Alexander the great and the Hellenistic age

[dean]

Hello,
Was reading a course just recently on "Alexander and the Hellenistic age." by Jeremy Mcinerney He is a professor from the University of California.
He seems to know what he is talking about and discusses in the first four parts the life of Alexander- and amongst other things-the "possibility" that Alexander was involved in the death of his father- also he covers two opposing views- the idea of "Alexander- the altruist" and Alexander the despot, meglamaniac- he uses Tarn and Badian to highlight the two conflicting views- but seems to spend considerably longer describing the meglamaniac than the altruist- citing Alexander's murdering Cleitus and his increasing interest or paranoia in plots as the campaign went on.
Mcinerney also talks of the problem that Alexander had of presenting himself one way to his Greek subjects and another to his Persian- culminating in the introduction of proskynesis at the court and its disastrous results.One last thing that was interesting was Mcinerney's discussion in "Alexander the divine?" where he questions the effect on Alexander's psyche such as the incident in Siwah- that maybe he did start in some way to believe the stories that he was a god.(the whole discussion is purely conjectural)Looking at it, one really must question why, after becoming great king and lord of asia- he wanted to venture on to India- it really does seem pointless.Mcinerney states that in two years he doubled the size of Greece. It seems unbelievable, but can anyone reconfirm this for me?
Best regards,
Dean.

[marcus]

What exactly does he mean by "doubled the size of Greece"? Area of governmental control, linguistic catchment, cultural preponderance, anything else?CheersMarcus

[Efstathios]

2 years since when?Since he started his campaign?Does he include the balcans campaign?Or only Asia minor?I think this statement is not accurate.After 2 years Alexander was somewhere at Gordian? About the second question: I didnt quite understand what was the second question.Why Alexander continued to India? Alexander was a conqueror.He had the pothos to go and see new places and reach the end of the world.But not as a simple traveler.As a conqueror.He also wanted to surpass Dionysus and Hercules who also reached India,and so he did.

[dean]

Hi Marcus,yes, sorry i didn't explain myself properly- I was taking care of my 3 year old son at the same time as writing the post- so I "had my hands full" so to speak. (I am amazed that I wrote anything at all to be honest.)But to clear it up- I have just checked and the author is talking of the time between the battle at Grannicus and the battle of Issus- which is roughly two years and he is referring to the size of the lands that Alexander controls after his victory at IssusBest regards,
Dean.

[Paralus]

G'day Dean.In which case he'd be correct. Alexander was soon also to expand what we'd now refer to as the Greek "economy" many fold. And flood the ancient world with mercianaries, gold and slaves (the latter accelerated by Rome).
Athens at this period was trading in a quite healthy fashion and would do so until yet another of those ubiquitous grain shortages that so beset her strangled her gonads.
A major reason for her not so altruistic interest in allying with the Ptolemys during the ebb and flow of alliance making/breaking that so defined the Diadochoi decades (and after).
By the time Greece had settled down under Gonatus, I'm certain that the Hellensitic monarchs had just about a standard going rate in choinix of corn that would procure both Athens' friendship as well as the use of the Piraeus.Paralus.

[dean]

Hi Michael,I don't know but the gentleman sounds definitely Australian on the cassettes that go with the course.
His name is Mcinerney and like i mentioned before he studied in the U.S. I have just got now onto the part where the empire is being split up after Alexander's death. He highlights that the situation couldn't have been worse- the likely successor being either his half brother(halfwit) Philip Arrideus or his unborn child- by Roxane- who would be Alexander IV- also dodgy- because would the troops accept a half Macedonian- half Bactrian heir? I don't think so.Anyway, I thought a little about Ptolemy- I mean somewhere I had read that there was the chance that he was Alexander's half brother but then I thought that if there was any certainty in this then he wouldn't have wasted any time in coming forward.One thing is for sure, Ptolemy certainly knew how to milk his position and take advantage- with regards to the taxing of the people from ALexandria- Egypt.Best regards,
Dean.

[Athanasios]

Dean,Yes the Ptolemaic period saw great wealth. This was for the taking given the vast resources of Egypt, especially the Nile. Significant improvements were made to irrigation methods, taxation and government in general. However, failure to integrate the indigenous poplulation eventually left a great sense of bitterness and aided the eventual downfall of the Ptolemies. There was no particular outcry to the destruction of either the libraries or empire...A shame given the initial aspirations laid by the founders.Regards,
Atha

[Paralus]

G'day Dean.Ptolemy had a decent tutor in Cleomenes when it came to ripping the native population blind. An art that became a science under the Ptolemys.The native Egyptian population was used as a sponge and indentured serf labour. That they cared little for their transplanted overlords is instanced by the repeated displays of violence and resistance by what's been referred to as the "Alexandrian mob". The "high culture", parades and festivals of excess of the Graeco-Macedonian ruling classes were not for them. Any wonder they did not mourn the burning of the "library" that we would give a left leg to read in.Paralus.

[amyntoros]

Now I was under the impression that the Alexandrian mob were people of mostly Greek origin rather than disgruntled Egyptians. The mob is often referred to as consisting of merchants, servants, members of the royal court, and the wealthy. I could be wrong, I admit, but whenever I've read about them and the things they did I've never felt that they were native Egyptians. The murdering of the Roman who killed a cat could be an exception, but syncretism abounded in that particular period and they still might have been of Greek lineage. Do you (or anyone else) have any source references that might enlighten me?Best regards,Amyntoros

[Paralus]

Do you know what Amyntoros? I reckon you may well be spot on there.The original reference is Peter Green (who else to use such a phrase??), somewheres within the confines of "Alexander to Actium". My memory is of people in and around Alexandria - definitely not part of the ruling or "power clique" or classes (for want of a better descriptor).When I've a chance I'll dig out the tome from my library and give it a gander.I may well be confusing them with the uprisings of "the natives". Mind you, unhappy native poulations lead to unhappy commercial classes dependent on their exploitation.A thousand apologies in advance should I've stuffed it up good and proper.Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Amyntoros.Correct: an organised group of diverse ethnic background (Jews, Greek, Egyptian, etc). The one connection being trade/money and ripping the fellahin blind.Green refers many times to its growing clout in supplying support to (or removing support from) political players. Essentially like an Egyptian (or Alexandrian) collection of Gambino and other modern mob families.Philo, the first century AD Alexandrian philosopher, mentions the "mob" as destroying synagogues in Alexandria (from your link to Livius).I know of no other source.Love Green's description of the Ptolemaic "economy" and rule:"The king enjoyed a wide range of commercial monopolies, on, inter alia, oil, papyrus, and perfume, and imposed high tariffs on foreign imports. The Ptolemaic dynasty ran Egypt, in effect, as a private estate, at a profit. This profit went into the ruler's pockets (and those of a minority of favoured supporters), and was used precisely as they pleased , to support scholarship, mercenaries, extravagant processions, or anything else that took their royal fancy" Paralus.