pothos.org

amyntoros wrote:

Fiona, I don’t want it to appear as if I’m singling you out. I was going to post briefly and ask Phoebus to be so kind as to define “lofty ideas” but as you've contributed some thoughts of your own I'm now answering your post as well.

That's OK - I was very interested to read what you put. I'm happy for people to 'come back' at me, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Although I am new to the forum, I am not a beginner, though I don't kid myself that I know as much as you do. (I've been reading old threads with great interest, and you obviously know a huge amount!) The thing is, I think (I hope!) I have reached a stage where I can come onto a forum like this and make some worthwhile contribution to discussions. Starting with the source material, and then going on to other works, I have been studying Alexander now for four years, and while I have my own opinions now, I hope that my mind is not closed, and I am willing to learn from others.

amyntoros wrote: On events at Troy: they may seem like romantic notions to people today, but Alexander's behavior was entirely in accordance with the religious beliefs of Macedonians in this period. It's comparable to an act of "devotion" performed by a devout Christian leader (in later history) such as kneeling before a relic of the cross.

I see what you mean, and it's noticeable that the whole period of the setting-out for Asia is marked by sacrifices at each stage. At Elaeus, and on board ship, and on landing, and so on. It's plain that Alexander took religious observance most carefully. And at Troy itself, the dedication of armour, that too seems to fit the pattern. The honouring of the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus, though - done in such a way, with wreaths and racing, rather than animal sacrifice - do you see any precedent for that in Macedonian religious practice, or was that a one-off, something special that Alexander thought of himself? Comparing this to other observances recorded from his later life, it seems to me that we don't see any parallels with this until Hephaistion's death. I would venture to suggest that, when deeply moved, he goes beyond normal religious practice and looks to Homer for his inspiration. It is in this sense that I would call it 'romantic', for want of a better word, in that he seems to be trying to express his deepest feelings. The deciding factor, it seems to me, is to compare what Alexander did with what Philip would have done. I'm not suggesting Philip was an irreligious man, I am sure he would have honoured the gods with many sacrifices, and dedicated the expedition to them, praying for success, and so on, but wouldn't he have done those things in a more down-to-earth way?
It's the detour to Troy that captures the imagination, and I do agree that there is a spiritual element here, just like the Christian soldier before the cross, as you say. It's the association of himself with Achilles that shows that he's not thinking about gaining territory as much as dreaming of glory. Maybe that's not quite idealism - no specially lofty aims involved - but I do think it qualifies as romantic.

amyntoros wrote: On depressing pragmatism (do you really think pragmatism is depressing?)

Well, maybe just not so exciting and inspirational!

amyntoros wrote: and the lack of evidence at the start of the campaign : what then do you make of the destruction of Thebes? Like it or not, it was a politically brilliant act, even to the point of Alexander asking others what should be done with the city, thereby allowing or perhaps hoping for the blame to be directed elsewhere. Truth is, he alone was in command and he didn't have to defer to anyone else's opinions, nor did he have to implement the desires/decisions of others. Yet he "condoned" a Greek city being torn to the ground and the people sent into slavery, the result of which was that the rest of Greece no longer dared to challenge him in any way. Yes, similar acts had been done before, but this was hardly an example of lofty ideas. Personally, I find it to be one of the best examples of Alexander's pragmatism.

I agree, not an example of lofty ideas at all. I wonder very much if we are not missing some vital piece of evidence here. The destruction of Thebes seems to match the treatment of Tyre, Satibarzanes, Philotas, Cleitus, etc, in that we see from Alexander an almost disproportionate response. His retribution on those he feels have betrayed him or let him down is as extreme as his loving generosity to those who are loyal and faithful. It's this capacity for extremes of behaviour, often in two opposite directions, that sums up the appeal of Alexander to me.
Arguing backwards, then, I see that whenever Alexander is harsh, he feels he has been betrayed. Therefore, as he treated Thebes harshly, he must have felt that Thebes had betrayed him in some way. We just don't know why he felt that way, but it's possible that his reasons were not in the recent past, but went back to Chaeronea.
I can see why you would call it pragmatic, and it may very well have been. It certainly had a great political effect. But to me, it's very extremeness puts it on a level, at the polar opposite, to, say, the giving of all that he carried to the soldier overloaded with booty, and is the action of one who lets his heart rule his head, yet still comes out on top every time.

Sorry I haven't responded to all your points - running out of time, here - but I note what you say about the army, and Carol Thomas' book is one on my list, that I will get to soon.
Many thanks for your kind response,
Fiona

Pheobus wrote:

Bosworth wrote: Few commanders have been more expert than Alexander in creating the conditions for mass slaughter, and his troops developed a terrible efficiency in killing.

I reiterate: would his predecessors been that much less capable of large casualties had they been possessed of armies of similar size and with the same spectrum of effects to call on?

Hi Pheobus,

This is my wording of what I think you're saying, which I agree with by the way. Correct me if that is not the case. Alexander had a bigger and more destructive army compared to the Greek cities. The inheritance of this full-time army - Phillp's army and Phillip's plans - is what made Alexander's Greek and Persian conquests and large-scale slaughters possible. In that case, isn't Bosworth saying the same thing as you? You're both emphasizing Alexander's ie. his army's high degree of competence when it comes to organized violence.

Take care

Hi Fiona and Amyntoros,

Great posts! I don't know which of the points to respond to!

Fiona wrote:I agree, not an example of lofty ideas at all. I wonder very much if we are not missing some vital piece of evidence here. The destruction of Thebes seems to match the treatment of Tyre, Satibarzanes, Philotas, Cleitus, etc, in that we see from Alexander an almost disproportionate response. His retribution on those he feels have betrayed him or let him down is as extreme as his loving generosity to those who are loyal and faithful. It's this capacity for extremes of behaviour, often in two opposite directions, that sums up the appeal of Alexander to me.
Arguing backwards, then, I see that whenever Alexander is harsh, he feels he has been betrayed.Therefore, as he treated Thebes harshly, he must have felt that Thebes had betrayed him in some way. We just don't know why he felt that way, but it's possible that his reasons were not in the recent past, but went back to Chaeronea.

Thebes - I guess at a stretch you can argue that after Phillip's death Thebes had gone back on it's promise to Phillip to stay under Macedonian Hegemony. Leading Alexander the successor to "feel betrayed". But I emphasize that Thebes didn't hadn't put itself Macedonian hegemony voluntarily. Thebes and Athens had fought against Phillip and Alexander at Chearonea to preserve their independence. So, it could not have come to Alexander as a surprise that they rebelled after false reports of Alexander's death. The 6,000 Theban dead and 30,000 sold into slavery was a strong incentive for the other Greek cities to endure Macedonian dominance. So, I see a brilliant young King and commander of Army protecting Macedonian hegemony in Greece, not a hurt and betrayed young man lashing out.

Tyre - Tyre was never under Macedonian yoke, so it's very difficult to paint Tyre's refusal to submit to Alexander as a betrayal. To be more accurate, Tyre had offered to surrender but had refused to let Alexander sacrifice in the temple, where traditionally only native kings had sacrified. The Persian Great Kings had never asked for this honour. So, call Tyre a warning to the rest of West Asia, call it Alexander's ego, but I cannot find any signs of betrayal.

I'll let Curtius paint a picture of the fall of Tyre.

Curtius wrote:Alexander ordered all but those who had fled to the temples to be put to death and the buildings to be set on fire. Although these orders were made public by heralds, no Tyrian under arms deigned to seek protection from the gods. Young boys and girls had filled the temples, but the men all stood in the vestibules of their own homes ready to face the fury of their enemy.

Many, however, found safety with the Sidonians among the Macedonian troops. Although these had entered the city with the conquerors, they remained aware that they were related to the Tyrians [...] and so they secretly gave many of them protection and took them to their boats, on which they were hidden and transported to Sidon. Fifteen thousand were rescued from a violent death by such subterfuge.

The extent of the bloodshed can be judged from the fact that 6,000 fighting-men were slaughtered within the city's fortifications. It was a sad spectacle that the furious king then provided for the victors: 2,000 Tyrians, who had survived the rage of the tiring Macedonians, now hung nailed to crosses all along the huge expanse of the beach.

Gaza - Like Tyre, refused to surrender. After his victory, Alexander oredered the entire male population to be killed. Curtius claims that Alexander ordered the Persian governor of Gaza, Batis, to be nailed to a chariot and dragged to his death. Curtius' reasoning, that "foreign modes of thinking" had influenced Alexander, indicates to me that even the Greeks and Romans couldn't justify this Achilles-Hector role-play moment. I don't know if Alexander's treatment of Batis was intended to encourage other satraps to surrender more readily. Or at anger Batis had held up Alexander's time and resources and given Darius III a chance to gather his troops. Or if it was is because Batis wasn't sufficiently submissive when he was brought to Alexander, as Curtius implies. So the spectrum of motivations span from calculated act of terror, loss of reason or petty act of cruelty. Not betrayal or let downs.

Philotas and Sartabazanes - I'm not sure these deaths can be compared to those in Thebes, Tyre or Gaza. Unlike the Thebans, Tyrians or Gazans these men were part of Alexander's entourage, hence iin a postion to betray Alexander or let him down. Treachery or maladministration are plausible reasons for the execution of the two you mention. If this was the case, like any competent emperor, Alexander would've been compelled to take action. Of course, we'll never know if some of the generals or nobles were executed for simply getting too powerful or popular for their own good.

Cleitus- Wasn't Alexander's murder of Cleitus basically the result of a drunken brawl? Alexander himself was reportedly highly regretful and ashamed of this action, starting almost immediately. That alone makes it hard to tie this one to betrayal or let down.

To sum up, IMHO, Alexander had to be "harsh" if he wanted to conquer people. One can't expect people to submit to him without a fight or at least the threat of being killed or ensalved. Does this leave any need to search for missing evidence to tie these actions to hurt feelings?

Take care

Paralus wrote:You have, then, modified your view equating the slaughter at the Granicus with the death toll at Leuktra?

Not at all. I reiterate my previous question: how many mercenary hoplites do you believe there were at Granicus?

Again, Alexander and Phillip were able to produce them on a shorter timeline because of their ability to campaign year-round and also because of the greater lethality of their armies. By contrast, their predecessors could claim neither of the above. In essence, we're accusing those two kings of Macedon of having good logistics and a lot of horses.

Precisely the point I made. You have a propensity to agree whilst arguing the point. Why is that?

We're not arguing the same point. You claim that it was a matter of attitude--I point at the fact that it was a matter of capability. The Hellenes prior to Phillip did not have the means to campaign on the scale that the king of Macedon did; nor did they have the same tactical tools at their disposals. But on those rare occassions that they did have the chance to put the hurt on their foes, they took it.

The fact is, the slaughter was unusual. It is, on the face of it, revenge bloodlust.

And poor Melos? Was that revenge bloodlust as well?

Hence the quote which closes book seven. Thucydides, evidently, can't recall a state losing an entire armament: this is unusual.

Yes. For states that don't possess a large corps of cavalry.

The “Hellenic state” too is a misnomer.

Come on Paralus. Whatever the composition of the force, was it a Hellenic state that raised it?

The slaughter at the Assinarus has been overplayed and, whilst large, will not have been as large as stated.

Please, elaborate.

The other point worth the making is that Gylippus and the Syracusan command did not engineer this battlefield result as such. It was the result of what become a headlong retreat and the total disregard of military form when thirst took precedence.

They chased the Athenian force nonetheless, harried and dogged them, and when they fell on the river they attacked them. Thirst affected the invaders, not the defenders.

What we don't have is a rounding up and a slaughter of what must have been some 34,000 men.

Not for lack of want, that's for sure. For lack of opportunity.

Bosworth’s words are correct and germane. Whether or not any other commander with the resources will have done similar is hypothetical and largely irrelevant. Alexander had and did.

Forgive me if a I disagree. Bosworth could have just as easily stated that few commanders prior to Alexander possessed a crack corps of cavalry that, all other capabilities aside, enabled him to chase down and kill fleeing foes.

More later--must run to work.

Cheers,
P.

Phoebus wrote:I reiterate my previous question: how many mercenary hoplites do you believe there were at Granicus?

Certainly many thousands more than the 1,000 odd dead at Leuktra.

It really comes down to guesswork: Arrian says that the 20,000 infantry, offered no quarter by the king, was slaughtered; Diodorus from memory, claims ten thousand dead and I can’t recall Curtius.

It is likely that those who sought quarter were the Greeks – as Arrian says . Arrian also gives no infantry figures outside of the Greeks. Persian infantry – or Asian – don’t rate it seems.

Adding one and one, dividing by six and subtracting the square root of 167, one might deduce that any Asian infantry departed along with the routed cavalry and the Greeks “stood their ground” – somewhat dumbfounded one might think.

The result of said equation – in my view – being that the Greek hoplites were likely some 12,000 or more of Arrian’s “20,000” and thus, adding in Diodorus’ take, these might well have been the vast bulk of the 10,000 killed, if not all.

Phoebus wrote:We're not arguing the same point. You claim that it was a matter of attitude--I point at the fact that it was a matter of capability.

Why don’t we just agree that it will have required both. Matters not the capability if you don’t have the attitude to use it.

I might add that there was no “great slaughter” at Chaeronea (such as it is attested). The Athenians lost some thousand dead and two thousand taken prisoner (or was that the other way around –I’m at the office and can’t check. The “slaughter”, such as it occurred, was at the Theban end where the “Sacred Band” was surrounded and spitted to death by the phalanx. Oddly enough, this was the end commanded by Alexander. We have, from memory, no reliable Boeotian casualty figure, just “many”.

Philip appears not to have surrounded and slaughtered the Athenian wing. Perhaps he possessed no cavalry?

Phoebus wrote:

The “Hellenic state” too is a misnomer.

Come on Paralus. Whatever the composition of the force, was it a Hellenic state that raised it?

“A” Hellenic state which commanded it. It was raised from manyHellenic states.

Phoebus wrote:Forgive me if a I disagree. Bosworth could have just as easily stated that few commanders prior to Alexander possessed a crack corps of cavalry that, all other capabilities aside, enabled him to chase down and kill fleeing foes.

Consider yourself forgiven.

There was no “chase down” of fleeing foes at the Granicus; nor at the Hydaspes. The infantry, on both occasions, was hemmed in by cavalry and slaughtered by the Macedonian infantry.

Cavalry, if I recall, had precious little to do with the 25-40,000 (depending on source) Persians who were slaughtered at the Persian gates.

Hi Semiramis!
I feel I ought to be careful here, and say right out that I am not trying to do a whitewash here - not trying to excuse the inexcusable, or explain it away. And I agree with you very much when you say that Alexander had to be harsh. Very true - people don't lie down and let themselves be conquered! But in this argument I am making here, I would distinguish between ordinary harshness and disproportionate harshness.
Ordinary harshness I would call something like the wipe-out at the Persian Gates. They were trying to stop him getting through to Persepolis; he slaughtered them, end of story.

Disproportionate harshness I would call things like Thebes - though I'm aware, too, of being careful not to let modern sensibilities cloud the issue - but that did seem to stun the whole of Greece at the time, so we can be pretty sure that it struck people of the time as strongly as it strikes us.
I see a pattern of him acting like this when he's been wronged in some way - insulted, let down, betrayed, etc. I do see him as having a vengeful streak. His disproportionate harshness often looks like revenge.

Semiramis wrote:

Thebes - I guess at a stretch you can argue that after Phillip's death Thebes had gone back on it's promise to Phillip to stay under Macedonian Hegemony. Leading Alexander the successor to "feel betrayed". But I emphasize that Thebes didn't hadn't put itself Macedonian hegemony voluntarily. Thebes and Athens had fought against Phillip and Alexander at Chearonea to preserve their independence. So, it could not have come to Alexander as a surprise that they rebelled after false reports of Alexander's death. The 6,000 Theban dead and 30,000 sold into slavery was a strong incentive for the other Greek cities to endure Macedonian dominance. So, I see a brilliant young King and commander of Army protecting Macedonian hegemony in Greece, not a hurt and betrayed young man lashing out.

No, it couldn't have come as a surprise; politically, it's what you'd expect. I am reading this sense of betrayal backwards into Thebes, because of the pattern, but I do think there are clues in Arrian. The first is Alexander's hesitation before he launched the assault. (Or before Perdiccas launched it for him!) In that hesitation, Arrian reads Alexander hoping 'to remain on terms with the Thebans and to avoid action against them'. That looks as if he's giving them a chance to do the sensible thing and surrender. He wants them to - but when they don't, he knows they've not learned a thing, so they're in for it. But why are they in for it? What is it they've done? I think the answer may possibly be found in my second clue, his demands to the Athenians that they surrender Demosthenes et al, 'all of whom he held responsible for the defeat at Chaeronea'. This is an extraordinary statement when you think about it. Alexander won at Chaeronea, why he is worried about what caused the defeat of his enemies? I don't think it's too fanciful to guess that what really bothered him, what caused all this, was the annihilation of the Sacred Band. Alexander was even younger and more impressionable when he had been obliged, courtesy of Demosthenes et al and the people of Thebes, to take part in that annihilation. I think he would have hated doing that, and his actions at this time can be attributed to revenge for the deaths of men whom he would probably have seen as far more worthy than those who had sent them to their deaths through political intransigence.

Semiramis wrote:
Tyre - Tyre was never under Macedonian yoke, so it's very difficult to paint Tyre's refusal to submit to Alexander as a betrayal. To be more accurate, Tyre had offered to surrender but had refused to let Alexander sacrifice in the temple, where traditionally only native kings had sacrified. The Persian Great Kings had never asked for this honour. So, call Tyre a warning to the rest of West Asia, call it Alexander's ego, but I cannot find any signs of betrayal.

Ah, in the case of Tyre as an example, I was thinking of the murder of the envoys. I think that it itself would have been enough to call down upon the Tyrians his "Right, you've had it" attitude.

Semiramis wrote:
Gaza - Like Tyre, refused to surrender. After his victory, Alexander oredered the entire male population to be killed. Curtius claims that Alexander ordered the Persian governor of Gaza, Batis, to be nailed to a chariot and dragged to his death. Curtius' reasoning, that "foreign modes of thinking" had influenced Alexander, indicates to me that even the Greeks and Romans couldn't justify this Achilles-Hector role-play moment. I don't know if Alexander's treatment of Batis was intended to encourage other satraps to surrender more readily. Or at anger Batis had held up Alexander's time and resources and given Darius III a chance to gather his troops. Or if it was is because Batis wasn't sufficiently submissive when he was brought to Alexander, as Curtius implies. So the spectrum of motivations span from calculated act of terror, loss of reason or petty act of cruelty. Not betrayal or let downs.

I agree, Batis is disproportionate harshness, and you've got a point there, no doubt about it. It doesn't fit the pattern, with no obvious reason for it. Curtius, as you say, points to Batis' haughty defiance. Pehaps he was insulting. Perhaps Alexander was just in a bad temper, after all his injuries. But those are just guesses, and you are right, we can't point to a specific betrayal or let-down there.

Semiramis wrote:
Philotas and Sartabazanes - I'm not sure these deaths can be compared to those in Thebes, Tyre or Gaza. Unlike the Thebans, Tyrians or Gazans these men were part of Alexander's entourage, hence iin a postion to betray Alexander or let him down. Treachery or maladministration are plausible reasons for the execution of the two you mention. If this was the case, like any competent emperor, Alexander would've been compelled to take action. Of course, we'll never know if some of the generals or nobles were executed for simply getting too powerful or popular for their own good.

True, we'll never know that! In the case of Philotas, though, I'm just going by the case as reported, and it's easy to seeing Alexander having a great sense of betrayal there.
Satibarzanes, possibly I've got the names mixed up, but the chap I'm thinking about wasn't in Alexander's entourage, but a satrap who'd agreed to accept a garrison and then rebelled as soon as Alexander's back was turned. I think it was Artabazus who killed him in battle, but Alexander certainly launched Artabazus against the traitor.

Semiramis wrote:
Cleitus- Wasn't Alexander's murder of Cleitus basically the result of a drunken brawl? Alexander himself was reportedly highly regretful and ashamed of this action, starting almost immediately. That alone makes it hard to tie this one to betrayal or let down.

I think it could be argued that the let-down comes in what they were quarrelling about, that led to the brawl in the first place. Cleitus must have been very insulting - though that shouldn't really have led to his death, as Alexander would have been the first to acknowledge.

I thought of another example today - the slaughter of the Indian mercenaries who were planning to desert in the night, and Alexander trapped them and butchered them.
It seems like those who went back on their word could expect the harshest treatment, and anyone who taunted him, like the men on the Sogdian rock who made the crack about soldiers with wings, was in for it.

Well, it's only a pattern, but I think it's suggestive. Not uncontrolled temper, usually, but a tendency to unleash the worst in certain circumstances, and indicative, IMHO, of emotion rather than pragmatism.

Fiona

This thread has started discussing the reasons behind Alexander's excesses, whether they're evidence of cruelty or revenge or betrayal etc. I'd say none of them. Alexander did what he had to do when the circumstances dictated. Assemble his atrocities in order, and you'll see some logic behind them. He'd massacre an entire city at the start of a campaign, then spare the rest, then slaughter another one a bit later. The same with enemy satraps. Some were butchered, most re-installed. And the key is that those who resisted were crushed, those who surrendered were generously rewarded. Alexander was simply sending a message.

For all that he was a warmonger, he worked hard at sparing his men needless combat, and cowing the enemy into submission was his method. He'd massacre a city not because he wanted to, but because it increased the chances that the next city would open its gates as soon as he approached. He was cold and amoral by our standards, but not cruel or vengeful or any other emotion. He had absolutely no compassion, but his atrocities were never gratuitous. Thebes has been mentioned. Well, it was destroyed to quash any thought of rebellion while the army was away in Persia. No other reason. Not because he enjoyed it or felt betrayed or whatever. Simply because it was the necessary thing to do.

And Philotas, Parmenion, Cleitus, etc. The first two died because Alexander perceived them to be a threat; Cleitus was no more than a drunken accident.

Derek

I agree with Derek, that Alexander's atrocities were generally calculated. Be kind to those who surrender, belligerent to those who fight and merciless to those who pretend to surrender and then fight was his standard operating procedure, he followed it consistently, and it was very effective.

I'd like to add something, though, about revenge or vengefulness. Having the Christian idea of forgiveness so deeply ingrained in our culture, we see vengefulness as a vice, an emotional excess. For many cultures, however, including ancient Makedonia, revenge was seen as a sacred duty, an obligation. If you allowed someone to kill a relative, for instance, without avenging it in some way -- at the very least, demanding recompense of some sort -- you were considered a lesser man -- a coward, or perhaps one who didn't really love your kin. The reason for the Makedonian law mandating the execution of all male family members of a convicted would-be assassin was that the ancient custom required those family members to avenge his execution -- and since that meant going after the king, it was a danger to national stability, so better that they all be wiped out.

Thus we can't actually know whether Alexander was angry when he took revenge. He might have been -- certainly with the envoys thrown off the walls of Tyre he must have been, as that was a violation of another sacred custom, so he hadn't thought he was sending them into any risk -- but it could just as well have been completely calculated, necessary for him to maintain his never-cross-me reputation.

I think it's instructive to inventory those actions for which Alexander showed regret and note that they brought him no strategic advantage. He was kind to Thebans for the rest of his life, but never expressed regret for razing the city -- because it brought him strategic advantage. He regretted burning Persepolis; note that it brought him no strategic advantage; as Parmenion noted, he was destroying his own property. (I'm in the camp that believes the Thais story, that it was a drunken impulse.) Finally, he bitterly regretted killing Kleitos, which really brought him strategic disadvantage, in the loss of an excellent officer and the damaging of his own reputation. (In his own eyes his reputation would have been damaged in the eyes of the Gods, which meant they'd favour him less in the future -- which to his mind would have been a severe strategic disadvantage.)

All those moves which he did not regret, and which brought him strategic advantage, were more likely calculated rather than committed in anger, in my opinion.

Calculation is behind much of these "atrocities". Not all though.

What transpired after the fall of Tyre was vengeful, unbridled massacre. Months of pent up anger and fury exercised itself on the city. Ditto much of what is described in the Indian campaign where the "sick" - for which we might also read "wounded" - are summarily dispatched along with populations of towns and citites of the valley.

Well, Paralus, it's interesting that you write of "months of pent-up anger and fury" unleashing itself on Tyre... when I actually edited out of my last message a mention that Alexander's army, not just Alexander, had some responsibility for these things... for fear that you might accuse me of excusing him!

But in Tyre of course it was his soldiers, not just him, who were angry after a conflict vastly longer than any other than they ever undertook, full of boring scutwork, months of sniping (both literal and figurative) from boats, winds and sabotage that undid their work, and having burning pitch, red-hot sand, etc., dumped on them. Now you could say it's his responsibility, as he could have held them back -- which actually he did, enough to spare those inside the temples, plus the women and children, from death. But at the same time, he couldn't have forced them to do it if they didn't want to -- in any of the incidents -- and we see numerous examples throughout the campaign of him taking their wishes into account.

As for the Indian campaign, I think there is but one massacre we can certainly attribute to anger -- the city of the Mallians after Alexander was wounded in the chest. As he didn't have the breath to order it, the army must have done it on their own initiative -- in vengeance, or so they thought, for his death.

From which ancient source is the reference to a massacre of "sick" or wounded -- or anyone other than the adult males in any town, in India? I just went through Curtius and didn't find it. It's not Justin either; I just went through him too. Diodoros? I'm also wondering what we were talking about on that other thread saying that Alexander killed captives rather than selling them into slavery because there was no slavery in India, when Curtius repeatedly mentions selling people into slavery in India. I am confused...

karen wrote:From which ancient source is the reference to a massacre of "sick" or wounded -- or anyone other than the adult males in any town, in India? I just went through Curtius and didn't find it. It's not Justin either; I just went through him too. Diodoros?

Arrian, Anabasis 5.24:

…the Macedonians took the city (Sangala) by storm, digging under the wall, which was made of brick, and placing scaling ladders against it all round. In the capture a 7,000 of the Indians were killed, and above 70,000 were captured, besides 300 chariots and ~co cavalry…After burying the dead according to his cus tom, Alexander sent Eurnenes, the secretary,’ with 300 cavalry to the two cities which had joined Sangala in revolt, to tell those who held them about the capture of Sangala, and to inform them that they would receive no harsh treatment from Alexander if they stayed there and received him as a friend; for no harm had happened to any of the other independent Indians who had surrendered to him of their own accord. But they had become frightened, and had abandoned the cities and were fleeing; for the news had already reached them that Alexander had taken Sangala by storm. When Alexander was informed of their flight he pursued them with speed; but most of them were too quick for him, and effected their escape, because the pursuit began from a distant starting-place. But all those who were left behind in the retreat from weakness, were seized by the army and killed, to the number of about 5oo. Then, giving up the design of pursuing the fugitives any further, he returned to Sangala, and razed the city to the ground.

The numbers are difficult to nail down. 70,000 captured? There seems a fascination with 7,000 as well. From memory that was he number of Indian mercenaries slaughtered earlier.

The scene is the same though: town resists; town succumbs; mass killing ensues. The explicit reference to the seizing and "killing" of non-combatant "weak" ( translated as "sick" in my copy at home) is indicative, to my mind, of the how the nature of the "campaign" had degenerated.

karen wrote:Well, Paralus, it's interesting that you write of "months of pent-up anger and fury" unleashing itself on Tyre... when I actually edited out of my last message a mention that Alexander's army, not just Alexander, had some responsibility for these things... for fear that you might accuse me of excusing him!

I really don't understand how these perceptions of me arise!!?? Moi? J'accuse?

There is another, the mantle has been passed.....

derek wrote:This thread has started discussing the reasons behind Alexander's excesses, whether they're evidence of cruelty or revenge or betrayal etc. I'd say none of them. Alexander did what he had to do when the circumstances dictated. Assemble his atrocities in order, and you'll see some logic behind them. He'd massacre an entire city at the start of a campaign, then spare the rest, then slaughter another one a bit later. The same with enemy satraps. Some were butchered, most re-installed. And the key is that those who resisted were crushed, those who surrendered were generously rewarded. Alexander was simply sending a message.

That's possible, of course. We can't know what was going on in his mind. It's hard enough to piece together what he did, let alone why he did it. Yet there are things which don't fit the pattern you suggest. For example, Porus resisted, but was not crushed. It was not those who resisted who were crushed so much as those who *said* they'd surrender and then went back on their word.

derek wrote: For all that he was a warmonger, he worked hard at sparing his men needless combat, and cowing the enemy into submission was his method. He'd massacre a city not because he wanted to, but because it increased the chances that the next city would open its gates as soon as he approached. He was cold and amoral by our standards, but not cruel or vengeful or any other emotion. He had absolutely no compassion, but his atrocities were never gratuitous. Thebes has been mentioned. Well, it was destroyed to quash any thought of rebellion while the army was away in Persia. No other reason. Not because he enjoyed it or felt betrayed or whatever. Simply because it was the necessary thing to do.

Amoral by our standards? That would imply that anyone who wages aggressive war is, ipso facto, amoral. I wouldn't go as far as that. I can't think of any other behaviour of his that would be called amoral by anyone's standards. He honoured his gods, and other people's too, he was generous to a fault, he would not touch other people's sexual partners. He planned benefits for the lands he conquered, namely cities, he cared about his men, he forbade rape - these are not the behaviours of an amoral person, are they?
And cold? Alexander? Are we talking about the same person here? The only time Alexander was cold was in the Hindu Kush.

Fiona

karen wrote:
I'd like to add something, though, about revenge or vengefulness. Having the Christian idea of forgiveness so deeply ingrained in our culture, we see vengefulness as a vice, an emotional excess. For many cultures, however, including ancient Makedonia, revenge was seen as a sacred duty, an obligation.

A good point, it's always worth thinking whether we even mean the same things by any given word, that would have been understood by that word in Alexander's time. Are 'revenge' and vengefulness' even synonymous now? I would suggest that they are not - not quite. Revenge can be undertaken in a cool, rational way, whereas vengefulness is an emotion, a feeling, which may or may not find expression in one's actions. These are the shades of meaning I would take from those words, but I know from past experience that shades of meaning can differ from one English-speaking country to the next, so others may feel differently.
I think the massacre of the Branchidae might be a good example of the obligation kind of revenge. There was no strategic advantage (at least not that I can see) and the whole thing seems to have been undertaken in a very matter-of-fact way.

karen wrote: Thus we can't actually know whether Alexander was angry when he took revenge. He might have been -- certainly with the envoys thrown off the walls of Tyre he must have been, as that was a violation of another sacred custom, so he hadn't thought he was sending them into any risk -- but it could just as well have been completely calculated, necessary for him to maintain his never-cross-me reputation.

I think it's instructive to inventory those actions for which Alexander showed regret and note that they brought him no strategic advantage. He was kind to Thebans for the rest of his life, but never expressed regret for razing the city -- because it brought him strategic advantage. He regretted burning Persepolis; note that it brought him no strategic advantage; as Parmenion noted, he was destroying his own property. (I'm in the camp that believes the Thais story, that it was a drunken impulse.) Finally, he bitterly regretted killing Kleitos, which really brought him strategic disadvantage, in the loss of an excellent officer and the damaging of his own reputation. (In his own eyes his reputation would have been damaged in the eyes of the Gods, which meant they'd favour him less in the future -- which to his mind would have been a severe strategic disadvantage.)

All those moves which he did not regret, and which brought him strategic advantage, were more likely calculated rather than committed in anger, in my opinion.

I like the distinctions you make between strategic advantages and disadvantages. There does seem to be a pattern there. I don't think, though, that an impulse to vengefulness and calculation of strategic advantages are necessarily mutually exclusive. Possibly the perceived advantages were the deciding factor, when he was weighing things up and deciding what to do?
I do agree about a drunken impulse at Persepolis. I'd just like to add, for the sake of balance, an example of a more generous impulse, when he reprieved the Scythians going so bravely to their deaths. He couldn't have known they'd turn out so well and be so loyal, so there can't have been any calculation involved there either.

Fiona

Fiona wrote:Amoral by our standards? That would imply that anyone who wages aggressive war is, ipso facto, amoral. I wouldn't go as far as that.

Why not?

Am having a very busy couple of days so I have not been able to keep up with this thread. For the moment I just wanted to address a couple of points.

Fiona wrote:He planned benefits for the lands he conquered, namely cities, he cared about his men, he forbade rape - these are not the behaviours of an amoral person, are they?

Hmm, I would say that the cities weren't for the benefit of the lands Alexander conquered, but for the benefit of Alexander! They were either built in strategic defense positions and garrisoned with Macedonians, or, in the case of Alexandria in particular, built again in a strategic position but for the purpose of enhancing trade routes.

As for Alexander forbidding rape … I see this semi-frequently on the forum and I'm not sure where it comes from except I recall mention of Persepolis and Thebes. The events at Thebes I think are often misinterpreted.

Moralia 260D At this the most sympathetic of those present began to weep, but it did not occur to Alexander to pity the woman, for he felt that she was too great for that, but he marveled at her bravery and her words, which touched him greatly, and he issued orders to his officers that they should take good care and be on the watch that no such insult should again be offered to a noted house. Timocleia he allowed to go free, both herself and all others who were found to be related to her.

Here, Plutarch is very specific. Alexander did not forbid rape of women in general, only those who might be of a noted house.

Curtius' words on Persepolis are not about rape, but about violence in general.

Curtius 5.6.5-8 They ripped apart royal robes as each man grabbed a piece for himself, and they hacked to pieces with axes vases that were precious works of art. Nothing was left intact, nothing removed in one piece. Statues were dismembered and individuals dragged away the limbs they had broken off. [6] But cruelty as well as avarice ran amok in the captured city: soldiers laden with gold and silver butchered their captives, now of no worth, and cut down people they came across at random anywhere, people who could previously have won mercy by promising to ransom themselves. [7] Many accordingly anticipated the enemy’s violence by suicide, putting on their most expensive clothes and hurling themselves down from the walls with their wives and children. Some had set fire to their homes – something which it seemed the enemy would soon do anyway – to burn themselves alive along with their families. [8] Eventually, Alexander issued orders for his men to keep their hands off the women and their dress.

I’ve argued this before to some degree – IMO it would have been undesirable on Alexander's part to forbid the Macedonian army to rape. He needed his army to be happy and his army desired women. And captive women, even if they end up as “partners,” are initially subjected to rape. It's not important to this discussion how the relationships may have developed further over the years of the campaign; in the beginning it was rape and I am unable to see it as anything else. This was the nature of warfare at the time. That Alexander didn't do so himself, I acknowledge. But he didn't need to.

If I've missed some other reference, please let me know.

Best regards,