Reasons why Alexander was great?

[athenas owl]

As for Ochus, isn't he mentioned, or at least one grandson, in Curitius, along with Drypetis. Both were in the company of their grandmother when they recieved the news that ATG was dead. Of course it's Curtius hamming it up as usual, but I do believe the boy is mentioned, or at least some grandson.

Hi Athena's Owl,

I just looked Ochus up in Heckel's 'Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great'. Did you mean this reference?

Ochus was left behind in Susa in 330, with his grandmother and sisters (D17.67.1; C5.2.17). What became of him we do not know.

Take care

Found it. Curtius 10.5.24:

"Finally she covered her head, turned away from her granddaughter and grandson, who fell at her knees to plead with her, and withdrew simultaneously from nourishment and the daylight. "

It is but a fleeting mention, but it must be a reference to Ochus, unless there was another grandson. Which would be entirely possible. Curtius could have made the whole thing up for dramatic effect, but then why not throw in both sisters? Instead it is Drypetis (Draupadi? I've been trying to wade through the Mahabharata again...at least parts of it) and a grandson.

I do love that book of Heckel's though.

[Paralus]

I'm not saying that it DID happen the way Green describes, just that I don't think Green came up with the idea so that he could delight in the thought of Alexander being snubbed. He's a better writer and academic than that.

Well we'll disagree. Green went in with a very preconceived world view and sought ideas to fit it.

I believe that last might say more about the poster than it does Green.

Whilst I might not always agree with Lane Fox's "boys’ own adventure" style biography, any criticism I have would stop of traducing his scholarship though. Lane Fox has a rather “heroic” and, generally, laudatory view. Green’s is rather more pragmatic view of a conqueror that is resolutely free of any idolising tendencies.

We pick and we choose. Personally, I prefer Bosworth’s Conquest and Empire.

Just on Lane Fox. I mentioned once before that prior to his narrative of the Indian campaign he claims that the army was re-fitted and that “the Foot Companions had abandoned the sarissa as too unwieldily for the mountainous ground and they never used it with Alexander again” (p 334).

I am not certain this is correct and Lane Fox cites no source material for the claim. The only nod to such is found in the chapter notes wherein he simply states “Alex. And the army: see my forthcoming study”. All clear as mud.

Any ideas anyone?

[amyntoros]

Well we'll disagree. Green went in with a very preconceived world view and sought ideas to fit it. In another topic the idea that our first introduction to Alexander determines our own viewpoint. I'd have to disagree. His was the first history I read.

I was repulsed by his writing, honestly. There I've said it.

It must be me then, 'cause I've never liked, disliked or written off a book on Alexander because of the writer's perceived agenda. I've always found it interesting to view Alexander through someone else's eyes, even if I don't see him the same way. And I can only think of a couple of books that didn't have something in them that caught my attention and sent me scurrying off to check the sources or do some other research. (Those books that failed to do so came in the wake of Stone's movie - hurried writing plus poor scholarship are mostly to blame, IMO.)

On Ochus: Yes, he survived Alexander, but I doubt he lasted long under the Successors. When they were busy trying to carve up Alexander's empire I'm sure they felt a son of Darius to be too much of a threat. Poor Sisigambis obviously couldn't bear to witness what was about to happen to the remnants of her family.

Best regards,

[marcus]

It's anachronism of the highest order. It's a bad habit of mine, but I'd like my politics left out of my history.

Surely that would leave only the very dullest history books - if it left any history books at all. You can't have history without politics being part of the mix, if only because it is almost impossible for anyone to write without some bias. Therefore you will always get politics in the pudding.

Are you therefore saying that you won't read Tarn, or Bosworth, or Wilcken, or Badian, or any of a myriad others? Because every single one of those historians has politics dripping through his writing.

[Fiona]

I think he torched the palaces on purpose, after he looted them for all they were worth and right before he was to leave for the north. It may have been at a big ole party and Thais may have been the "spokesperson" for the Greeks (handy girl, an Athenian and Ptolemy's sassy sqeezel). Between then and his return I do believe he had cause to regret it. A 25 year old does things a 31 year old might regret. Particularily one who began to adopt the Persian ways in the meantime.

That's a good point. We have to allow Alexander to change his mind, and it might not even have taken him very long to do so. There's something about the sight of smoking ruins that can itself prompt feelings of regret. And once heads had cleared the next day, it's easy to imagine the scene:
Ptolemy (or someone) holding head and wishing aspirin had been invented: "You know, maybe that wasn't such a good idea. That could have been you, receiving tribute from all the different peoples, here in that hall. Now, they never will."
Alexander: "Bugger. That's a thought."

Fiona

[Semiramis]

Found it. Curtius 10.5.24:

"Finally she covered her head, turned away from her granddaughter and grandson, who fell at her knees to plead with her, and withdrew simultaneously from nourishment and the daylight. "

It is but a fleeting mention, but it must be a reference to Ochus, unless there was another grandson. Which would be entirely possible. Curtius could have made the whole thing up for dramatic effect, but then why not throw in both sisters? Instead it is Drypetis (Draupadi? I've been trying to wade through the Mahabharata again...at least parts of it) and a grandson.

I do love that book of Heckel's though.

Ah! Serves me right for scanning for Ochus or Darius. You're right Athen'as owl. It's a real possibility that Ochus was that grandson. Sisygambis is said to have had seven children including Oxyarthes, who became one of Alexander's companions after the death of Darius. So she may have had other grandsons. But Ochus was the one who was captured with her after Issus. Heckel's never let me down before!

Take care

[Phoebus]

It always puts a smile on my face when people remember what Alexander's age was during all of this. A combatant in his teens, a general in his early twenties, a legend in his own time by 25-26.

All-too often, I think people--even serious professionals--forget what an effect youth has on one's decision-making. Or that a great deal of Alexander's officers and commanders were in their late twenties--maybe 30 years old. I think we're so used to reading about war through the eyes of commanders and historians of advanced age that we forget how different this campaign was--even for that time.

(Leonidas was in his forties, if not fifties, when he achieved immortality at Thermopylae. Themistocles was in his mid-forties during Salamis. Miltiades may have been in his late fifties/early sixties, as I recall, during Marathon. Epaminondas was in his mid-late forties during Leuctra. Alexander's own father was in his mid-forties when he reached his apex after fighting other forty-somethings from Athens and Thebes.)

Alexander is rightly given credit for being so brilliant in his youth. That doesn't mean that he was proof to the rashness and impulsiveness of youth... and perhaps that means that we shouldn't over-analyze every one of his questionable decisions.

It's perfectly feasible, in my eyes, for Alexander to have made a bad decision during a drunken revel; to regret it in time; and to move in seemingly opposite directions (compromise in dress and custom) in latter years.

[smittysmitty]

As for the "New years Festival", are we sure that the reliefs at Persepolis actually represent that?

There is no evidence to suggest the iconic reliefs found at Persepolis relate to a "New Years Festival." Persepolis was the Achaemenid empire's 'jewel in the crown'. A testament to how far and powerful the Achaemenid kings had become. The reliefs depicted more than likely do little more than reinforce such belief.

Nearly forgot! Greens belief of a New Years Festival more than likely reflects the scholarship at the time of writing. Having said that, who knows what tomorrow will bring.

[derek]

I can't remember where I read it, but some of the columns at Persepolis show evidence of holes drilled into them, and the stated reason was that Alexander's men would then stuff vinegar-soaked corks into the hole. The vinegar would expand the cork under the heat of flames, exploding the column. It was something they did to split rocks in quarries, apparently.

If true, it shows the burning of Persepolis wasn't spontaneous, but planned.

Derek

[marcus]

I can't remember where I read it, but some of the columns at Persepolis show evidence of holes drilled into them, and the stated reason was that Alexander's men would then stuff vinegar-soaked corks into the hole. The vinegar would expand the cork under the heat of flames, exploding the column. It was something they did to split rocks in quarries, apparently.

If true, it shows the burning of Persepolis wasn't spontaneous, but planned.

Derek

I'd love to know where you read that. I haven't heard it before, but it has a ring of authenticity about it - although it's surprising that it hasn't been mooted about more widely ... especially by those anti-apologist Alexander writers!

ATB

[karen]

Yeah, Paralus, where are you?

This seems like one of those procedures that destroys its own evidence. Unless some of the vinegar charges were duds, we wouldn't be seeing intact columns with holes in them......

[marcus]

Yeah, Paralus, where are you?

This seems like one of those procedures that destroys its own evidence. Unless some of the vinegar charges were duds, we wouldn't be seeing intact columns with holes in them......

I'd just like to say that I didn't mean "anti-apologist" as derogatory in any way - merely a statement of fact. While I don't always agree with them, I get more irritated by the ardent "apologists".

(I'm reading a book about Alexander by Agnes Savill at the moment. I'd love to know what her credentials are/were, because she's even more adulatory than Tarn! It's quite amazing - and I can only read it in short bursts because she annoys me so much. As Dorothy Parker once said: "This is not a book to put down lightly - it should instead be hurled across the room with all your force ..." - I haven't quoted it exactly, but you get the drift.)

ATB

[athenas owl]

I can't remember where I read it, but some of the columns at Persepolis show evidence of holes drilled into them, and the stated reason was that Alexander's men would then stuff vinegar-soaked corks into the hole. The vinegar would expand the cork under the heat of flames, exploding the column. It was something they did to split rocks in quarries, apparently.

If true, it shows the burning of Persepolis wasn't spontaneous, but planned.

Derek

Livius.org mentions it.

http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis ... alace.html


Paralus, I never said it didn't reflect me (this isn't the first time you have used that sentence in reference ot me)..but I just despise Green. I disagree with some of the things other "minimalists" might say about Alexander, but it isn't visceral. Though reading Michael Woods companion book to his series, I did actually throw the book across the room (that was for you Marcus). I like Lane Fox, but I don't take his work as a bible or anything. He is just a pleasure to read and then I go double check. I respect Heckel even though I disagree with his (and apparantly all male scholar's views of Hephaistion ). I used to not say much when Green is mentioned, but I just can't stand the guy. The "ideas" about Persepolis he came up with I do believe where more because he wanted to portray ATG in a negative light than actual scholarship. Though it is true that the prevailing wisdom at the time that Green first wrote was that it was a New Year's festival. Which never made sense to me, because it would have been cold late winter at Persepolis for people from all over the empire to trek there that time of year.

I remember the study of history that far back (started in 1972..was still in nappies of course!). Interdisciplnary studies weren't as thorough or even existing at that time. Climate, geography, and of course archaeology all played less of a role as well as other more refined sciences.

Engels ideas on the Gedrosian trek fascinate me. The changes in the coastline. And the change in the course of the Oxus (from the Caspian to the Aral)..how does that effect our understanding of ATG's period and his movements. And where exactly were the rivers of the Punjab then? Where was the Persian Gulf coastline at, and was it different than today. Would a difference in the coastline effect our understanding ot Hephaistion's leading the bulk of the army along the coast to meet ATG later?

I have never read Tarn and while I appreciate Renault's devotion to Alexander, I take her with a grain of salt (though she does add some perspective, though again as in Green she wings it, but in an effort to put ATG in a positive light. Love Hammond, but again I recognise that he was very positive and I take this into account when I read him.

Has anyone read or seen David Stronach's works on Persepolis and Persia?


Amyntoros. I too think that Ochus did perhaps wind up at the bottom of that well along with his sisters (or wherever they did get tossed). I am also sometimes suspicious of whether Sisygambis actually chose her mode of death. Though I'd like to think that Ochus somehow escaped into Persia and his descendants became the frataraka. But I like happy endings...

[Paralus]

Yeah, Paralus, where are you?

Here.

Who's been asking?! Didn't think I'd be missed for a week or so. Spent it in a small tent house - complete with kitchen/dining room tent - with the kids and mum. We were chased home today by a howling gale that near flattened the little tent house we'd erected.

Windburnt, sunburnt and realising that the body doesn't do the things it used to with anything like its old customary ease.

Time to soak in a bath with a glass of red....

[athenas owl]

It's anachronism of the highest order. It's a bad habit of mine, but I'd like my politics left out of my history.

Surely that would leave only the very dullest history books - if it left any history books at all. You can't have history without politics being part of the mix, if only because it is almost impossible for anyone to write without some bias. Therefore you will always get politics in the pudding.

Are you therefore saying that you won't read Tarn, or Bosworth, or Wilcken, or Badian, or any of a myriad others? Because every single one of those historians has politics dripping through his writing.

Actually, I am tending more to archaeology and earth sciences and comparitive literature and anthropolgy combined with the "original" sources.

I don't read Badiian much, never read Tarn (though someday I should I realise. I put off reading Renault until last year, any of her work, for the same reason). I've read Bosworth, etc, but I don't find myself going back much. When I come across a new paper (to me anyway) I read it and new information is always welcome. New judgement, not so much.

I spend more time reading news of new digs. I want a better understanding of the Persian world, the Indian world. Both socially and physically.

Speaking of archaeological news...well this is with a decided political POV, but I just came across it...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/13/153746/83