Alexander and ethics

[Semiramis]

Seramis

Do you find the Zoroastrian sources less reliable than the Greek and Roman ones? If so, why?

yes cause when it comes to history i study history books and not relegion ones. of course i cannot argue with you if you feel that zoroastrian sources help you better understand alexander.
you used the word reliable. well no, i dont find zoroastrian sources less reliable, but they are still the reliable point of view of a priest.

I see where you're coming from. But I find this supposed dichotomy between "history books" and "religious books" a bit rich, if we're talking about a period so long ago. The supposed "non-religious" sources about Alexander are full of stories about gods too. Including Olympias' womb being struck by Zeus' thunderbolt, Artemis' temple burning down because she was busy overseeing Alexander's birth, talking snakes guiding Alexander's party to the Oracle of Siwa (according to Ptolemy himself, who was there!). Zoroastrian sources don't just mention the divine but mundane worldly things like Alexander killing priests etc. If we're going back 2500 years, information is already scarce and unreliable. One would expect a historian to critically evaluate every available source when trying to construct a picture. The Babylonian astronomical diaries, for example, are an invaluable source for reconstructing and historical events, including Alexander's life. The priests may have thought the stars' and planets' movements were directed by gods to indicate mankind's future. But the scientific methods of astronomy and meticulous recording of historical events can't be denied.

[Paralus]

Going on that rationale, we should ditch all information we have gleaned via the Old Testament books as well. So much, then, the less we would know of Cyrus, the Jewish revolts against Seleucid oppression, etc.

Whilst we're at it the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries mentioned by Semiramis above, compiled by those astronomer- priests the Chadeans, should be chucked as well. Really, anything that directly contradicts the standard Helleno-centric view that Darius the coward deserted his troops at Gaugamela - stating plainly that it was the other way around - cannot stand.

Some of us, I fear, dismiss anything that may detract from some "higher purpose". Whatever that may be...

[aleksandros]

you seem to have a hell of a time generalizing my statements......its so amusing to me.

if you want to reach a specific conclusion or build a specific approach to a specific historical subject or question yes you take ALL the sources available and you compare and EVALUATE them.

thats what i did.

of course the 'naive' logical leaps continue from my fellow posters in this forum.

umm lets see.......aleksandros rejects the use of zoroastrian accounts in approaching alexanders motives in his campaign...........oh yes!........that means he rejects any account thats either in bible or in Babylonian astronomical diaries or in Talmud or in mahabarata etc as of no historic importance whatsoever.

why not? sounds pretty reasonable!

[Semiramis]

aleksandros,

I was replying to this post by you.

Seramis

Do you find the Zoroastrian sources less reliable than the Greek and Roman ones? If so, why?

yes cause when it comes to history i study history books and not relegion ones. of course i cannot argue with you if you feel that zoroastrian sources help you better understand alexander.
you used the word reliable. well no, i dont find zoroastrian sources less reliable, but they are still the reliable point of view of a priest.

Bible, Talmud, Mahabharata etc. are primarily "religious" books. Their recording of history is incidental to their purpose. It seemed you were not a fan of using these types of sources when it comes to studying history.

One could of course argue that Plutarch was more interested in preaching virtues than writing a biography and Curtius was more interested in taking swipes at the rulers of his own time than tell Alexander's story. Ptolemy must have had some stake in legitimizing his rule and aggrandizing himself? My point is that the simpllistic "religious" vs "historical" categorization of sources don't do justice to their complexities.

[aleksandros]

i couldnt agree more seramis.

[Paralus]

you seem to have a hell of a time generalizing my statements......its so amusing to me.

if you want to reach a specific conclusion or build a specific approach to a specific historical subject or question yes you take ALL the sources available and you compare and EVALUATE them.

Except those of a religious nature; these, by your own hand, are rejected:

yes cause when it comes to history i study history books and not relegion ones.

As Semiramis has written:

Bible, Talmud, Mahabharata etc. are primarily "religious" books.

And that is correct. So then, if I or others have generalised your statement, which religious books do you consider germane? And what then do we make of a geographical treatise (Strabo) or the first Fodor’s Guide to Greece (Pausanias) neither of which were written as history per se.

[aleksandros]

i take back my statement 'yes cause when it comes to history i study history books and not religion ones. '.

i think we all agree we learnt more about alexander through Arrian than through zoroastrians or chaldeans or jews or christians.

i think i am clear now.

[marcus]

i meant a debacle would have occured in india even worse than the bactrian one if Alexander didnt mass exterminate certain sites in india.

Ah, I see. Yep, I understand what you meant now.

Thanks, Aleksandros.

ATB

[Alita]

He showed remorse after the death of Cleitus, but the murder wasn't an act of cruelty.

Sorry amyntoros - an act of justice then?

[Katerina]

He showed remorse after the death of Cleitus, but the murder wasn't an act of cruelty.

Sorry amyntoros - an act of justice then?

I believe it was a grave accident, an unfortunate severe argument between drunken friends that resulted in such atrocity, but let's be fair here to Alexander.

I do not know of any KING in antiquity, (and Alexander was a King) or even later than that, where a KING would have allowed his friends/companions to talk down to them in such a fashion in public. To insult any other King was unthinkable (and one would probably have been executed or jailed ), yet with Alexander many of his entourage frequently thought it OK.

It's a known fact that ONE of the only things Alexander cared about was his reputation. It was extremely important to Alexander, and Cleitus also knew this.

So Cleitus then knew how to dig that dagger into Alexander's heart that night when they were drunk, and unfortunately it did not fare well for Cleitus...

[aleksandros]

He showed remorse after the death of Cleitus, but the murder wasn't an act of cruelty.

Sorry amyntoros - an act of justice then?

an act of excessive anger. simple as that.

[Katerina]

Ok, having in mind the ethics of his time, how do you see Alexander in this department? Do you think his actions, and i mean the most brutal ones, like Tyr and Thebes, were no more than what others have also done?

And i think we should also discuss about what were the ethics of his time. The Hellenistic and Classical periods. We should also discuss how people then, saw these things. Because soldiers were fighting for glory and et.c., but how about the commmon people?

I think in some situations we may find common things with modern day's wars, but in some others, not. Like Socrates, and his philosophy, and his teachings, who nevertheless fought as a hoplite and he was a good warrior too.

A few years back, when I was considering this question, I felt it necessary to understand a little about how the Greeks/Macedonians thougt about Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, etc in 350 BC.... A very good insight to this are writings during Alexander's lifetime, which are the complete works of Aristotle. One of my most favorite reads, is Rheortic, and best of all, the book he specifically wrote for Alexander himself, at Alexander's request, RHETORIC TO ALEXANDER. ( I think alot of politicians have read these too ) But, the readings do touch on when it is OK to punish, how severely, when it might be OK to conquer/war, etc...

There is also a section in Politic written for Alexander on how to run the empire ( if I recall it might be BOOK 3). Understanding that Alexander did not take all of Aristotle's advice, I believe Alexander did play by the rules of his time, and most all Kings and Emperors were conquerer's in future & past, even the Bibical ones.

The life and deeds of Cyrus the Great, as well as the Illiad played a role in this as well.

I believe a man so serious about his reputation, would not have purposely tried to mar it in anyway if at all possible unless necessary, or by accident.

This is probably a little more controversial, and I would never use bibical writings to explain history, but I have often wondered, since Alexander loved to read, and there were Jewish people in Pella I understand, as well of course in many other parts of his empire, if he was ever exposed to the LAWS OF MOSES section of the bible, ( if it was actually written before and not after Alexander)

It describes when you can raze the walls of a city, kill the inhabitants (including women & children), take the land, etc.... Because some of the major battles of Alexander that seem to always be under scrutiny regarding ethics, actually follow this law if you read it closely... just something a few of my friends and I poked around with one day...

[amyntoros]

Hi Katerina,

This is probably a little more controversial, and I would never use bibical writings to explain history, but I have often wondered, since Alexander loved to read, and there were Jewish people in Pella I understand, as well of course in many other parts of his empire, if he was ever exposed to the LAWS OF MOSES section of the bible, ( if it was actually written before and not after Alexander)

It describes when you can raze the walls of a city, kill the inhabitants (including women & children), take the land, etc.... Because some of the major battles of Alexander that seem to always be under scrutiny regarding ethics, actually follow this law if you read it closely... just something a few of my friends and I poked around with one day...

Do you know a literary or archaeological source which tells us that there were Jews settled in Pella during or prior to Alexander's youth? I ask this because I know of no source and the only time I've read of such is in Paul Doherty's credulity s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d historical fiction. Although there had been contact with Jews prior to Alexander, the probability is that if any had travelled as far as Macedonia it would have been as slaves. The following from The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans, by Max Radin The Jewish Publication Society of America. (I found an original 1916 edition at an estate sale!)

As has been suggested, the first contact was probably military. Since Jews served in the Persian armies as far south as Elephantine, they probably were equally present in the battalions of Datis and of Mardonius. Another early contact was in the slave-mart, no doubt both as buyers and the bought. Enterprising Tyrian traders had made themselves comfortable in Jerusalem before Nehemiah (Neh. Xiii. 6), and human commodities formed the chief merchandise of most commerce. Before him, perhaps before the Exile, Joel reproaches the Phoenicians with the words, "The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians." "Syrus" had become a common slave name in Greece in the fifth century, and Syrus might include anything.

Either way, I sincerely doubt that Alexander would have been exposed to any biblical texts because the bible was not translated into Greek until after Alexander's conquests when Greek became the language of scholars. Just my thoughts.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Hello all. About jews living in Pella at the time of Philip and Alexander, it is possible but i also havent seen a source that mentions that. The population of Greece during the Hellenistic period was around 7 million people, and many of them were non Greeks. So yes, some of them might have been jews that settled in Macedonia during trade, or as slaves from Alexander's campaign as Amyntoros said. But that would be during his campaign, so he might as well have been informed about the Bible teachings from the jews in Palesteine when he was there.

Due to Alexander's thirst for knowlledge, and his general respect for other reliigions, he could have been informed by the jews as to the principles of the Bible. But following some of them, i think not. Alexander always followed the Greek principles and his own of course. And generally as conquest and war are concerned, it was almost the same throught the world.