while he closed his companions out...none of the original sources say sulked at all. So sorry! I still do not believe that Weigall is correct in his conclusion at all...but I agree with others that he did plan ahead on what he was going to do next...end of subject from me, but I will stick to my opinion and think better of Alexander than a childish pouting brat kid...

jan wrote:I will stick to my opinion and think better of Alexander than a childish pouting brat kid...

I harboured no expectation of any other result hence the my rather long and well constructed argument.

Paralus wrote:

jan wrote:I will stick to my opinion and think better of Alexander than a childish pouting brat kid...

I harboured no expectation of any other result hence the my rather long and well constructed argument.

It sounds like we're getting to the point where the both of you should retire to your tents and pout/plan.



I have no doubt that A was probably pissed that his troops couldn't see whatever he was planning, and I'm sure that he went into the tent not in the best of moods, but I can not for the life of me imagine that he spent three days totally pissed and not doing anything. My guess is that he probably started planning on how he was going to get his men out of India in such a way that they wouldn't be being attacked every step of the way home.

So, for me, he probably pouted for an hour or two, got bored, and started putting his time to good use.

And who knows, maybe Hephaistion managed to make his way in through a back slit in the tent and tried to make A feel better.

rjones2818 wrote:It sounds like we're getting to the point where the both of you should retire to your tents and pout/plan.

Actually, I retired to the boat. Time to sort out the army of invasion for the Salmonid Campaign: battalions of lures including the treble-armed phalanx of floating Rapalas; light armed Celtas; the deep running special units of the Tail Dancers and McGraths and of course, the Companion heavy-casting cavalry of Tasmanian devils.

The battle of Eucumbene should resemble Gaugamela – aside from the water. Given the extended drought though, it might be fought in drying mud.

rjones2818 wrote:My guess is that he probably started planning on how he was going to get his men out of India in such a way that they wouldn't be being attacked every step of the way home.

I’m assuming this above was related tongue in cheek? If not, apologies…

And here’s me thinking all this time what a good planner Alexander was. I see I have conflated planner and strategist.

Alexander, so as not to have his dispirited troops attacked and harassed all the way home, planned his army’s return to the west in a manner, it would appear, to encounter every possible free and independent population still extant between his tent and Carmania. Evidently, as he was alone in his tent, he suffered from a lack of local intelligence which might have informed him of these rather independently minded peoples very likely to resist the invader’s incursion into their midst.

The army must have been “over the Beas” at the fact that, rather than they being attacked all the way home, they'd get to do all the attacking…again.

rjones2818 wrote:And who knows, maybe Hephaistion managed to make his way in through a back slit in the tent and tried to make A feel better.

I have visions of Hephaestion at the back slit of his friend’s/lover’s tent: “Psst! Alex, it’s me! Let me in? C’mon, puhleeze…just for a minute? This is not the first time you know. C’mon I only wanna talk…promise.”

jan wrote: guess what, only two historians say that he sulked and it is a conclusion of theirs, not anything that Arrian, Curtius, or Plutarch said..

I almost didn't continue with this, but I'm afraid I have to. Sorry, Jan, but when you read what Arrian wrote, it is absolutely clear, as far as I am concerned, that Alexander sulked.

You say that Plutarch does not say so, but:

At first, then, Alexander shut himself up in his tent from displeasure and wrath and lay there, feeling no gratitude for what he had already achieved unless he should cross the Ganges, nay, counting a retreat a confession of defeat.
Plutarch, Alexander, 62.3

And Curtius:

Alexander could not upbraid them for obstinacy, nor yet could his anger be appeased. At a loss for what to do, he jumped down from the dais and ordered his royal quarters to be closed, granting entrance to no one but his customary attendants. Two days were devoted to his anger and on the third he emerged from his tent to issue instructions for twelve altars of square-cut stone to be erected ...
Curtius, 9.3.18-19

I thought Paralus was perhaps being a bit curt, but to be honest ... get over it - Alexander sulked!

ATB

Ego oro , Ego deficio , Ego spat dummy...err revolvo.

εγώ επιχείρημα , εγώ απέτυχα , εγώ spat the dummy...err, πόρπη

I'm back...and over my very bad case of semanticitis!

I hope I'm in the right topic Was it here that I mentioned the Heckel article about the Hyphasis "mutiny" being a set up?

I can sheepishly say that I have spent the last several hours going over every page (117 of them) of this fair site today and came across this:

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... sc&start=0

Discussing that very thing. So was he sulking, or was he faking it?

In that topic I did notice that it is assumed that Hephaistion was at the Hyphasis, however from Arrian it says:

Then he dispatched Hephaestion into the land of the Porus who had revolted, giving him a part of the army, comprising two brigades of infantry, his own regiment of cavalry with that of Demetrius and half of the archers, with instructions to hand the country over to the other Porus, to win over any independent tribes of Indians which dwelt near the banks of the river Hydraotes, and to give them also into the hands of Porus to rule.

Alexander thens advances across the Hydraotes, bashes it out at Sangala, reaches the Hyphasis, does his U-turn and then:

After adding the country as far as the river Hyphasis to the dominion of Porus, he marched back to the Hydraotes. Having crossed this river, he continued his return march to the Acesines, where he found the city which Hephaestion had been ordered to fortify, quite built.

So wasHephaistion and his part of the army at the Beas or not? It makes a difference to my "sulking" conversation.

Hi Athenas Owl,

athenas owl wrote:I'm back...and over my very bad case of semanticitis!

I hope I'm in the right topic Was it here that I mentioned the Heckel article about the Hyphasis "mutiny" being a set up?

I can sheepishly say that I have spent the last several hours going over every page (117 of them) of this fair site today and came across this:

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... sc&start=0

Discussing that very thing. So was he sulking, or was he faking it?

I think that by their very nature, all sulks are “faking it”. After all, there’s no purpose in sulking unless someone else knows about it, and the intent is to let these “others” know how unhappy you are with events. In other words, sulking is a performance of sorts which is supposed to produce desired results. This is why I hadn’t mentioned the other thread although I had remembered it. IMO, whether or not Alexander also wished to go no further doesn’t change the fact that he sulked.

(I just had to edit all of my posts in the other thread, btw. For some reason half of my punctuation gets mangled over time on Pothos. It may be because I write most of my posts in Word, but I can't understand why they appear normal when first posted and then are mutilated later!)

You may well be right about Hephaistion not being present at the Beas. (No time to check other sources at the moment.)

Best regards,