pothos.org

Companions would any members feel Alexander had any weekness?I think menatly he was strong, Physically strong.The army components, regiments and formations were as accurate as any commander would wish.He was tactically perfect apart from maybe the Persian gates,, He read a battle field and tactics as well as any man in history.I feel Alexander weaknes was his caution diplomatically not to spoil politics.I have always maintained it was a fundamental error tactically to spare Athens the same more deservid fate of Thebes.For fear or political unrest in Greeces he spared Athens and took there soldiers as hostage to guarantee good behaviour.I do feel for all of Alexanders and even Philips reign Athens was the preverbial pain in the but.I am aware itv was a political manouver to spare Athens, and to be honest with hegmany and Macedonia been as strong as it was and was to become it would have served Alexander much better to teach the Greeks a real lesson they wouldn't forget.Raise Athens to the ground spare the temples,, Move the capital on the Hellenes to the Palace at Pella and start from there.Ghengis Khan even though much more brutal didnt leave anything behind that could tiurn and bite his ass.Maybe extreme comrades but If Alexander had a weekness or made a mistake, It was to spare Athens.
RegardsKenny

Alexander would never have destroyed Athens nor Philip. That would have been unforgivable. It would have been like destroying their own culture. Thebes was not spared because they did not have the same feelings toward Thebes and one must remember they held Phlip as a hostage so no love lost there. Marcus, isn't there a bit in one of the sources or an inscription that thanks Amyntoros for interceding on behalf of the Athenians to Alexander or some such?As for weaknesses he had plenty. Anger being the primary one which led to so much regret. And the rest of the weaknesses humans are prey too.

Hi Tre,I agree. I can see what Kenny's saying, but ultimately it would have been cultural and diplomatic suicide to destroy Athens, and probably a massive military blunder, too - not only would he have lost any chance of gaining so many Greek troops for the invasion, but the rest of Greece might well have ganged up against him ... under the leadership of Sparta?There is an inscription dedicated to Amyntoros. If I recall correctly it's usually cited as a further piece of possible evidence of Hephaistion's use as a diplomatic/political officer, because his family was so honoured in Athens (isn't there also a mention somewhere - in a 'minor' source author - of letters between Heph and Demosthenes? That might be a dream on my part, though). One thing I've never been able to pin down is where the inscription was found and exactly what it said - I've probably just missed it in whatever books it's mentioned in :-)All the bestMarcus

Tre and MarcusRespect for what you say and the points you raise are valid and can understand.I still feel the destruction of Athens would have serves Alexander more eficiently to future Greek uprisings than the leveling of Thebes.I feel myself it a weekness that Alexander didnt do it but thats only my opinion and not to deride others,, Maybe what I say brutal.I have always believed that the Greek states back home were alwaysa thorne in Alexanders rear,, As for Alexander needing Greek help and soldiers thats debatable. The only time they were used were in defensive positions Im sure the Macedonians could do the job just as well even better than keeping an eye on Greece.For Alexander to flatten Athens would have served as severe warning,,, And with the way the states didnt get on anyway I doubt Sparta or anyone else would care.The Greek city states only cared about themselves and there own way of life.To flatten Athens would show any future rebels just how costly such action would be.regards
Kenny

MarcusDemosthenes applied to Hephaestion to influence Alexander in Egypt - I think it is more as a sign of his closeness to Alexander, as Demosthenes also applied to Olympias. I can't remeber in which source this is, but it isn't a minor one - sorry :)It is reported in one of the sources (no doubt Susan or Linda Ann will transcribe it for the sources site) that Aristotle wrote a letters to Hepahestion.
That may be the "minor" source you mention.
Linda

Oh, thanks - you're probably right, that it was the Aristotle connection I was thinking of when I said "minor source".All the bestMarcus

Hi Kenny,If only we knew for sure! :-)The position of Sparta is difficult to ascertain - whether or not they would have 'led' an uprising, or whether the other states would have retreated into their shells and decided not to antagonise Alexander further.Remember, of course, that in 331 some of the Greeks *did* rise up, with Sparta at their head. (People always refer to it as the "Agis Rebellion" - which Athens refused to join; but as Sparta never submitted to Alexander, I think it's the wrong word to use.) So it is conceivable that, had Al flattened Athens, the other states would have risen, and with Athens and Thebes out of the way, Sparta would have been the obvious leader. This isn't definite, though, and it is equally conceivable that your situation would have occurred - although once the Persian money flowed into Agis' pockets the 'rebellion' would still have taken place.I think Alexander feared that Athens would continue to be a thorn in his side, so it was really a case of the lesser of two evils. But, if you think about it, after the destruction of Thebes Athens actually was quiescent for the rest of Al's reign, and only rose up again after his death, in the Lamian War. Even shortly before the end they were aghast when Harpalus turned up, because they feared Al would accuse them of subversive actions. In fact, therefore, Athens ceased to be any sort of (real) problem to Alexander after 335BC. (That's not to say they *liked* the situation, of course, but they didn't *do* anything.)All the bestMarcus

linda Marcus HailI agree with points said, maybe Im a little extreme with my views to Athens but I think there in lies the real tragedy of Ancient Greece and somewhat Alexander.Its one of the massive what ifs in Alexanders life, I strongly believe had the Greeks matured ion a way they could live as Greeks one nation with one way either under Alexander Philip or even some other state.I see no reason why they shouldn't have created and prospered as a long lasting even mightier empire and to be fair such an empire under Alexander I believe would be more toleratable and moderate than the Roman empire to follow.regardsKenny

I'm having a heck of a time accessing the forum and logging on, but hopefully this will work.The wording of the inscription is in Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman's Hephaistion Amyntoros: Eminence Grise at the Court of Alexander the Great. (First place to look for anything on Hephaistion!) Jeanne says the inscription was found on a piece of Pentelic marble found on the Acropolis, only the right side preserved. It says: "In the archonship Ktesikles, in the ninth prytany of (the tribe of) Akamantis, during which Mnesiphilos, son of Mneson, of the Phaleros deme, served as secretary at the meeting of the Assembly on the 26(?) of Mounichion, Demokratos (or Demokrates) of the Paianian deme, of the proedroi, put the vote, as decreed by the people. Demades, son of Demeus, of the Paianian deme, spoke in praise of Amyntor: Because Amyntor, son of Demetrios, has shown good will towards the Athenian people, let he and his descendants be Athenians, and be enrolled in the tribe, deme and phratry of his choice, according to what the laws say which the secretary......":-)Linda Ann

Besides the weaknesses already mentioned (though I would modify 'anger' to loss of control of his temper), I would add that he tended to trust too deeply. I think it was unnecesarry to do away with Athens for reasons you've already mentioned. Europe was already too weak to offer any significant resistance to the Macedonians. Besides, he didn't need to attack, they already relented. If they tried to stand up and fight, they could have held Alexander's Persian campaign up for an inderterminate period of time. It was then and is now always better to solve problems by treaty if you can manage it. I think Alexander and Philip before him, truly admired Athens and what it stood for. If ATG laid siege to Athens he would have lost valuable time. Persian and Peloponesian resistance would have grown stiffer and his whole enterprise may have been thwarted from the get go. later Nicator

Trusting too deeply is a strength, I think, at least as far as his memory is concerned. It is one of the things that makes his personality attractive.Lind Ann, since you mentioned Jeannne's thesis, I have a copy, but I coudln't find a reference in it to the Arrian text which says that Alexander razed a temple when this eromenos died. She mentions that Arrian says this, but in what text? Did Arrian write a lot of other works apart from Anabasis and Indica? Linda

That trusting deeply is a strength is a fair assessment. However, trust can be a weapon in the wrong hands, and it almost got him killed on a couple of different occasions. A king cannot trust without limit...it's a suicide note if ever there was one. later Nicator