Confusion

[bob]

All:
As a new student of Alexander I am confused on a number of things. Green points out very clearly that most of Hellas hated the Macedonians, Alexander, and Philip. Green states that more Greeks fought with Darius against Alexander than fought with the League (that Philip started) which makes no sense; Greeks fighting agaisnt Greeks?? Wasn't Philip the founder of the Greek league? Oliver stone's movie has this line "Isn't it the Greek dream to conquer the East?" (young Alexander asking Aristotle). What then are the Greeks doing fighting with the eastern King Darius, and why is Darius not a tyrant but Alexander is??? (Especially if Darius is sending bribe money to start greek civil war?) I read in one book that Philip and Alexander unified Greece, but I kept reading in Green that the greeks hated the League, and they wanted to revolt constantly against alexander. (Of course they did revolt agaisnt Macedonia after Philip's assassination.) Green seems to think Alexander "used" the league as an excuse to "liberate asia as revenge" until he could no longer hide his ambition as conqueror after Darius fled battle at Arbela. Never the less, it Doesn't seem like Greece was united to me, or even a nation as we would call it today. I have even read the Iliad (in Greek, the Loeb classical version) trying to figure this out. But Homer's Greece ends in Thessaly (furthest north section of Greece mentioned-as Achilles home no less), and Homer (if homer is indeed the Iliad's author) refers to Agamemnons crowd (army) with the title "Danaans" and not "Hellenes"). Half the time, I wonder if even ancient Greece was a nation in the modern sense of the term or just a group of "city states". (Really, not to get on a tangent, but people claiming alexander was a murderor, a homosexual, or a hitler on-line, is looking at an ancient in too modern a sense, so maybe I should not look at greece as a nation in the modern sense??).
Nonetheless, Green and the Movie "Alexander" seem to be in a state of total contradiction. (So is Lane Fox's book with Greens, and I have only read the first 122 pages Fox's book). Alexander destroyed thebes as an example to the Greeks, and for the only fact that Sparta was "weak" Alexander did not conquer Sparta. (Personally, I do not understand why Alexander did not want to rule all of Greece??? Very odd, he wanted to rule a continent he wasn't born in but did not want to rule all of his own country?) Studying websites online, I see that the G

[bob]

the Greeks were basically city states (polis) and the Macedonians were not a republic, or a polis, but a monarchy and considered barbarian due to the fact they were not city states with a "tyrant" (king). One site claims that for a long time the Macedonians could not be in the Olympics, but later were admitted. (Maybe out of military strength?) Thus, I am confused, why is Memnon (Greek mercenary) fighting against alexander? Why all the greek hatred of Alexander if he was leading the league of greeks? I think I understand the difference between an Epirote, and a Macedonian, and an Agrarian, (and a Theban, Athenian, Spartan, etc.) but often, I am confused as to Alexanders background. Green goes into great detail on Philip, (1/5th of the book is about Philip or Alexander growing up Philip's child) but I have no idea where he (philip)came from (outside of what little info Green offers). How did Macedonia and Epirus become "kingdoms" and not "city states". Why did the Greeks not seem to have a disdain for Epirus, but disdain for Macedonia? (were they jealous of Power behind Philip and Alexander.)? (Personally, it seems more likely to me that Plutarch's testimony of Philip and Olympias meeting is myth. Wasn't that a political marriage, a "hostage wife" marriage so to speak to keep Epirus a vassal KINGDOM? Did the Epirote people play in the Olympics? Or were they barbarians too? I feel like books assume we know a lot of the cultural and political climate of the 3rd century BCE when I certainly don't. I feel like I need to know this environment and this world's culture to better understand Alexander and all that Green is talking about. Any help would be great. I am not sure how else to state my confusion, and I am sure this post was too long. Thanks to everyones' replies on Philotas' execution.
Bob

[bob]

the Greeks were basically city states (polis) and the Macedonians were not a republic, or a polis, but a monarchy and considered barbarian due to the fact they were not city states with a "tyrant" (king). One site claims that for a long time the Macedonians could not be in the Olympics, but later were admitted. (Maybe out of military strength?) Thus, I am confused, why is Memnon (Greek mercenary) fighting against alexander? Why all the greek hatred of Alexander if he was leading the league of greeks? I think I understand the difference between an Epirote, and a Macedonian, and an Agrarian, (and a Theban, Athenian, Spartan, etc.) but often, I am confused as to Alexanders background. Green goes into great detail on Philip, (1/5th of the book is about Philip or Alexander growing up Philip's child) but I have no idea where he (philip)came from (outside of what little info Green offers). How did Macedonia and Epirus become "kingdoms" and not "city states". Why did the Greeks not seem to have a disdain for Epirus, but disdain for Macedonia? (were they jealous of Power behind Philip and Alexander.)? (Personally, it seems more likely to me that Plutarch's testimony of Philip and Olympias meeting is myth. Wasn't that a political marriage, a "hostage wife" marriage so to speak to keep Epirus a vassal KINGDOM? Did the Epirote people play in the Olympics? Or were they barbarians too? I feel like books assume we know a lot of the cultural and political climate of the 3rd century BCE when I certainly don't. I feel like I need to know this environment and this world's culture to better understand Alexander and all that Green is talking about. Any help would be great. I am not sure how else to state my confusion, and I am sure this post was too long. Thanks to everyones' replies on Philotas' execution.
Bob

[jan]

Bob, There are many books to recommend to read in the study of a subject such as Alexander. I have been reading a book by Norman F. Cantor, and his assertions are frankly unappealing to me, as my first and original source of information about Alexander is by an author name of Arthur Weigall. I have read many different accounts of Alexander, but this is probably one of the most fair and honest authors who does not try to paint Alexander in a biased and jaundiced manner. In fact, he defends Alexander's defense of women which is more than most authors do. If you can find this book, be sure to read it, but it was published in 1933, and is considered an old text. Yet, it is one of the very best. I realize that modern day authors are deleting and inserting their own prejudices and biases when they rewrite history about Alexander. I, too, am a very recent discoverer of Alexander, and I am trying to discern between the good and the bad in terms of biographies about his life, his campaigns, and his legend.As there are so many universities with a variety of professors who are attempting to make their mark in publishing so many volumes of books about Alexander, it is good to read some of their publications to get a sense of their own particular bias. A University education would be a wondrous thing, but one must decide which professor or group of professors is the most balanced and fair in his approach to this study.I wish you good luck in your study.

[jan]

Bob, There are many books to recommend to read in the study of a subject such as Alexander. I have been reading a book by Norman F. Cantor, and his assertions are frankly unappealing to me, as my first and original source of information about Alexander is by an author name of Arthur Weigall. I have read many different accounts of Alexander, but this is probably one of the most fair and honest authors who does not try to paint Alexander in a biased and jaundiced manner. In fact, he defends Alexander's defense of women which is more than most authors do. If you can find this book, be sure to read it, but it was published in 1933, and is considered an old text. Yet, it is one of the very best. I realize that modern day authors are deleting and inserting their own prejudices and biases when they rewrite history about Alexander. I, too, am a very recent discoverer of Alexander, and I am trying to discern between the good and the bad in terms of biographies about his life, his campaigns, and his legend.As there are so many universities with a variety of professors who are attempting to make their mark in publishing so many volumes of books about Alexander, it is good to read some of their publications to get a sense of their own particular bias. A University education would be a wondrous thing, but one must decide which professor or group of professors is the most balanced and fair in his approach to this study.I wish you good luck in your study.

[marcus]

Hi Bob,Wow, a lot of questions, and at first glance all very worthwhile ones - as Jan says, you will find a great number of differing interpretations of almost anything connected with Alexander. There are some unarguable facts, though; but finding those that are unarguable is sometimes a long and laborious task.Time doesn't permit me even to attempt to enlighten you at this precise moment; but I shall gradually work through your posts. In the meantime, I'm sure others with be happy to throw in their ideas!With regard to Weigall, the author Jan mentions - I haven't read his book, so cannot comment on his views of Alexander; but Weigall was first and foremost an Egyptologist, not a Greek specialist - which doesn't mean that he's wrong ... but he isn't one of the canon of those usually recommended for someone studying Alexander. (Sorry, Jan - not trying to diss him, because I know you like his book ... but in the interests of good historiography I feel I have to insert this caveat.)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Bob,Wow, a lot of questions, and at first glance all very worthwhile ones - as Jan says, you will find a great number of differing interpretations of almost anything connected with Alexander. There are some unarguable facts, though; but finding those that are unarguable is sometimes a long and laborious task.Time doesn't permit me even to attempt to enlighten you at this precise moment; but I shall gradually work through your posts. In the meantime, I'm sure others with be happy to throw in their ideas!With regard to Weigall, the author Jan mentions - I haven't read his book, so cannot comment on his views of Alexander; but Weigall was first and foremost an Egyptologist, not a Greek specialist - which doesn't mean that he's wrong ... but he isn't one of the canon of those usually recommended for someone studying Alexander. (Sorry, Jan - not trying to diss him, because I know you like his book ... but in the interests of good historiography I feel I have to insert this caveat.)All the bestMarcus

[jan]

Hi Marcus, I will try to write a review for his book as I noticed that there still has not been one submitted. Yes, I like his book very much, and he is a great respected British Egyptologist. After all, Alexander is a Pharaoh of Egypt, and as both Alexandria and the Oasis of Siwah are very important to his life, it is only natural that an Egyptologist would take an interest in him.Who shall I submit a review of the book by Weigall to? Please help give advice there. Thanks a lot!

[jan]

Hi Marcus, I will try to write a review for his book as I noticed that there still has not been one submitted. Yes, I like his book very much, and he is a great respected British Egyptologist. After all, Alexander is a Pharaoh of Egypt, and as both Alexandria and the Oasis of Siwah are very important to his life, it is only natural that an Egyptologist would take an interest in him.Who shall I submit a review of the book by Weigall to? Please help give advice there. Thanks a lot!

[marcus]

Hi Jan,Best to submit it to Nick Welman - although I have some editing rights at Pothos, the book reviews section ain't one of them.Alternatively, if you want to send it to me, I can get it sorted with Nick.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Jan,Best to submit it to Nick Welman - although I have some editing rights at Pothos, the book reviews section ain't one of them.Alternatively, if you want to send it to me, I can get it sorted with Nick.ATBMarcus

[kennyxx]

Bob HiTo get an understanding of the Greek maintallity and ttere view. Its important to read the Historiesrior to Alexander and Philip.From time as far back as can be remembered the Grrek City States were always inward looking. They fought for centuries over. To be blunt prejudice and racist. Anything outside there own Greek Polis they woulf fight and sqauble over.The Greeks were basically elitist. And looked down on anything not. Macedonia is arguably Most Northernly and there habits and customs were very different to the southern Greeks.I would say the Greeks as a rule did hate The Macedonians and all they stood for. Its widely Accepted that Alexander took Greek Soldiers as a insurance of Greeces good behaviuour. We know it was always in question. How much money Did Demostheses and his oiks pocket.But the bottom line with the Greeks I think Hate and Jelousy are 2 sides to the same coin. Alexander didnt need to conquer Greece. He Crushed the most Powerful Thebes made an example of them And neutralised the Spartans who were well passed there sell by date. He knew Antipater with his troops could hold and maintain Greece.Besides Alexander had bigger fish to fry. The ironic thing about your question is that generally the northerners IE Thracian etc were far more loyal and trustworth than as Ptolemy says in the Stone movie. The devious Greeks.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Bob HiTo get an understanding of the Greek maintallity and ttere view. Its important to read the Historiesrior to Alexander and Philip.From time as far back as can be remembered the Grrek City States were always inward looking. They fought for centuries over. To be blunt prejudice and racist. Anything outside there own Greek Polis they woulf fight and sqauble over.The Greeks were basically elitist. And looked down on anything not. Macedonia is arguably Most Northernly and there habits and customs were very different to the southern Greeks.I would say the Greeks as a rule did hate The Macedonians and all they stood for. Its widely Accepted that Alexander took Greek Soldiers as a insurance of Greeces good behaviuour. We know it was always in question. How much money Did Demostheses and his oiks pocket.But the bottom line with the Greeks I think Hate and Jelousy are 2 sides to the same coin. Alexander didnt need to conquer Greece. He Crushed the most Powerful Thebes made an example of them And neutralised the Spartans who were well passed there sell by date. He knew Antipater with his troops could hold and maintain Greece.Besides Alexander had bigger fish to fry. The ironic thing about your question is that generally the northerners IE Thracian etc were far more loyal and trustworth than as Ptolemy says in the Stone movie. The devious Greeks.Kenny

[Efstathios]

The Macedonians had the same gods (the 12 gods),similar culture (theatre,poetry e.t.c) and similar language,but it was a northen heavy dialect.Especially for the language we have the incident of Demosthenes,when he went to Macedonia in a diplomatic mission (long before he started his flaming speeches against Philip) he didnt have any problem understanding the language there,and he admired th Macedonian culture and civilization.Later on in his speeches against Philip he called macedonians as barbarians but that was part of his efforts to convince the Athenians to go against Philip and Alexander.Also we have recorded incidents of southern greeks meeting macedonians in the roads and communicate without any problem. And also the macedonians claimed that they had common origin with the southern greeks. Now,as we can see the greeks had many common things,such as religion,culture,language, but they werent a single nation.At least not with the modern sense.They had the polis,which was like a small state.But they knew that they all had common origin,and they called themselves greeks.But regardless they fought against eachother.That was the way that their societies were structured. Each polis was autonomous.And many times they fought to gain control of land,wealth,and for other reasons.But when foreign people invaded (they called them barbarians ,from the sounding of their languages "bar bar"),like the persians they would unite and fight them back. One of the biggest flaws that the greeks had was that exactly.They knew they were the same,they knew were the borders of the greek territories were,but yet they fought eachother.And that didnt only happen in ancient history.When the greeks gained their freedom and independancy from the turks,they returned to their old habbits and caught up in a civil war.Greeks fight eachother for anything.It's in the blood.They fight eachother in the football matches,in politics,in everything.Of course that happens all around the world but in greece it's more intense.But when danger comes from outside the borders,then they unite.

[Efstathios]

The Macedonians had the same gods (the 12 gods),similar culture (theatre,poetry e.t.c) and similar language,but it was a northen heavy dialect.Especially for the language we have the incident of Demosthenes,when he went to Macedonia in a diplomatic mission (long before he started his flaming speeches against Philip) he didnt have any problem understanding the language there,and he admired th Macedonian culture and civilization.Later on in his speeches against Philip he called macedonians as barbarians but that was part of his efforts to convince the Athenians to go against Philip and Alexander.Also we have recorded incidents of southern greeks meeting macedonians in the roads and communicate without any problem. And also the macedonians claimed that they had common origin with the southern greeks. Now,as we can see the greeks had many common things,such as religion,culture,language, but they werent a single nation.At least not with the modern sense.They had the polis,which was like a small state.But they knew that they all had common origin,and they called themselves greeks.But regardless they fought against eachother.That was the way that their societies were structured. Each polis was autonomous.And many times they fought to gain control of land,wealth,and for other reasons.But when foreign people invaded (they called them barbarians ,from the sounding of their languages "bar bar"),like the persians they would unite and fight them back. One of the biggest flaws that the greeks had was that exactly.They knew they were the same,they knew were the borders of the greek territories were,but yet they fought eachother.And that didnt only happen in ancient history.When the greeks gained their freedom and independancy from the turks,they returned to their old habbits and caught up in a civil war.Greeks fight eachother for anything.It's in the blood.They fight eachother in the football matches,in politics,in everything.Of course that happens all around the world but in greece it's more intense.But when danger comes from outside the borders,then they unite.