pothos.org

Paralus wrote:I’ll weigh in before this new fangled Robin Hood begins in half an hour…

If you mean the new BBC version, don't waste your time. It's rubbish.

(I was going to use much stronger words than "rubbish", then remembered this is a public forum. But it really is execrable, in almost every way. If people had issues with Stone's Alexander, they should withhold judgement until they've seen the travesty that is Robin Hood.)

ATB

Three and a third ... wow, that really shakes up our standardised ideas of chronology ...

Nonsense, what are you talking about? Everyone knows Alexander lived 356-323 BCE. Standardised ideas of chronology indeed, hmph.

Oh wait....... just checked the date on my computer. You know with all this amazing technology... I thought we were living in AD 3007.

Seriously, my brain has standardised ideas of chronology but my typing fingers don't always. A thousand pardons

Warmly,
Karen

No. It is not.

At the risk of citing the Argument Clinic, yes it is.

Paralus, you write of armies as if they are not made up of people, who know what's going on. The fact that we know from all sources that Alexander turned back because his army insisted on it means that everyone, of all nationalities, knew at the time. The point had been proven that an army could carry its will over Alexander if it was sufficiently resolved, because it had been done.

In fact, it's a fantasist's fallacy to imagine that any king can make any army, unless it's made up of Star-Wars type robots, do anything. There are some things that an army will kill its king before marching into, if he's marching with it. Every ancient king and every ancient army knew that.

Karen

karen wrote:

Three and a third ... wow, that really shakes up our standardised ideas of chronology ...

Nonsense, what are you talking about? Everyone knows Alexander lived 356-323 BCE. Standardised ideas of chronology indeed, hmph.

Oh wait....... just checked the date on my computer. You know with all this amazing technology... I thought we were living in AD 3007.

Seriously, my brain has standardised ideas of chronology but my typing fingers don't always. A thousand pardons

A thousand pardons are too many ... two or three hundred would do ...

ATB

Paralus, I am pushing for a more concrete and grounded form of debate because it is more suitable for discerning truth. I purposely picked one statement out of your message, in part because it's the most untrue, to demonstrate:

Relieved indeed one might think, and not just the companions.

My method was simply to find and quote all passages that recounted emotional reactions of Makedonians to Alexander's death. I anticipated that you might accuse me of being selective, which is why I looked through all that I could access. They belie your claim that the Makedonians were relieved rather than grief-stricken, as you're acknowledging.

But now you are saying they were happy with the results of Alexander's death:

That in no way means that they were not happy with the results as they so eloquently expressed them in the voting down of all the dead king’s plans,

...at which point I'd like to point out the difference between factual and interpretive (or speculative) evidence, and their relative weight.

Factual evidence, which has the most weight, that the army was unhappy that Alexander was dead is the accounts of their expressions of grief by multiple sources.

That they voted down Alexander's plans is not factual evidence of their being pleased, but strictly interpretive, and thus has less weight (and some would say, none). Why? Because there is more than one possible interpretation of the motives for that vote. "Thank the Gods we've got rid of him and don't have to do all these insane things" is one possibility. Another, no less plausible, is, "We can't do these things without him." Then there is the third: "We can't do these things and chop each other up the war that is now inevitable to settle who gets the throne."

Thus the vote is not at all proof, and shaky evidence only, for the army being happy at the results of Alexander's death.

I'll take it a step further, and ask, which of these interpretations is the most likely? (Though of course more than one could apply.) But I would think the strongest possibility would be the one for which one can find matching sentiments recounted in the sources.

Curtius wrote:They [the Makedonians] had passed from Macedonia beyond the Euphrates, and they could see that they were cut off among enemies who balked at the new régime. Lacking a definite heir to Alexander and his throne, they saw that individual would try to appropriate to themselves their collective power. Then they had premonitions of the civil wars which actually followed: once more they would be obliged to shed their blood not to win dominion over Asia, but to have a king. Their old scars must burst under fresh wounds. Aging and weak, having recently requested a discharge from their legitimate king, they would now face death to win power for someone who might be an obscure underling!

Diodoros might have something (and it's odd to be accused of choosing sources selectively when I've been cursing repeatedly that I only have 80% of them), but I looked in vain for accounts of the Makedonians' feelings afterwards in Plutarch, Justin and Arrian. Perhaps someone else can find something I've missed.

Your recounting of the difficulties of the Indian campaign and the Makran is all well and good, but it is interpretive evidence only for a general Makedonian wish not to be led on another campaign by Alexander (and parts of it, such as the idea that the army objected to conducting massacres, are quite doubtful imo; they were very happy to brutally massacre Mallians without royal orders on one occasion, Alexander being incapacitated by an arrow in the lung). Unless you can find a source citing Makedonians as actually coming out and saying they didn't want to go on another campaign with Alexander, there is no factual evidence for it at all.

the fact that there was disaffection abroad and that it predated both Opis and the death in Babylon.

But we aren't arguing whether there was or not, as we all know there was. The question is -- how much, and why? And -- so we can legitimately debate -- how to quantify our hypotheses? Paralus, you once likened Alexander to a battering husband and the army to a battered wife. That's an suitably strong quantification, since enough study has been done of domestic violence that we know how both battering husbands and battered wives tend to behave, and so we can compare that to the behavior of Alexander and the army, using source material, and see whether your analogy holds up. Shall we?

Amyntoros has promised us a comprehensive post on Makedonian disaffection, so to save myself the trouble of searching through the sources when she's going to do it anyway, I'll wait for that, I think, before I write anything else on this.

Warmly,
Karen

amyntoros wrote:So many divergent themes in the posts here and I have so little time. For the moment I will touch only on the following:

There isn’t anything in the sources which indicates that Ptolemy neglected or ignored the roles of Hephaistion, Perdiccas and anyone else he “might” have disliked. On the contrary, it appears that Ptolemy is the main source for information on Hephaistion and Perdiccas, especially their military exploits. We know that Arrian’s was the work which used Ptolemy and Aristobulus extensively. There are 34 excerpts in Arrian which include references to Hephaistion; 19 in Curtius, although anything after and including the Susa weddings is lost; 8 in Plutarch; 1 in Justin; 11 in Diodorus. Examining the same sources for Perdiccas, up to and including the death of Alexander, there are 24 excerpts in Arrian; 14 in Curtius; 3 in Plutarch; none in Justin; 6 in Diodorus.

And no, I didn’t sit down and read all the sources to prove a point. Marcus and I made files on these two individuals a long time ago and it was just a matter of opening them and counting the excerpts.

Best regards,

Chares was not a source for Arrian? Certainly for Plutarch he must have been. Though I confess here that I am going on all the articles and books I have been reading from bigger brains than mine.


Sorry for the hit and run...I really shouldn't be here at all right now.

Oh, and agreed on "Robin Hood", Marcus...just horrible.

Marcus wrote:A thousand pardons are too many ... two or three hundred would do ...

Fine, here are your two or three million. Never say I get my numbers mixed up.

Re Robin Hood, I hope the heck if you ever write a review of anything I've done, you like it

Warmly,
Karen

karen wrote:

No. It is not.

At the risk of citing the Argument Clinic, yes it is.

Paralus, you write of armies as if they are not made up of people, who know what's going on. The fact that we know from all sources that Alexander turned back because his army insisted on it means that everyone, of all nationalities, knew at the time. The point had been proven that an army could carry its will over Alexander if it was sufficiently resolved, because it had been done.

I have to get to the office so pardon the cut and paste. As well, I’ve only paid for the five pound argument…

Paralus wrote:We are not talking about the Beas. The "factual falsehood" here here is in the intellectual error of comparing the army of the "Indian" campaign to the royal army making ready to leave Babylon. They are in no way the same animal. That which was likely responsible for the refusal at the Beas was on its way home with Craterus. What was left was a hybrid army of Asian "successors" and some 8-9,000 Macedonians.

An entirely different creature of Alexander's creation, owing its existence and loyalty its creator and ready to serve his purposes. You seem to discard this point.

karen wrote: "Thank the Gods we've got rid of him and don't have to do all these insane things" is one possibility. Another, no less plausible, is, "We can't do these things without him." Then there is the third: "We can't do these things and chop each other up the war that is now inevitable to settle who gets the throne."

Given that these plans were put up for “the vote” by Perdiccas, the second two are as likely as the royal army voting down the plans whilst Alexander was alive: next to nil. I’d find it hard to see Perdiccas advocating his platform on the basis of a “we can’t do this because Alexander is dead and I’m no Alexander” whilst simultaneously finding a way to then get the rank and file to rally around him as the likey sole regent and inheritor of empire.

More a case of “well, now that he’s not around to murder the ringleaders, let’s give this the chop”.

marcus wrote:If you mean the new BBC version, don't waste your time. It's rubbish.

It was and it (most likely) is. I’ll have a look at the next instalment before chopping it.

I’ve only paid for the five pound argument…

I might be arguing in my spare time.

Not sure why the first quote; I already gave an answer to that.

Second point -- that's an interpretation. Perdikkas and everyone around knew he was no Alexander. And again -- I quoted from a source and you're ignoring it.

Phew, at least Monday morning doesn't start for another 12 hours HERE.

Warmly,
Karen

karen wrote:Re Robin Hood, I hope the heck if you ever write a review of anything I've done, you like it

Well, I hope that anything you do, or have done, is a darn sight better than Robin Hood!

ATB

karen wrote: Paralus, you once likened Alexander to a battering husband and the army to a battered wife. That's an suitably strong quantification, since enough study has been done of domestic violence that we know how both battering husbands and battered wives tend to behave, and so we can compare that to the behavior of Alexander and the army, using source material, and see whether your analogy holds up. Shall we?

I have been down the hallway engaging in “hit on the head” lessons. Or, I have returned from Melbourne on business; the difference is minimal. Nice to be back home. I notice the thread is yet to move on and, I further notice a nice little new one on Athens - hmmm interesting that subject. To that later, for now, to the thread in hand – albeit briefly as I’m at the office.

Yes and it’s an analogy that I thought after posting might raise the ire of those who’ve suffered such. I think we both know the main points in relation to that analogy: the judicial murders, the never ending campaigning, the horrendous conditions of the Indian campaign including the often indiscriminate slaughter that defined many of the engagements and the vicious purge – akin to that of the administrative ranks – of the “ringleaders” that dared give voice to the roiling discontent at large within the rank and file. Add to that the final straw, again apposite to the analogy, of the king taking to bed another woman: the defeated being made an integral part of the army and, worse, of the “Companionate” and its cavalry.

The banquet and eulogising speech of “reconciliation” fits this – to my mind – nicely. The army (wife) has its place re-affirmed and the King’s (husband) love and respect is on public display. All’s well with the world. Except that the army was well aware that any further open display of resentment or disregard for the will of their king would result in swift and terminal retribution – again.

At this stage, I think the army will have loved to live without Alexander but could not yet conceive of life doing so.

The point about the massacres the army was involved in over the Indian campaign was not a moral one. Rather, it was to highlight the base and brutal nature of the campaign. That will have had its effect on those who took part.

karen wrote:Second point -- that's an interpretation. Perdikkas and everyone around knew he was no Alexander. And again -- I quoted from a source and you're ignoring it.

Aside from the fact that much of what we read as history is, of necessity, interpretaive – particularly archaeological, numismatic and epigraphic evidence – the sources that we refer to are, by virtue of the fact that they are written much later than the events concerned and which are selectively based on excerpted earlier writings, also interpretaive. What is fact and what is not is a line drawn very much by “Mack and Myer for Hire”.

I left the quote alone for a cogent reason; which reason having nothing to do with the fact that “Curtius is unreliable”. Read it again:

They [the Makedonians] had passed from Macedonia beyond the Euphrates, and they could see that they were cut off among enemies who balked at the new régime. Lacking a definite heir to Alexander and his throne, they saw that individual would try to appropriate to themselves their collective power. Then they had premonitions of the civil wars which actually followed: once more they would be obliged to shed their blood not to win dominion over Asia, but to have a king. Their old scars must burst under fresh wounds. Aging and weak, having recently requested a discharge from their legitimate king, they would now face death to win power for someone who might be an obscure underling!

The entire passage is not only “interperative” but interpreted through the Hubble telescope of hindsight. It was well known by Curtius’ time that “individuals would try to appropriate to themselves” the “collective power” of the army and involve it in civil wars. Similar had happened at the time of Philip’s regency.

As well, the concern expressed here that they were “cut off among enemies who balked at the new regime” was nothing new. It was the same prior to Alexander’s death and will have obtained once the invader departed to Arabia and other lands over the horizon.

Lastly, the entire point of my reasoning regarding the Beas is that we have two entirely different armies here. The royal army leaving Babylon was not the army of the Beas. It was an army of Alexander’s creation and beholden to him. It matters not that “all nationalities” knew of the successful flouting of Alexander’s will at the Beas (did it set up a Bisitun inscription someplace?), the army he was assembling around him in Babylon was a different creature. Those who carried off the Beas were likely with Craterus or were executed at Opis. Some 8,500 -9,800 Macedonians remained in the royal army. They would not all necessarily march with Alexander out of Babylon. They would, to a large extent, find themselves in the position similar to that they were in at the onset of the Diadoch wars: the Spartan homoioi amongst the garrisons of empire as opposed to the armies of the marshals.

I doubt the royal army in Babylon was interested in testing the temper of their king.