pothos.org

I went ahead and purchased it from Amazon. I'll get it so much quicker this way, since I live in the middle of no where. I have a stack of books I haven't even touched yet, but this one will have to be read first. Thanks for all of the informative posts on this book. I can't wait to discuss it with all of you.

Taphoi wrote:As for the Indian town on the Choes, Arrian 4.23.5 simply says that the Macedonians killed the fleeing Indians they captured out of anger that they had wounded Alexander. It is a testament of the army's affection for their king rather than a condemnation of Alexander.

As for Sangala, the deaths were during a sack by the army, because the defenders had refused to surrender. As for the sick, you appear to be referring to the circumstance (Arrian 5.24.7) where Alexander's army was in hot pursuit of Indians from neighbours of Sangala, whom Alexander had offered not to treat harshly if they stayed put and behaved in a friendly fashion towards him. Instead they fled, so Alexander sent his army in pursuit. They killed about 500 stragglers, who had fallen behind through infirmity. Then Alexander called a halt to the pursuit.

You, as with Arrian/Ptolemy, may explain away calculated murder as you wish. There is, in Arrian, always an excuse for such excessive behaviour. It is clear that Arrian describes the Indians fleeing to their strongholds and the “sick” were left behind. These were unceremoniously murdered by the Macedonian army. There is no description of any “combatants” being killed as they arrived too late to catch them. Therefore, it seems, due to the fact that their well companions had refused to surrender and scarper, these sick individuals would have to do to assuage the King’s anger via his troops.

You may subscribe to Arrian/Ptolemy’s apologia; I see it differently. The Choes, Sangala and others are, to me, clear warnings – acts of terror if you like.

What follows is a personal observation of the tone of this “discussion” and its conduct. Moderators may see fit to remove or edit as they wish.

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

There is a clear implication by amyntoros that the scourging and killing of prisoners did not reflect badly on Alexander, because he did it to sate the bloodlust of his army. If amyntoros wishes to explain that she did not intend this clear implication, then she is free to do so.

That, I'm afraid, is utter rubbish. This is your "adjusted" position. You have juxtaposed those sentences - with the concomitant editing of its context and of the word additionally. And you continue to do it. One must assume with malice and aforethought; the aim being to sustain your gratuitous and personal epithet. Which epithet is:

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army. After all, many people on the rock were refugees whom the army had been pursuing. I don't see why Alexander would have necessarily looked kindly upon them after the surrender.

I have to say that in the light of more recent Middle Eastern history it worries me when Americans say that they see nothing unreasonable in a victor torturing and executing an enemy who has surrendered to him.

abm has well noted that understanding why Alexander might do this or allow this (as he allowed the looting and massacre at Tyre by his troops) does in no way equate to moral support for same. That is entirely your misrepresentation of the post aided by selective editing.

These tools facilitate your demonstrated talent for making an argument or statement on behalf of a contributor that has not been made by that contributor. I might just as well observe that your “defence” of the murder of the sick (above) by Alexander’s troops ispo facto demonstrates your support for such acts when the population under attack has refused to surrender.

You are, on occasion, possessed of an unedifying tendency to condescension laced with disingenuous personal observation at best; snide at worst. This latest example, were I in Amyntoros’ position, I would find personally offensive. Judging by the response she has posted, so does she.

The decent thing would be to withdraw it.

I will not hold my breath though because, going on extant form, should the general view turn against you on this matter, you will withdraw rather than withdrawing the, in my opinion, rather ugly statement under scrutiny.

Paralus wrote: There is, in Arrian, always an excuse for such excessive behaviour.

Pleased that we finally agree on something Paralus

Wishing you a Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year also

Andrew

I have to agree with Amyntoros and Paralus, Andrew, that you've done something pretty low here, especially editing a quote to distort a person's words to look more like what you're accusing her of, and casting aspersions on what you thought was her nationality. This is not a suitable level of discourse on Pothos. I think you owe Amyntoros, your fellow Pothosians and our readers an apology.

Sincerely,
Karen

I believe I did say that the juxtaposition was unfortunate in my earlier post.

I would note that everyone edits quotes and that amyntoros did appear to be offering the appeasement of his troops as an excuse for Alexander having scourged and crucified people who had surrendered to him (though I am now happy to accept that that was not her intention).

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

Hi Amyntoros,

Very happy that you have withdrawn the implication from the above comment that it was okay for Alexander to scourge and crucify people who had surrendered to him in order to appease his army. This arose from the unfortunate juxtaposition of the two statements, since the appeasement of the army seemed intended as the justification for Curtius' accusation not being hostile. I am sure you will agree that if a Pothos comment did say that such bad behaviour from Alexander could be justified by a need to appease his army, then that would deserve to be attacked by other Pothosians.

Perhaps you could be considered an honorary American, since your avatar has lived in New York City for so long

Best wishes,

Andrew

Let me correct you again, Taphoi. I have not withdrawn any implication. I did not make any such implication. Said implication exists only because of your judicious editing wherein YOU alone are responsible for "the unfortunate juxtaposition of the two statements" and the manipulated meaning therein.

Here, once again, is your misrepresentation of my post:

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army.

Here are my words as written, with your edited version in boldface:

amyntoros wrote:In addition, I must say that I don't see Curtius' version of events at the rock as being particularly hostile to Alexander, thereby presumably making his source doubtful. Yes, when there are conflicting sources it is necessary to evaluate them and hope to come to a reasonable conclusion as to which is more credible. However, in this instance I wouldn't invalidate one version (and cast dispersions on its author) simply because the other has a kinder, more gentle Alexander. Curtius is quite credible here, IMO. Arimazes didn't surrender when Alexander first arrived at the rock but only when he thought he had been defeated; i.e., when he despaired of his situation. Given the draconian nature of warfare in Sogdia/Bactria up to this point in time it is not unreasonable to believe that Alexander would have inflicted severe punishment here in order to demonstrate to the remainder of the enemy what would happen to them if they sat on their "rocks" and resisted. Additionally, I'm sure he needed to appease his very unhappy army. After all, many people on the rock were refugees whom the army had been pursuing. I don't see why Alexander would have necessarily looked kindly upon them after the surrender.

Nowhere in the above do I express a personal opinion that it is okay for Alexander to scourge and crucify people who had surrendered to him in order to appease his army. At no point do I say that I approve of any action taken at this point by Alexander – for any reason. My statement clearly indicates that I think it is not unreasonable to believe that Alexander would have inflicted severe punishment … I am talking about Alexander here – the same man who crucified the male survivors at Tyre; who had no problem destroying entire cites and their occupants if it suited HIS purposes at the time. And, yes, sometimes the actions he took were to keep his army happy. Saying that I think it is not unreasonable to believe that Alexander took action of this kind at the rock is NOT the same as saying I think it is okay. Believing that Alexander could (would) have justified his actions does not have the same meaning as saying that I personally think said actions are justifiable.

Taphoi wrote:I am sure you will agree that if a Pothos comment did say that such bad behaviour from Alexander could be justified by a need to appease his army, then that would deserve to be attacked by other Pothosians.

If any member did say that such bad behaviour from Alexander could be justified by a need to appease his army and it was obvious that they were talking about Alexander's justification for said event I would NOT say that the statement deserved to be attacked by other Pothosians. Depending on the source material under discussion it could be agreed or not – without attacking the individual - that Alexander would have justified said event for said reason. However, if your response was to claim that this translates into a individual's personal opinion that said actions are justifiable (with or without manipulation of words when quoting them) then my response would be exactly the same as it is now. Paralus said it well:

Paralus wrote:I might just as well observe that your “defence” of the murder of the sick (above) by Alexander’s troops ispo facto demonstrates your support for such acts when the population under attack has refused to surrender.

Believing that Alexander had good reason in his own mind (experience has taught me that for some unaccountable reason this needs to emphasized) for his behavior does NOT translate into the individual supporting such acts and personally believing that they are okay. You might as well say that someone arguing that Mein Kampf demonstrates clear indication of Hitler's justification for his later extermination of the Jews means that the writer of the statement thinks the extermination was justifiable. That would be laughable if it were not so obviously offensive. It does, however, compare to what you have said to me in this thread.

Now to quote your latest post:

Taphoi wrote:I believe I did say that the juxtaposition was unfortunate in my earlier post.

I would note that everyone edits quotes and that amyntoros did appear to be offering the appeasement of his troops as an excuse for Alexander having scourged and crucified people who had surrendered to him (though I am now happy to accept that that was not her intention).

Best wishes,

Andrew

Yes, you did say earlier that the juxtaposition was unfortunate – you said, This arose from the unfortunate juxtaposition of the two statements, since the appeasement of the army seemed intended as the justification for Curtius' accusation not being hostile. However, you are solely responsible for said juxtaposition and its implied meaning therein. You have used this juxtaposition and your interpretation of its implications in an attempt to discredit me as an individual. Even in your most recent post above you are still discussing what I “appeared ” to be saying because of your own editing. I would call that more than unfortunate.

Regards,

karen wrote: This is not a suitable level of discourse on Pothos. I think you owe Amyntoros, your fellow Pothosians and our readers an apology.

Taphoi wrote:I believe I did say that the juxtaposition was unfortunate in my earlier post.

I would note that everyone edits quotes and that amyntoros did appear to be offering the appeasement of his troops as an excuse for Alexander having scourged and crucified people who had surrendered to him (though I am now happy to accept that that was not her intention).

Under western law, accused are accorded a presumption of innocence.

I believe, Taphoi, this disingenous post indicates that, for my own part, on this forum you are to be accorded a presumption to arrogance

Taphoi wrote:I would note that everyone edits quotes

???

I don't -- I just straight cut and paste, and never remove context that is necessary to accurately represent the person's meaning. If there's a bit missing in the middle I use the academic convention of adding an ellipse.

Andrew, it's in writing. On an Internet forum. You're going to get caught every time! Anyone can go back over the thread and see exactly what you did. You are very knowledgeable and I usually enjoy your posts, but I'm losing respect for you by the hour here, and can't imagine I'm alone. Just cut your losses, admit you goofed and say sorry already. How hard is that?

Karen

I dont know what to say. Andrew copied and pasted the key phrases in a quote, but the meaning of the paragraph was not that. Maybe he didnt read it thorougly enough, and in conjuction with something about worldwide U.S policy that made him mad, it was like he was a bull seeing a red cloth.

karen wrote:

Taphoi wrote:I would note that everyone edits quotes

???

I don't -- I just straight cut and paste, and never remove context that is necessary to accurately represent the person's meaning. If there's a bit missing in the middle I use the academic convention of adding an ellipse.

I don't, either.

ATB

and I wrote my first review of the book at Alexander-Macedon. Will write one for other groups next time, but A-M is first to hear!

I loved this book finally. I like and respect Waldemar Heckel more than he would understand probably...I just love it when finally a book arrives that is not all simple regurgitation of everything that has been previously stated. He reached me at many points...I got the drift so to speak.

Waldemar is a professor and student of Alexander who at least knows that probably Alexander did best in many situations whereupon he is criticized so much today. I truly appreciated his final chapters where he displayed understanding about what I call consistency that others consider degeneration.

I do not want to spoil anyone's reading this book by talking it up too much, but suffice it to say that it is an easy to read book, a challenge to the thinking person, and a good attempt at finally realizing Alexander as an authentic person rather than a legend!

Hats off the Waldemar! This is a book worth owning and reading!

Recommend it highly!

jan wrote:I do not want to spoil anyone's reading this book by talking it up too much, but suffice it to say that it is an easy to read book, a challenge to the thinking person, and a good attempt at finally realizing Alexander as an authentic person rather than a legend!

Perfectly said jan!

I am half way through and I completely agree. As you said, it's not just the same regurgitation of past books. He presents a lot of interesting points to think about. What is most attractive to me about the book is Heckel's more realistic portrayal of Alexander.

There is a lot of information packed into the 200 plus pages. The bibliography has many listings of very recent books and articles. Quite a few articles that I had not heard of before and that I will follow up on. It has a well done and very informative Notes section at the back of the book. And at the top of each Notes page it says which pages in the text the notes refer to. I like that! You don't have to go to the front of the book to see what chapter you're in, and then find the appropriate note in the back. (That's so unnecessarily irritating if you know what I mean.) I wish all books would use this logical arrangement.

It is fast becoming one of my very favorite and valuable books on ATG.

Paralus wrote:I will not hold my breath though because, going on extant form, should the general view turn against you on this matter, you will withdraw rather than withdrawing the, in my opinion, rather ugly statement under scrutiny.

And so, true to form, have you exited the thread yet Taphoi?

I brought my copy of the book today with me, and will cite one of my favorite passages: page 135...won't quote all of this but this sentence I love....The charges, which included rape, murder, sacrilege, and intimidation, amounted to war crimes, and Alexander's actions ought to be applauded; too many countries have turned a blind eye to similar activities - witness the atrocities of Tiger Forcy e in Vietnam, which have been swept under the table.....etc.etc.etc. like this author's point of view here!