This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones
* Foul or inappropriate language
I was just considering the response to Alexander's question "How do you want to be treated?" put to Porus after his defeat at the Hydaspes.
Alexander left Porus behind more powerful than he had been before the horrible battle and pushed onto "Sangala" for yet another bloody massacre- just a couple of years earlier he had had Parmenion assassinated on the grounds that he didn't want any backlash after the execution of his son Philotas.
Porus' son was killed at the Jhelum- not unlike what happened to Parmenio, so it seems strange that Alexander would have asked Porus not only how he wanted to be treated but then give him power over even greater lands than he had previously controlled.
Dean Bottom line. I think Alexander wanted rid of Parmenio for a long time. The who;le Parmenio situation goes in my opinion pretty deep. We know Parmenio was instrumental in Alexanders succesion to the extent of many of his sons been placed in high positions.
Maybe not totally vindictive but I guess Parmenio was too much of a reminder of Philip etc and really had a choking influence on Alexander. Many time Alexander rebuked and more or less ridiculed Parmenios advice and input. A clear one was I would if I were Parmenio, But im Alexander and will not. I am pretty sure Parmenio was a grind and a thorne in Alexanders ego. I for a long time have never been an Alexander excusis and readily accept that he was and could be as ruthless as any guy out there.
One way or another in my opinion Alexander wanted rid of Parmenio and his gobby son kind of gave Alexander the rope to hang them both. As for Porus indeed I feel Alexander did respect him. But he was also playing a political masterstroke to gain a powerful ally and maybe give him more power in exchange for his loyalty. Such loyalty was esential to Alexander he bought Porus loyalty to basically watch his back in the east.
I remember the Richard Burton Alexander saying to Philip. You dont do anything without knowing every move. I echo the sentiment That Alexander was every bit Philips son the wiery wolf who also knew how to work every move on the board. I would definately call Alexander a people and situation player.
dean wrote:Porus' son was killed at the Jhelum- not unlike what happened to Parmenio, so it seems strange that Alexander would have asked Porus not only how he wanted to be treated but then give him power over even greater lands than he had previously controlled.
I think this is a part of what Bosworth called GÇ£a tactical retreat without parallel in the reignGÇ¥ (quoted by Frank Holt in Into the Land of Bones). Holt goes on to say about India:
The king gave up this territory to local rulers because he simply did not have the manpower necessary to garrison it. The army he had left along the Oxus was clearly unreliable, and he did not have another to station along the Indus. AlexanderGÇÖs successors understood this problem as well, especially after the second settlersGÇÖ revolt in Bactria . . .
PorusGÇÖ son had died an honorable death in battle, quite unlike the execution of Philotas, so there should have been no reason for offence there. And, by being extremely generous to Porus and giving him even more power than before, AlexanderGÇÖs intent was surely to make Porus feel GÇ£beholdenGÇ¥ to him and therefore remain as loyal as possible without being under Macedonian supervision. After having settled over 23,000 soldiers in Bactria/Sogdia, Alexander must have realized he had no other choice, although he obviously considered Porus to be a man with the right character to be GÇ£rewardedGÇ¥ in this way. It could be (as the story goes) that Alexander recognized this in PorusGÇÖ demeanor, but he probably already had considerable information on the man and I think may have decided how he was going to treat Porus before the battle even began. Just my opinion though.
amyntoros wrote:I think this is a part of what Bosworth called GÇ£a tactical retreat without parallel in the reignGÇ¥ (quoted by Frank Holt in Into the Land of Bones). Holt goes on to say about India:
The king gave up this territory to local rulers because he simply did not have the manpower necessary to garrison it. The army he had left along the Oxus was clearly unreliable, and he did not have another to station along the Indus. AlexanderGÇÖs successors understood this problem as well, especially after the second settlersGÇÖ revolt in Bactria . . .
GǪAfter having settled over 23,000 soldiers in Bactria/Sogdia, Alexander must have realized he had no other choice, although he obviously considered Porus to be a man with the right character to be GǣrewardedGǥ in this way.
And Bosworth has it quite right (in Conquest and Empire if I remember correctly) I think. Alexander well knew there was no real garrisoning of this part of the GÇ£empireGÇ¥. A situation the Persians too had faced.
HoltGÇÖs observation with respect to the manpower situation is salutary when one considers the legendary 120,000 troops Alexander ostensibly had at his disposal. The GÇ£settlersGÇÖ revoltsGÇ¥ serve to neatly indicate the festering mood in the areas that Alexander had lost essential interest in or, as the current terminology would have it, had GÇ£moved onGÇ¥ from.
Alexander had dealt with several Indian rulers of somewhat lesser integrity (shall we say) by the time he reached his accommodation with Porus. Porus, in the accounts, cuts a large figure GÇô not only in stature GÇô and I agree Alexander will likely have formed his opinion prior to the battle. PorusGÇÖ conduct of himself will only have served to confirm it.
The tactical and administrative reality must have been apparent even to Alexander.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Oh, be buggered if I can find it! Too many books, too many recollections and not enough brain cells left to attach them to!
Anyway, the relevant part in Conquest is:
The Hydaspes became the effective border of the empire. Beyond it Porus was allowed to retain his kingdom, which Alexander carefully expandedGǪ..In the valley of the Indus Taxiles was paramount prince in the north, ruling with the help of a European army of occupation, and beyond the Hydaspes, to the east and south, Porus ruled independently, theoretically subject to Alexander, but only bound by verbal allegianceGǪMacedonian rule had contracted to the north-west, the narrow corridor through the Khyber Pass directly governed by a Macedonian satrapGǪThe conquest of India, for all its paper victories, proved only that the country could not be held down without an unacceptable expenditure of manpower.
And, it goes without saying, went to "hell in a handbasket" the moment the king's glance was elsewhere. As with much of Alexander's administrative structures. Well, maybe "much" is a little strongGǪ
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Alexander took Aornos or Hercules mountain making a dedication to Nike on top of the crag ah and Athena too,after which he headed on to visit his newly found "mate" Ambi- king of Taxila- there apparently was a moment of panic as Alexander came near, as Ambi had assembled his whole army elephants and all, to meet him- Alexander and Ambi rode out to meet each other alone and soon sorted it out. Ambi agreed to show no resistance and so after five days at Taxila Alexander decided to go south to meet Porus who wasn't quite as friendly. It was May and Alexander couldn't hold off crossing as the snow in the Himalayas was melting and the river was rising- with imminent threat of monsoon too. Otherwise he would have to wait until September.
After the battle on the hydaspes and after founding Boukephalos Alexandria and Nikea(sounds like a furniture store)he carried on towards Sangala where "resistance was growing". It would be interesting to see the control Ambi and Porus had over India to ascertain how much power Alexander had at this point in India.
As I am reading up a bit on the Indian part of the conquest- I found it very interesting to note how different the Macedonian's troops reaction to their leader being "hit" at Multan to Darius's men's reaction at Issus and Gaugamela.
The idea being that with Darius out of the way the whole army had to "leg it" and yet we see in Multan- after the arrow wound, and possibility that the Macedonian king was dead- this only ennervated the troops- to such an extent that the whole town, women, men and children were massacred as revenge. In the end, the Mallians were only defending their town. But the thought of losing their king only seems to put theMacedonian's killer instinct into fourth gear- such was their idolization of him.
Scary!!!!!
Best wishes,
Dean
