Confusion

[jan]

Thanks, Marcus, for the advice. I have mentioned the author's name and that is really enough. He can be found if wanted. The best review I can give is that I still like him for his sense of fair play. Nothing else need be added to that.

[Athanasios]

Yes, in agreement with Efstathios.Only addition is that Souther Greece did indeed comprise of city states, whereas the Northern territories were kingdoms. Otherwise, language, religion were the same.Do also note that being united by these factors does not mean interests were the same. SOme of the city states were fearful of Meacdonian rule, enough to collaborate with the Persians, which, for sure, seemed a safe bet if all you were after was security. With the Persians ever-knocking on Greece's door, it would make sense for some to welcome the Persians insteasd of the Macedonians.Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Yes, in agreement with Efstathios.Only addition is that Souther Greece did indeed comprise of city states, whereas the Northern territories were kingdoms. Otherwise, language, religion were the same.Do also note that being united by these factors does not mean interests were the same. SOme of the city states were fearful of Meacdonian rule, enough to collaborate with the Persians, which, for sure, seemed a safe bet if all you were after was security. With the Persians ever-knocking on Greece's door, it would make sense for some to welcome the Persians insteasd of the Macedonians.Regards,
Atha

[amyntoros]

Two thoughts on this interesting conversation:(1) Any country or area that was conquered throughout history and remained so for a lengthy period of time was influenced by the conquering nation to a degree. It's unavoidable. For example, after the Norman conquest of England the language spoken at court and by the nobles throughout the country was French. The reason that Spanish is spoken today in most of South America is because of the Spanish conquest, while British Imperialism spread knowledge of the English language all across the world. Cultural effects of conquest are easier to see in this later context. The famous horse-racing track in Hong Kong was originally built for the enjoyment of the British ruling classes so that they could partake of the same entertainment that was available to them back in England. It was not constructed with the original intent of "spreading British culture throughout population". It was the same in Alexander's time: he built his cities, complete with gymnasiums and theatres, for the use of the "Greeks" who were to inhabit them. These cities were his legacy, yes, but it was amongst the Greeks that he most wished to be remembered. Because he was a remarkable and, in many ways, admirable young man, and because we still admire ancient Greek culture so much today, I think that many look for altruistic motives for Alexander's conquests that we don't impart to others.(2) Plutarch's On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander isn't "history" :it's an exercise in rhetoric; an opinion regarding Alexander's character that is meant to persuade others to think the same way. It isn't a question of truth, lies, or propoganda, but his assessment of the character of a man who had been dead for hundreds of years. Plutarch did not "lie" any more than anyone on this forum lies when they are expressing their feelings about the nature of Alexander. (It is for this reason that the bulk of the work is rarely quoted by historians.) I'm using your translation here: " But for God's sake,Alexander civilised the entire Asia and made Homer their' reading material,and the children of the persians,the gedrosians and the sogdians are chanting the "tragedies" and plays of Euripedes and Sofocles." By Plutarch's time all of the above may have been true as far as Plutarch's knowledge was concerned, although it is extremely unlikely that *all* of the conquered populations were speaking and reading Greek. I doubt that the farmers in th

[amyntoros]

Two thoughts on this interesting conversation:(1) Any country or area that was conquered throughout history and remained so for a lengthy period of time was influenced by the conquering nation to a degree. It's unavoidable. For example, after the Norman conquest of England the language spoken at court and by the nobles throughout the country was French. The reason that Spanish is spoken today in most of South America is because of the Spanish conquest, while British Imperialism spread knowledge of the English language all across the world. Cultural effects of conquest are easier to see in this later context. The famous horse-racing track in Hong Kong was originally built for the enjoyment of the British ruling classes so that they could partake of the same entertainment that was available to them back in England. It was not constructed with the original intent of "spreading British culture throughout population". It was the same in Alexander's time: he built his cities, complete with gymnasiums and theatres, for the use of the "Greeks" who were to inhabit them. These cities were his legacy, yes, but it was amongst the Greeks that he most wished to be remembered. Because he was a remarkable and, in many ways, admirable young man, and because we still admire ancient Greek culture so much today, I think that many look for altruistic motives for Alexander's conquests that we don't impart to others.(2) Plutarch's On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander isn't "history" :it's an exercise in rhetoric; an opinion regarding Alexander's character that is meant to persuade others to think the same way. It isn't a question of truth, lies, or propoganda, but his assessment of the character of a man who had been dead for hundreds of years. Plutarch did not "lie" any more than anyone on this forum lies when they are expressing their feelings about the nature of Alexander. (It is for this reason that the bulk of the work is rarely quoted by historians.) I'm using your translation here: " But for God's sake,Alexander civilised the entire Asia and made Homer their' reading material,and the children of the persians,the gedrosians and the sogdians are chanting the "tragedies" and plays of Euripedes and Sofocles." By Plutarch's time all of the above may have been true as far as Plutarch's knowledge was concerned, although it is extremely unlikely that *all* of the conquered populations were speaking and reading Greek. I doubt that the farmers in th

[amyntoros]

I doubt that the farmers in the field and all others that had little or no direct contact with the Greek ruling classes ever absorbed much Greek culture, if any. However, and this is the most important part, Plutarch begins the sentence with "But for God's sake. . ." Here he is applying his own reasoning to Alexander's actions. This is only his opinion as to *why* Alexander civilized Asia. It isn't proven historical fact. You can go through the rest of On the Fortune piece by piece and will find it the same.If you want to email me I can send you a PDF article by a respected classicist discussing Plutarch's reasons for writing both the Fortune and Virtue and the Life of Alexander. Don't worry, it isn't condemnatory of Plutarch, which you might suspect given our differing attitudes to Alexander. You would probably appreciate it even more than myself because the Greek quotes aren't translated.Best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

I doubt that the farmers in the field and all others that had little or no direct contact with the Greek ruling classes ever absorbed much Greek culture, if any. However, and this is the most important part, Plutarch begins the sentence with "But for God's sake. . ." Here he is applying his own reasoning to Alexander's actions. This is only his opinion as to *why* Alexander civilized Asia. It isn't proven historical fact. You can go through the rest of On the Fortune piece by piece and will find it the same.If you want to email me I can send you a PDF article by a respected classicist discussing Plutarch's reasons for writing both the Fortune and Virtue and the Life of Alexander. Don't worry, it isn't condemnatory of Plutarch, which you might suspect given our differing attitudes to Alexander. You would probably appreciate it even more than myself because the Greek quotes aren't translated.Best regards,Amyntoros

[Efstathios]

The phrase that Plutarch used "But for God's sake" may also indicate that what he is saying is obvious,or well known at his time, and thats why he emphasises it.It's like i would say "But for God's sake,people are starving in Africa". I think you get the point.In some occasions like this there are 2 or maybe more interpretations,but i think that Plutarch only mentioned things that were alreay known as facts to the people of his era. I mean,it wasnt a primitive era,there was communication throughout the world,and surely if any of these was false,then the people that read this book would protest and maybe wrote other books about this matter.But there arent any as far as i know.Maybe he expresses his oppinion about some matters but when he talks about the children of the Sogdians chanting Homer,then we might have to assume that it was indeed this way. Plutarch was 400 years away from these events, but the effects of Alexander's conquests surely must have remained for a long time.So it was easier for him to know things better and surely better than us today. I would be interested to read that PDF.I will send you an email "Η ΙΣΧΥΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ"

[Efstathios]

The phrase that Plutarch used "But for God's sake" may also indicate that what he is saying is obvious,or well known at his time, and thats why he emphasises it.It's like i would say "But for God's sake,people are starving in Africa". I think you get the point.In some occasions like this there are 2 or maybe more interpretations,but i think that Plutarch only mentioned things that were alreay known as facts to the people of his era. I mean,it wasnt a primitive era,there was communication throughout the world,and surely if any of these was false,then the people that read this book would protest and maybe wrote other books about this matter.But there arent any as far as i know.Maybe he expresses his oppinion about some matters but when he talks about the children of the Sogdians chanting Homer,then we might have to assume that it was indeed this way. Plutarch was 400 years away from these events, but the effects of Alexander's conquests surely must have remained for a long time.So it was easier for him to know things better and surely better than us today. I would be interested to read that PDF.I will send you an email "Η ΙΣΧΥΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ"

[Paralus]

GÇ£The people who read the bookGÇ¥. For godGÇÖs sake Efstathios (pardon the pun), just how many actually were able to read?Lad, I like your Greek viewpoint but, itGÇÖs becoming obsessive! GÇ£BookGÇ¥ for godGÇÖs sake! At the most it would be a collectioin of papyrus scrolls GÇô unless written upon linen.And you are dead right: Arrian and Plutarch wrote well after the events. A bit like us writing up what was said and done during the Franco-English war of seventeen-hundred-odd America.Paralus

[Paralus]

GÇ£The people who read the bookGÇ¥. For godGÇÖs sake Efstathios (pardon the pun), just how many actually were able to read?Lad, I like your Greek viewpoint but, itGÇÖs becoming obsessive! GÇ£BookGÇ¥ for godGÇÖs sake! At the most it would be a collectioin of papyrus scrolls GÇô unless written upon linen.And you are dead right: Arrian and Plutarch wrote well after the events. A bit like us writing up what was said and done during the Franco-English war of seventeen-hundred-odd America.Paralus

[amyntoros]

Efstathios, as soon as I hear from you I'll forward the PDF file. I had wondered if using your quote was a bad example to illustrate my meaning (not that there was anything wrong with your example). I really wanted to give a demonstration of Plutarch's idealism which is considerably more evident in On the Fortune than in his Life, although it can also be found in the latter work. Moralia 331F to 332C (almost at the end of On the Fortune I) is a better means to prove my point. This is where Plutarch *interprets* Alexander's response to Diogenes: "If I were not Alexander I should be Diogenes." Here we have a whole page of Plutarch's own words, put into Alexander's mouth, intending to explain Alexander's meaning behind the above expression. This is Plutarch's take on Alexander - these are Plutarch's words and thoughts, not Alexander's. There's no issue of right or wrong, truth or lies here. This is how Plutarch saw Alexander - and how you see him is as well.

What Plutarch says in these two essays is not proof of Alexander's so-called "vision": it's just one man's belief in which you happen to concur, as did W.W. Tarn. Whether (some of) the children of the Sogdians were actually chanting Homer doesnGÇÖt convince in this argument because it isn't proof of any deliberate GÇ£unity of mankindGÇ¥ intent on AlexanderGÇÖs part. If true, all it really means is that it was one of the consequences of his campaign. ItGÇÖs Plutarch himself who puts the interpretation upon the events, not Alexander. Although I love Alexander, warts and all, I don't see him through quite such rosy-colored glasses - and others here obviously feel the same. Now, if I were to persuaded otherwise, I would need more than idealistic interpretation from one obviously talented and adoring writer. And that's really my point. Best regards,
Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Efstathios, as soon as I hear from you I'll forward the PDF file. I had wondered if using your quote was a bad example to illustrate my meaning (not that there was anything wrong with your example). I really wanted to give a demonstration of Plutarch's idealism which is considerably more evident in On the Fortune than in his Life, although it can also be found in the latter work. Moralia 331F to 332C (almost at the end of On the Fortune I) is a better means to prove my point. This is where Plutarch *interprets* Alexander's response to Diogenes: "If I were not Alexander I should be Diogenes." Here we have a whole page of Plutarch's own words, put into Alexander's mouth, intending to explain Alexander's meaning behind the above expression. This is Plutarch's take on Alexander - these are Plutarch's words and thoughts, not Alexander's. There's no issue of right or wrong, truth or lies here. This is how Plutarch saw Alexander - and how you see him is as well.

What Plutarch says in these two essays is not proof of Alexander's so-called "vision": it's just one man's belief in which you happen to concur, as did W.W. Tarn. Whether (some of) the children of the Sogdians were actually chanting Homer doesnGÇÖt convince in this argument because it isn't proof of any deliberate GÇ£unity of mankindGÇ¥ intent on AlexanderGÇÖs part. If true, all it really means is that it was one of the consequences of his campaign. ItGÇÖs Plutarch himself who puts the interpretation upon the events, not Alexander. Although I love Alexander, warts and all, I don't see him through quite such rosy-colored glasses - and others here obviously feel the same. Now, if I were to persuaded otherwise, I would need more than idealistic interpretation from one obviously talented and adoring writer. And that's really my point. Best regards,
Amyntoros

[Efstathios]

To Paralus and Linda: I do not take Plutarch as the holy bible,and i do not concur with all of his sayings.The example of Diogenis can be multi-interpretated and i agree with you on this.It's just Plutarch's oppinion. To Paralus: We cannot disregard Plutarch's oppinion as propaganda or false.It would be the same as if we disregarded an oppinion of a modern historian about the french revolution,and the motives of the french people that led them to revolt. Plutarch and Arrian wrote based on sources.And sources that we dont have.But,anyway if someone chose to write about the french revolution,i dont think he would have much trouble finding facts,and expressing his oppinion based on actual events.Because he would have all the sources in his disposal.Same thing goes for Plutarch too.Maybe someone thinks that Arrian,or Plutarch had only 2-3 sources too look into,Aristovoulos,Cleitarhos,and Ptolemy.But lets not forget the whole of the papyroi from the hellenistic period and from the roman empire,and even the former persian empire that had Alexander as a subject or mentioned events of his life.Maybe even Alexander's correspondance,demographics,e.t.c. As for people that were able to read:There werent many in Asia,but there were scholars there also.Lets not forget that we are not talking about the persian empire here but for the empire that was formed after Alexander's conquests.And what was left afterwards.The Seleukids' empire e.t.c.In the roman empire there were also many people that could read,in Egypt too and not to mention Greece,but of course the greeks' oppinions are maybe biased and obsessed as you have mentioned... So are only the greeks' writings and oppinions that describe Alexander in this way?

[Efstathios]

To Paralus and Linda: I do not take Plutarch as the holy bible,and i do not concur with all of his sayings.The example of Diogenis can be multi-interpretated and i agree with you on this.It's just Plutarch's oppinion. To Paralus: We cannot disregard Plutarch's oppinion as propaganda or false.It would be the same as if we disregarded an oppinion of a modern historian about the french revolution,and the motives of the french people that led them to revolt. Plutarch and Arrian wrote based on sources.And sources that we dont have.But,anyway if someone chose to write about the french revolution,i dont think he would have much trouble finding facts,and expressing his oppinion based on actual events.Because he would have all the sources in his disposal.Same thing goes for Plutarch too.Maybe someone thinks that Arrian,or Plutarch had only 2-3 sources too look into,Aristovoulos,Cleitarhos,and Ptolemy.But lets not forget the whole of the papyroi from the hellenistic period and from the roman empire,and even the former persian empire that had Alexander as a subject or mentioned events of his life.Maybe even Alexander's correspondance,demographics,e.t.c. As for people that were able to read:There werent many in Asia,but there were scholars there also.Lets not forget that we are not talking about the persian empire here but for the empire that was formed after Alexander's conquests.And what was left afterwards.The Seleukids' empire e.t.c.In the roman empire there were also many people that could read,in Egypt too and not to mention Greece,but of course the greeks' oppinions are maybe biased and obsessed as you have mentioned... So are only the greeks' writings and oppinions that describe Alexander in this way?