A policy of "fusion"?

[athenas owl]

You all have good points.

I am agnostic..and always aware that the "original sources" had their won bias. That's all.

Amyntoroas, I especially can see what you are saying about the patriarchal lineage thing. Though I think the "sick and wounded" were more a true pain in Alexander's side rather than a burden. It was better to simply get them out of the way, with their old Macedonian ways so he could go on with his consolidation (rather than fusion) of his new empire. I wonder how much Alexander really cared about the "homeland" in the end. As to what the homeland might think of his actions, did he really care and if he had survived a few more years would he have even paid any real attention to it as anything but another "satrapy". Not that many of the Successors were all fired in a hurry to get back to Macedonia either...at least the ones who survived Antipater. Seleucus wanted to amble back there at the end of his life, but yet another of Ptolemy's ambitious children saw to it that never happened. Though all seemed to want to be ruler of the old home.

I am not claiming I am correct about the lack of Persian men marrying Macedonian women. However, the Susa marriages seemed planned fairly quickly, and ATG wanted them done quickly, perhaps not quickly enough for any Macedonian women to get to distant Susa.

Another reason might simply be that there weren't that many "noble" Macedonian girls either...or they were already married off.

It's really so hard to say...the little bugger went and died and others were left to retell the tail in their own image or what was politically expedient at the moment.

I spend too much time on politics, but even now, in real time i see how spin can take hold of the narrative. Myths, newly minted, become "known fact"...and believed. If this can happen in this age of the way back machine and Google...I find it hard to see the real truth, or rather truths, from an age that is described centuries later...though I have hopes that archaeology will continue to shed real light on the period. When i went to university, the eastern Greek kingdoms were barely acknowledged and very poorly understood...I suppose they aren't yet..Bactira and later even in NW India. Ai Khanum wasn't even in the text books yet. A whole world existed, post Alexander, that we really don't know much about. The best way to describe my general ancient course about this period was "Alexander died...oh look! It's the Romans!".

It is just a musing.

Paralus, the extra rations to the women and children happened right before the Beas/Hyphasis mutiny. I think it is talked about in Diodorus 17. 94-95. About the same time he allowed the men to plunder the countryside.

“Attahrias! Attahrias! Are you just going to sit there whinging at Peucestas for spoiling yet another bloody victory or trade that pesky Greek general and get me back? Well? Are you? I tell you Attahrias, you old Macedonian goat, if you don’t get of your spotty Macedonian….”

Exactly.

[marcus]

I am not claiming I am correct about the lack of Persian men marrying Macedonian women. However, the Susa marriages seemed planned fairly quickly, and ATG wanted them done quickly, perhaps not quickly enough for any Macedonian women to get to distant Susa.

Hmm, I'm not sure that we can say that. It might seem so, because there's no mention of the planning of the "wedding", just of the "wedding" itself. But that's no reason to suppose that Alexander hadn't been working on it for a while. After all, he had to get all the brides in the same place at the same time, and it's unlikely that he had them all captive already, or that they happened all to be at Susa at that time.

I'd actually go the other way and suggest that he probably started planning it as soon as he got back from India.

ATB

[Semiramis]

Another reason might simply be that there weren't that many "noble" Macedonian girls either...or they were already married off.

Assuming an approximately 50/50 survival ratio for male and female children, I imagine there was quite a man drought in Macedonia thanks to Alexander's campaign. If anything there would be an excess of girls to boys (of fighting age).

[Fiona]

Alexander, if he did anything, strenuously pressed the claim that he was the legitimate successor to the Achaemenids. Alexander had adopted much in the way of Persian court practice. He dressed in a mixture of Persian and Macedonian and his Macedonian Companions were issued the scarlet of the Persian courtier all of which had much to do with that claim. That said, Macedonians retained all the major military and civil commands and Persians possessed no positions of any real power at court. After the marriages at Opis it was patently apparent that Alexander’s companions were the ruling class of this new empire; the Persians, if they were partners, were very much the junior.

The whole rather more appeals as attempting to separate the races rather than to fuse them in any way.

Absolutely shocking behaviour on Alexander's part. You'd expect higher standards of the 4th century BC. When you think how Caesar invited all the Catuvellani to a meal, and sat them down near his Romans - and Genghis Khan, his men never laid a finger on a woman until they were properly married - and don't forget Attila, who made such an effort after his conquests, he didn't just wear Roman dress, he started talking Latin - and then there was Hengist, who so annoyed his Saxon followers by insisting they followed British traditions when they were in British lands - oh, and don't forget Napoleon, who made sure Spain was governed by someone who actually spoke Spanish...
Just saying.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Fiona,

I guess the difference is that people on this forum don't claim that Genghis Khan was a visionary with dreams of universal brotherhood and fusing the races. If someone did, they would be asked for some evidence for said assertion. I haven't come across any odes to the benefit of "Mongolizing" (?) the barbarians when people recall the death and destruction during Khan's conquests. Yet with Alexander, this type of whitewashing has currency. That's why some people, including myself, feel the need to point out that Alexander's career and decisions were very likely based on the acquisition of power and wealth, as opposed to dreams, vision, charisma, benevolence or inspiring love. While the latter proposition has plenty of prose, poetry and imperial propaganda on its side, historical evidence points to the former. Dying in the hands of Alexander's army was probably no worse than being killed by those of the other conquerors you mention. But it sure wasn't any better.

[Paralus]

I guess the difference is that people on this forum don't claim that Genghis Khan was a visionary with dreams of universal brotherhood and fusing the races.

Precisely. And it has more than currency: at times it is vociferously argued (not neccessarily here).

Absolutely shocking behaviour on Alexander's part.

Actually, quite expected behaviour I’d have thought.

Alexander’s view of himself as the legitimate “Lord of Asia” (or “king of Asia” depending how you see it) informed much of what he did. The tradition of his communications with Darius firmly establishes the fact that Alexander saw himself as the successor to Darius. After Guagamela it became indisputable fact: Alexander was “king of Asia” – a title that Antigonus would happily allow to settle on his ample frame after Gabiene. Much of his adoption of Persian court practice was propaganda employed to achieve his immediate aims. This included the mixed dress, the Persian doryphoroi and the dressing of his Greco-Macedonian hetairoi in the Persian courtier’s purple thus according them the “position of honour” at court.

Even Alexander’s Persian doryphoroi or hypaspists were separated from his Macedonian guard.

No time for more: off to the first client Christmas dinner of the season (early this year) at The Olive Greek. Yum…

[athenas owl]

I am not claiming I am correct about the lack of Persian men marrying Macedonian women. However, the Susa marriages seemed planned fairly quickly, and ATG wanted them done quickly, perhaps not quickly enough for any Macedonian women to get to distant Susa.

Hmm, I'm not sure that we can say that. It might seem so, because there's no mention of the planning of the "wedding", just of the "wedding" itself. But that's no reason to suppose that Alexander hadn't been working on it for a while. After all, he had to get all the brides in the same place at the same time, and it's unlikely that he had them all captive already, or that they happened all to be at Susa at that time.

I'd actually go the other way and suggest that he probably started planning it as soon as he got back from India.

ATB

Well, I guess "quickly" is in the eye of the beholder.

I actually think he was possibly planning this before he got back from India. But if he wasn't and it just popped into his head as he entered Carmania, then "quickly" is still just a few months (were the weddings in February, March. or all the way to June)...still just mere months. Sending word to Macedonia to gather up eligible brides would have taken longer (remember how long it took for those sent back to get new soldiers...they didn't just dash back, grab all the new recruits, and show back up at Alexander's camp in a few months.

Not that I am arguing for the marriage of Macedonian women to Persian nobles, just that there are reasons, logisitcs wise, why, IF ATG were of a mind to do something like that, it wouldn't have been at Susa.

The "brides" were quite likely all nearer to hand, even those not in the camp. I think the wedding happened earlier than June. Susa's not a pleasant place to be the summer, what with the frying lizards on the streets and all. I do think that when historians think of the Royal Persian women staying exactly at Susa all those years while ATG was in the East is wrong. These women and probably others noble enough to get married off, would have traveled to more pleasant climes..say, to Ecbatana in the summer or to some other not yet known palaces out of the summer heat. Even their handlers would have preferred to enjoy a more pleasant clime. I so wish we had more information about this.

It's just the logistics of it all that catches my eye. And the old habits that would have been maintained for the Persian nobility...especially the women. We have to get past that old paradigm I think. The window we have for these people is so small, only a snapshot here and there...but then I live in a migratory society to a large extent. So my perceptions are filtered through that.

Anyway, I agree, it wasn't some idealistic "fusion" that ATG had in mind, however...he, personally may have pushed for more intermarriage had he lived. For ease of rule.

[marcus]

I actually think he was possibly planning this before he got back from India. But if he wasn't and it just popped into his head as he entered Carmania, then "quickly" is still just a few months (were the weddings in February, March. or all the way to June)...still just mere months. Sending word to Macedonia to gather up eligible brides would have taken longer (remember how long it took for those sent back to get new soldiers...they didn't just dash back, grab all the new recruits, and show back up at Alexander's camp in a few months.

Ah yes. I confess I was working from the point of view that there was never any thought of marrying off Macedonian women to Persians, so I was just thinking about the marriages that did happen.

As for the new recruits - the first batch did in fact turn up in a few months, as the newly-married Macedonians were sent home to winter in Macedonia and the recruiting officers went with them. They arrived back with the army in time for the next campaigning season.

That being said, this was while the main army was still in Asia Minor - by the time they get to Susa, you are quite right to question the amount of time it would have taken to collect and bring them - we remember that Amyntas son of Andromenes missed the battle of Gaugamela because he hadn't returned from his recruiting mission. Persuading a load of hot- and strong-headed Macedonian maidens to travel across Asia to marry a bunch of oiled-up barbarians might have taken much longer than inspiring a load of lads who were eager for glory and loot ...

ATB

[Semiramis]

Paralus,

Just to add to the point about Persian companions - when the triremes were built in India, Nearchus provides a list of the Trierarchs. These would have been the most important men in Alexander's court. Out of 33 men, only one is Persian (possibly Alexander's lover). The rest are Macedonians, Greeks and Cypriots. This is a drastic change in the make up of the elite compared to before the invasion. A pragmatic and expected one of course, from an imperial venture. But difficult to argue that Alexander's empire was any more inclusive than the Achaemenid one.

[Fiona]

Well, supposing for the sake of argument that you're right about the acquisition of power and wealth, can he at least have credit for the enlightened way he dealt with the Persians? It isn't usual behaviour on the part of conquerors to share the government of the conquered territory, so quickly, with the conquered, even as junior partners. I think you'd have to go as far forward in time as the British takeover of India to find the like again.
I know what you mean about whitewashing, and I agree that this has happened, but I think there's a danger of going to the other extreme. I don't think the historical evidence comes down firmly on the side of the acquisition of power and wealth, as opposed to more visionary aims. When he got wealth, he spent it locally. We don't hear of cartloads of treasure being sent back to Macedon - we do hear about generous payments to the men, and about lavish spending on weddings and funerals, to name but two. I bet the local suppliers of tent fabric and gold couches loved him. The wealth was a side-effect, he just spent it.
Power is more nebulous - yes, he wanted power, but the evidence doesn't suggest that he was that interested in power as control. Power proved he'd won, that he was the best. He did what was necessary along the lines of appointing the right officials, but what he was really interested was moving on, getting across India and finding the end of the world. If power had been an end in itself, he'd probably have stayed in Persia and exercised that power.
Fiona

Fiona,

I guess the difference is that people on this forum don't claim that Genghis Khan was a visionary with dreams of universal brotherhood and fusing the races. If someone did, they would be asked for some evidence for said assertion. I haven't come across any odes to the benefit of "Mongolizing" (?) the barbarians when people recall the death and destruction during Khan's conquests. Yet with Alexander, this type of whitewashing has currency. That's why some people, including myself, feel the need to point out that Alexander's career and decisions were very likely based on the acquisition of power and wealth, as opposed to dreams, vision, charisma, benevolence or inspiring love. While the latter proposition has plenty of prose, poetry and imperial propaganda on its side, historical evidence points to the former. Dying in the hands of Alexander's army was probably no worse than being killed by those of the other conquerors you mention. But it sure wasn't any better.

[Fiona]

I do think you're right that Alexander saw himself as Darius' successor, and the legitimate king of Asia, and that his adoption of Persian court practice makes sense in that context. He had no need to behave like a conqueror, because he was just the new king. He did the same thing in Egypt.
But I think he behaved like this not because he was interested in power as such, but because he wasn't. He simply wasn't bothered about imposing Macedonian laws, culture and religion (the first things conquerors usually attend to) on Egyptians and Persians. Either this was because he truly respected them and their local practices - very visionary for the time - or because what he really cared about was what was behind the next mountain (inescapably romantic).
Would a hard-headed pragmatist such as you paint him, really have bothered with India?
Hope you enjoyed the early Christmas dinner. I trust you will not soon be approaching the proportions of Antigonus...

Fiona

Alexander’s view of himself as the legitimate “Lord of Asia” (or “king of Asia” depending how you see it) informed much of what he did. The tradition of his communications with Darius firmly establishes the fact that Alexander saw himself as the successor to Darius. After Guagamela it became indisputable fact: Alexander was “king of Asia” – a title that Antigonus would happily allow to settle on his ample frame after Gabiene. Much of his adoption of Persian court practice was propaganda employed to achieve his immediate aims. This included the mixed dress, the Persian doryphoroi and the dressing of his Greco-Macedonian hetairoi in the Persian courtier’s purple thus according them the “position of honour” at court.

Even Alexander’s Persian doryphoroi or hypaspists were separated from his Macedonian guard.

No time for more: off to the first client Christmas dinner of the season (early this year) at The Olive Greek. Yum…

[Semiramis]

Well, supposing for the sake of argument that you're right about the acquisition of power and wealth, can he at least have credit for the enlightened way he dealt with the Persians? It isn't usual behaviour on the part of conquerors to share the government of the conquered territory, so quickly, with the conquered, even as junior partners. I think you'd have to go as far forward in time as the British takeover of India to find the like again.
I know what you mean about whitewashing, and I agree that this has happened, but I think there's a danger of going to the other extreme. I don't think the historical evidence comes down firmly on the side of the acquisition of power and wealth, as opposed to more visionary aims. When he got wealth, he spent it locally. We don't hear of cartloads of treasure being sent back to Macedon - we do hear about generous payments to the men, and about lavish spending on weddings and funerals, to name but two. I bet the local suppliers of tent fabric and gold couches loved him. The wealth was a side-effect, he just spent it.
Power is more nebulous - yes, he wanted power, but the evidence doesn't suggest that he was that interested in power as control. Power proved he'd won, that he was the best. He did what was necessary along the lines of appointing the right officials, but what he was really interested was moving on, getting across India and finding the end of the world. If power had been an end in itself, he'd probably have stayed in Persia and exercised that power.
Fiona

Fiona,

I find it difficult to classify Alexander as any more enlightened than, say, the Persians or Genghis Khan. Leaving pliable Persian satraps to co-rule with Macedonians is most easily interpreted as a practical decision. We often forget to mention that intricate system of empire that the Persians had built over centuries. How was Alexander expected to rule over his empire without having people who knew the system? He didn't seem to show any interest in building a new one. Alexander didn't create an empire, he simply took one over. That he appropriated the mechanism and some of the employees who were cogs in the machinery doesn't seem particuarly visionary or enilghtened to me. Intelligent, yes. The Persians who ruled before him were happy to leave local laws, customs and even law-enforcing bodies intact, as long as they got their taxes, levies and quashing of rebellions. Alexander did no more.

What historical evidence is there that Alexander shared his wealth with "junior partners"? What facts can back an assertion like "Alexander spent his wealth locally"? There is enough to show that Alexander took from the local treasury to spend on his entourage and army. Whether in Persia or India. Grain and other supplies would have been commissioned to feed the army with little consideration for the local population. Not even the fish stock of Indian fishing populations were spared on his army's march back. One can only assume the population was left to starve. Resources and labour was commissioned so garrison towns could built, with the appropriate pomp and ceremony of course. These were to ensure the permanent subjugation of local populations with violence or the threat of violence. And payment of taxes of course. This is difficult to classify as generosity towards the natives. Alexander was paying for the gold couches from the same treasury that he took from the previous ruler. Macedon was most likely richer in wealth after the Persian conquest. But perhaps it never recovered from the loss of manpower.

Alexander's generous payments were to the men in his entourage. Very few Persians and mostly Macedonian or Greek conquerors who he employed for the businesses of war and politics. They were hardly gifts. As for funerals - in the funeral for Stateira (Darius' wife), he was announcing that Darius' harem was now his harem because he was the "lord of Asia". Burning beautifully carved wood in funerals, whether for Hephaistion or Calanus, didn't benefit the conquered population. They showed off the power, wealth and status of the conqueror. And most likely helped him grieve. The weddings we have discussed already.

What evidence is there that Alexander was interested in finding the end of the world? He doesn't appear as the ignorant type who would not look through Achaemenid archives or at least ask the Indians about what lay beyond their land. A man who could plan winning army expeditions thousands of miles across the globe would surely find out if what lay ahead was land or sea or another giant army... I am aware that modern historians focus only on Greek sources such as Aristotle's beliefs about the globe and ignore Persian, Central Asian or Indian knowledge about Asia. But this doesn't necessarily mean that a practical man like Alexander could afford to do the same.

Last, but not least - what historical evidence is there that the British shared the government of the conquered territory with Indians?

[marcus]

Hi Semiramis.

Just a couple of things, quickly, before I go to bed ...

One can only assume the population was left to starve.

We need to be careful about all these bold generalisations we're making. While I have no evidence to offer to the contrary, we don't know - and therefore shouldn't assume - that the local population was left to starve. Maybe this did happen in certain places - and I would say that in the sources there are times where there's a definite implication that Alexander didn't care much for the local population, so long as his army managed to eat. However, I would imagine that these would be isolated incidents rather than the norm - else how is the empire going to continue to generate wealth?

What evidence is there that Alexander was interested in finding the end of the world? Was he so ignorant as to not look through Achaemenid archives or at least ask the Indians about what lay beyond their land? A man who could plan winning army expeditions thousands of miles across the globe would surely find out if what lay ahead was land or sea or another giant army? I am aware that modern historians focus only on Greek sources such as Aristotle's beliefs about the globe and ignore Persian, Central Asian or Indian knowledge about Asia. But this doesn't necessarily mean that a practical man like Alexander could afford to do the same.

Indeed. I would need to double check exactly what the sources say, but as I sit at the keyboard I am of a mind that we know for sure that Alexander made thorough investigations about what lay beyond the Hyphasis - and that he basically lied to his men in order to try and persuade them to go further.

Last, but not least - what historical evidence is there that the British shared their wealth with Indians?

Fiona was talking about sharing government, not wealth. Now, I'd take issue with that statement, but let's at least credit her with the statement she made!

ATB

[amyntoros]

I am not claiming I am correct about the lack of Persian men marrying Macedonian women. However, the Susa marriages seemed planned fairly quickly, and ATG wanted them done quickly, perhaps not quickly enough for any Macedonian women to get to distant Susa.

Well there were the actors, musicians, dancers and ambassadors who came from all over the Greek world to attend and/or perform at the wedding. (Somewhere, I'm not sure where, I think the total figure is put at 3,000, but I could be misremembering.) Invitations must surely have been issued sufficiently in advance of the wedding in order for all these people to make their arrangements and travel to Susa.

Persuading a load of hot- and strong-headed Macedonian maidens to travel across Asia to marry a bunch of oiled-up barbarians might have taken much longer than inspiring a load of lads who were eager for glory and loot ...

Here's where I will probably get myself into trouble because, despite the presumption of more independence for the average Macedonian female, I don't see any indication that young Macedonian maidens were free to make their own decisions about marriage. My feelings are that if Alexander should have decided to marry off Macedonian women then the arrangements would have been made with their fathers. Even into the Hellenistic period there's no evidence that I know of (including evidence from Alexandria) of young, "respectable" women deciding who they would and would not marry. But I know I'm nitpicking now and probably leading this thread too far off topic.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Just to add to the point about Persian companions - when the triremes were built in India, Nearchus provides a list of the Trierarchs. These would have been the most important men in Alexander's court. Out of 33 men, only one is Persian (possibly Alexander's lover). The rest are Macedonians, Greeks and Cypriots.

Absolutely.

This is a stark pointer to the distinct lack of any mixing or fusion in the positions that matter. Oxyarthres, the only other attested Iranian hetairos up to this time, was left, I think, in charge of Bessus' liquidation. The propaganda of the Iranian uprising of 330 (below) had been squarely shelved it seems.

Hope you enjoyed the early Christmas dinner. I trust you will not soon be approaching the proportions of Antigonus...

I would certainly hope not. I did work at it assiduously, though, last night. Whilst not quite of Antigonid proportions I cannot exactly be described in the same terms as Plutarch (Eum. 11.2) describes his arch enemy Eumenes (as some here abouts might attest) either:

For he had a pleasant face, not like that of a war-worn veteran, but delicate and youthful, and all his body had, as it were, artistic proportions, with limbs of astonishing symmetry…

I do think you're right that Alexander saw himself as Darius' successor, and the legitimate king of Asia, and that his adoption of Persian court practice makes sense in that context. He had no need to behave like a conqueror, because he was just the new king.

A reading of this adoption of Persian attire and court custom in its context repays the effort. Alexander – in whatever fashion – destroyed the Achaemenid palace in Persepolis. The former Persian ruling elite were fractious at best – very few came to Persepolis to see the new year in with the King - and this massive display of their erstwhile power was not to be allowed to stand; no matter the propagandistic overlays written afterwards. This was the end of the Achaemenids writ in fire as well as the removal of any symbolic standard to rally about.

Alexander then sets out after Darius and eventually finds him murdered. He is now, if not before, the unchallenged king of Asia. The sources agree that the assumption of the mixed clothing and the appearance at court of a Persian guard (and Oxyarthres, Darius’ brother) all happen at the same time: some six weeks or so after the death of Darius. The Macedonians resented things “oriental” and it is interesting that Alexander adopts these “oriental” trappings at this time. The context is the explanation: rebellion of the Iranian aristocracy and, much more importantly, a contender for the throne in the shape of Bessus.

Alexander, with some 6,000 main phalanx troops on detachment and his Greeks dismissed, is faced with a serious war. He desperately needs to be seen as the legitimate successor to empire rather than a foreign conqueror. So, in the face of rising Macedonian anger, the Persian dress, the Persian Guard, the brother of Darius and others at court and the royal purple to his hetairoi. The image is clear: Alexander is the legitimate King and his is the legitimate court.

Diodorus (17.77.7) states that he used this garb "sparingly" so as not "to offend the Macedonians". He is most certainly correct but his implication that it was due to Alexander being tempted by the barbarian extravagance is typical of the "Macedonian view" for want of a better description. All the sources paint it as a failing on Alexander's part whereas it is much more likely that it was adopted for the most pragmatic of reasons. A "political device", as Arrian says, so that Alexander "might not appear altogether alien to them (the Persians)".

There is no doubt, given the descriptions of Alexander's final year or two, that once sampled it became irresistable.

He simply wasn't bothered about imposing Macedonian laws, culture and religion (the first things conquerors usually attend to) on Egyptians and Persians. Either this was because he truly respected them and their local practices - very visionary for the time - or because what he really cared about was what was behind the next mountain (inescapably romantic).

He didn’t impose Macedonian laws and culture because he had no time to do so and had little interest in doing so. His practice of allowing the “natives” to continue with their own practices – law, local governance and religion (Zoroastrianism aside) – was directly plagiarised from the Achaemenids who had been doing so for over two centuries: there was little visionary about it.

Would a hard-headed pragmatist such as you paint him, really have bothered with India?

I would classify him as a hard headed conqueror. His pragmatism proceeds from this imperative. I do not see terribly much about him that I would classify as “romantic”. From that basis I can see every reason why he bothered with India. That reason would be the same as why he was bothering about Arabia: it was there, it was free and it had not acknowledged him. A trifecta that attracted him as an addict to the drug of choice.