pothos.org

At the risk of acquiring a reputation for asking slightly off the wall questions, here I go again....

Occasionally, you run into references in the literature in which Alexander attended a dinner party or symposium, I guess, at another's "home." I think he ate over at Perdiccas' "home" on occasion and I'm certain that he ate/drank over at Bagoas' "home" on occasion. My question is this, are the sources referring to actual residences or tents? By that I mean, as Alexander made his way across Persia conquering it, did he and his generals overtake the personal residences of local nobles, thus evicting them, or did he and his generals temporarily move in and share the homes of local nobles? Or, perhaps the sources sometimes meant homes or residences and sometimes meant their tents. I also wonder how they found one another. I know this is a strange logistical question, but in an era without cell phones, phone books, street maps, etc., how did they find one another once they had overtaken a city? I'm guessing that the army itself had to have had some sort of set pattern of setting up camp every time they stopped and that provided some sense of order. But, if they had recently overtaken a town, did they move into local homes, and then how the heck did they find one another when they needed to, courriers?

I love the off the wall questions....

I, too think about stuff like this. I do think that there had to be some planning. Didn't Hephaistion incur the wrath of Eumenes for allocating rooms in a way that made Eumenes unhappy? So there must have been some kind of system when they overtokk a town. The king got the plum rooms/palace, etc. Same for a long term camp. I'm sure the choice spots, by clean water, or the only tree for miles went to him and then his men by seniority. Someone, certainly Hephasition wasn't the first, was in charge of allocating quarters and that would have been the go-to fellow to find someone..though finding him might have been a task, too.

Were there standards that flew above each person's tent or outside the building they were staying in? Was there already a set, unifrom order for each new camp, I agree with you...like Alexander's tent always was the center of some grid and "streets" laid out on a grid pattern? "Looking for Ptolemy's tents?..Head down Achilles Avenue and turn left at Pella Place"... Did some brave soul have to make up a quick guide or sign with that little red cross that said "You are here"....j/k sort of.

Were the women set aside in a separate camp..or did they put up their tents near the headquarters of their various menfolk? With a discrete fencing of fabric or some such, creating an inner courtyard? Did Alexander, Hephaistion, Krateros, Ptolemy, etc. each have their own section of the camp or did they bunch together? Did the aides, servants and slaves camp around the big guns or did they have to trudge to "work" from some peripherial no man's land?

How about sanitation? A camp with 120,000 souls must have left quite the mess...was there an engineering corps that made sure there were enough latrines?

In locations where there was a city to stay in, again they must have had some systym in place...or they all agreed to meet at the palace till they found their bearings? Chares or someone kept track...a billeting officer?

Lisa wrote:At the risk of acquiring a reputation for asking slightly off the wall questions, here I go again....

Occasionally, you run into references in the literature in which Alexander attended a dinner party or symposium, I guess, at another's "home." I think he ate over at Perdiccas' "home" on occasion and I'm certain that he ate/drank over at Bagoas' "home" on occasion. My question is this, are the sources referring to actual residences or tents? By that I mean, as Alexander made his way across Persia conquering it, did he and his generals overtake the personal residences of local nobles, thus evicting them, or did he and his generals temporarily move in and share the homes of local nobles? Or, perhaps the sources sometimes meant homes or residences and sometimes meant their tents. I also wonder how they found one another. I know this is a strange logistical question, but in an era without cell phones, phone books, street maps, etc., how did they find one another once they had overtaken a city? I'm guessing that the army itself had to have had some sort of set pattern of setting up camp every time they stopped and that provided some sense of order. But, if they had recently overtaken a town, did they move into local homes, and then how the heck did they find one another when they needed to, courriers?

Great question, Lisa!

There are different answers depending on which stage of the campaign we're talking about, of course. I'm sure it's unquestioned that some of the army, at least (officers) took over private houses in the cities they captured/liberated/descended upon during the march - and Alexander will naturally have taken over the palaces! There's no way his army could have billeted themselves entirely in these cities, so one must assume that there was a camp outside. I'm pretty sure (being lazy and not checking) that it is explicitly stated (Curtius?) that the army was encamped outside Maracanda, and the news of Cleitus' death was taken out to them - but I might be wrong about this, and the passage might just mean that they were outside the palace.

On the other hand, we know that Alexander made gifts of Persian lords' estates to at least some of his high-ranking officers - Parmenion is specifically mentioned, having an estate in Ecbatana. I would imagine that many high-ranking Persians had town houses in Susa, Babylon, Ecbatana, etc. so perhaps Perdiccas and the others took these over as their own. We know for sure that Alexander dined "at Medius'" before he was taken ill, so Medius must have taken over a house somewhere in Babylon ... probably fairly close to Nebuchadnezzar's palace?

As to all the additional things that Athenas Owl raises ... no time to go into those now, myself ... I'm sure there'll be plenty more input on a great topic (as far as I'm concerned, anyway ).

ATB

Lisa wrote:By that I mean, as Alexander made his way across Persia conquering it, did he and his generals overtake the personal residences of local nobles, thus evicting them, or did he and his generals temporarily move in and share the homes of local nobles? Or, perhaps the sources sometimes meant homes or residences and sometimes meant their tents.

I agree with Marcus' response and would add that, yes, you are correct with the last statement. Sometimes the sources are explicit with their references to the tents of Alexander and others, but in other places there is evidence of local homes being taken over by officers although I doubt that 'sharing' with the local nobles was ever an option. 6.11.1-3 (Trial of Philotas) gives us an example of the taking over of property:

Among the officers was a certain Bolon, a good fighter but a man of no refinement or cultivation, an older soldier who had risen from the ranks to his present position. [2] The rest now fell silent but Bolon, with boorish impudence and in a brazen manner, began to remind them of all the time they had each been ejected from quarters they had taken over so that the scum of Philotas' slaves might have the places from which they had thrown out his colleagues. [3] Philotas' wagons, piled high with gold and silver, had been parked all through the streets, he said, while not one of their comrades had even been allowed close to his quarters; no, the servants he had guarding him while he slept moved them all far away so that fop would not be disturbed by the noise - no, silence is a better word - of hushed conversation.

It may be that only officers made their lodgings in the conquered cities, although I suppose that might have depended on the size of city itself. Curtius 5.7.6 on the burning of Persepolis tells us that in this instance that the army was outside of the city:

The army, encamped not far from the city, caught sight of the fire. Thinking it was accidental, came running in a body to help.

Lisa wrote:But, if they had recently overtaken a town, did they move into local homes, and then how the heck did they find one another when they needed to, courriers?

Yep – messengers would have been sent from one officer's residence to another. There were no street addresses as such in ancient cities – even in Athens. If you arrived there to visit someone you would ask for so-and-so's house and would be directed to it with references to landmarks.

athenas owl wrote:Someone, certainly Hephasition wasn't the first, was in charge of allocating quarters and that would have been the go-to fellow to find someone..though finding him might have been a task, too.

I’m not sure that there was always someone who allocated quarters. The first quote above from Curtius implies that the officers seized their own quarters with those of highest rank having first choice. Even in the situation with Hephaistion allocating quarters for Evius (Plutarch, Life of Eumenes I) we're told that "The quarters that had been taken up for Eumenes, Hephaestion assigned to Evius, the flute-player." It seems to me that Eumenes had chosen his own quarters and Hephaistion had snatched them out from under him. However, this may have been an exceptional circumstance similar to the time of the Susa weddings when 3,000 performers arrived for the celebrations (I think Plutarch’s chronology is faulty or misunderstood as it applies to this particular argument as I can't imagine Evius joining with the army in India). A great many of these artistes were famous and would have been treated with great respect, hence suitable quarters would surely have been allocated for them. Perhaps Hephaistion had been given this responsibility, or it could be that he viewed Evius as a friend and simply took it upon himself to find him a suitable residence for his stay in the city.

athenas owl wrote: Were the women set aside in a separate camp..or did they put up their tents near the headquarters of their various menfolk? With a discrete fencing of fabric or some such, creating an inner courtyard?

I’m afraid I can’t imagine any discrete fencing of fabric, Those women mentioned who were involved with the officers were all courtesans and probably kept their own quarters. The women of the regular army were captives (with perhaps some common prostitutes) and there’s no evidence of them being treated with particular respect. When camped for a while in the captured cities they may have joined their menfolk, but, if I'm interpreting Arrian VI.25.5-6 correctly, I think they were separated when on active campaign.

Arrian VI.25.5-6 (Gedrosia) Now the army had bivouacked near a torrent bed with a little water - it was actually for the water that the site was chosen - when about the second watch in the night the stream here, swollen by rains of the which the army had seen nothing, came down with so great a spate of water that it killed most of the women and children following the army and swept away all the royal equipment and the surviving transport animals; and indeed the troops themselves were only saved with great difficulty, with their weapons only, and not even all of these.

The above describes the women as "following the army" and it appears that they were encamped separately from the regular soldiers (with the baggage train?) and that the roaring waters reached them first. One wonders if it was their screams that alerted the army and allowed them the chance for survival.

And here I go with a personal thought and a slight digression: It's been said in another thread that love must have developed between the Macedonians and their Persian women and children because it is "human nature." I’m not saying this couldn't have happened, but to me this is an idealized view of to the circumstances – these women were captives - spoils of war - and little consideration seems to have been given for their welfare. For years they were dragged around with the army, suffering through the same climate and traversing the same terrain. And it doesn't seem that any provision was made for their collective welfare until India, after the mutiny, when Diodorus (17.94.4) says that Alexander "… called together the wives of the soldiers and their children; to the wives he undertook to give a monthly ration, to the children he distributed a service bonus in proportion to the military records of their fathers." Justin places this event earlier (around the death of Bessus) but he’s not considered the most reliable; Plutarch tells a similar story as late as after the mutiny of Opis! (And I think his may be the correct version because Diodorus refers to the women as "wives.) Whichever it was, these poor women were solely dependant on their individual captors for a lengthy period. Now, I'm not saying the Macedonians never attempted to properly provide for their captives and children – but what happened when they couldn't as in the march through Gedrosia? When water and food was desperately needed you KNOW that when it was found it would have been distributed first amongst the military men, for it was far more important for them to survive than their women and offspring. I often wonder why the camp followers were on this horrendous march through the desert in the first place. Why could they not have been sent with Craterus on a safer route back to the west? The only answer I have is that they were the responsibility of the individual soldier – and where their captor went, they went also.

It's FAR from a romantic situation; in fact most of the campaign must have been a horrendous existence for these women and children. What the army suffered, they suffered more - they were weaker, unable to provide for themselves, and (outside of battles) whatever trials and tribulations their men suffered, they suffered also. Snow and freezing temperatures, torrential rains, snakes, thirst, hunger, and years and years and years of marching through inhospitable terrain – this was their lot. Thais (Plutarch 38.2) complained at Persepolis of all her hardships in wandering over Asia. At Persepolis?! In 330 BC?! A Greek woman, relatively wealthy and, as a courtesan, independent; consort to the elite of the Macedonian forces. Compare her circumstances then to the real hardships of the campaign in the following years. This is one of the reasons why I’m unable to romanticize the circumstances of the captive women and their offspring. But that is, as always, just my opinion.

Best regards,

Amyntoros...I hope you don't think I have a "romantic" notion about the lot of female camp followers..I don't. However mine isn't as dark as yours. If there wasn't any filial affection for their bastard children..certainly dumping them and their mothers in one of the new Alexandrias or lord knows where would have been less complicated and expensive.

I also think in some ways you underestimate the determination and strength of the women, or at least some of them. It may have been their own choice to go on, rather than be separated or parted from their provide and or meal ticket.

When I was talking about the women, I was referring to women like Barsine, Thais (who did protest too much I think in her possibly ficticious speech at Persepolis) and later Roxane..and other women of some staus that we don't hear about who accompanied the army, or the high command, rather. Yes, I think they had their own quarters, but where were those quarters? Certainly Roxane or Barsine, or even Thais wouldn't have been stuck out in the boonies with the "lesser" women. At least Barsine and Roxane were Persian women, used to being camped close to their men, judging from the royal women captured at Issos.

Did Alexander adopt that custom as well? If the Persian Royal Women were kept in their accustomed state, it wouldn't have involved them being treated like "camp followers".

I don't put these women in the same catagory as the unfornunate camp followers (the ones who did so against their will, that is).

As for Thais complaining, well..she was from Athens...and if she did say those things (isn't the source for this Cleitarchus?) it is a reflection of her own rather pampered lifestyle back home. I wouldn't compare her "complaint" with any other woman's. And hasn't archaeology shown that Persepolis was burned systematically and deliberately? That event is more "complicated" than the inspiration of an Athenian Courtesan.

As for the incident at the stream in Gedrosia...two things have always jumped out at me there. Number one is the fact that women and children were camped closest to the water...certainly a rare and wonderful commodity in that region. Secondly, itt also points out that the transport animals and the royal equipment, etc..was also closest to the water..or perhaps that it reached that high, I suppose....but still, the fact that the women and children were the most heavily destroyed says to me that they were in a rather nice place actually. Not exiled far away from it out in the hinterland, but sadly, in the end, too close.

Perhaps they were further up the stream (again, nicer..the water less fouled) from the bulk of the army and the royal section and hence had less "warning" to escape. Thousands of people were encamped along that stream...did it stretch for a few miles?

The second thing...and this is just a personal "Huh???"..the Gedrosian was a nightmare, I have no doubt...but I wish I knew how far into the journey this occurred...they were still packing equipment and actually still had pack animals...it must have happened fairly early in the trek.

I do not think that Alexander really had a clue about how truly awful it was going to be in the Gedrosian. He must have know it would be tough, hence sending his own wife back woth Craterus. (Or maybe he was just tired of her...who knows). The wounded, the elephants, and the infirm were also sent back with Craterus so ATG was aware of some tough road ahead, but not what happened.

As for the dispute over the rooms for Evius...you have a point, though this story is told in a context about something else, the rift between Eumenes and Hephaistion. I don't know that it is an indication of much except that...but that's just my opinon.

As for Evius traveling along with ATG, why not? Anaxarchus accompanied ATG as did a lyre player (I'm sorry I can't remember his name..he died in the battle for a Sogdian town..it was noted that he died as a soldie wouldr, not a musician). He might not have. Was he just hanging around Babylon and so got picked up by Alexanderto perfrom at Susa? He wouldn't have had time to travel form Greece to get there, so he must have been fairly close.

amyntoros wrote: The women of the regular army were captives (with perhaps some common prostitutes) and there’s no evidence of them being treated with particular respect. When camped for a while in the captured cities they may have joined their menfolk, but, if I'm interpreting Arrian VI.25.5-6 correctly, I think they were separated when on active campaign.

It's a bit more complicated than that, in my view - and Lord knows I hate to disagree with you!

Yes, indeed, some of the army's women were captives and I have no doubt that there were plenty of prostitutes with the army as well. But it is very likely that there were a great many women from various locales who joined the camp under no coercion, who perhaps saw a way of getting away from their "normal" lives, or who possibly did fall in love with soldiers, or who became pregnant and were disowned by their families and saw no other recourse than to follow the army. Such instances have been as much the profiles of camp followers for centuries - very common in the Napoleonic Wars, especially.

Of course, situations change. If a soldier died, then almost certainly his "woman" would have needed to find another "protector" - liaisons could be extremely ephemeral. Some women might have become prostitutes although through an inability to find a "permanent" protector, or might have preferred to keep things business-like.

I am reminded also of similar situations in the British Empire, especially in India. I remember a great story of a young woman whose husband, a sergeant, was killed. Within a day she had received an offer of marriage from a captain, which she accepted; and she was distraught later that day when she received another offer, from a major - which she had to turn down. Had she waited she could have married a higher rank, but she couldn't be picky and had to accept the first offer she received.

I can see exactly the same things happening in Alexander's army!

ATB

marcus wrote:It's a bit more complicated than that, in my view - and Lord knows I hate to disagree with you!

Yes, indeed, some of the army's women were captives and I have no doubt that there were plenty of prostitutes with the army as well. But it is very likely that there were a great many women from various locales who joined the camp under no coercion, who perhaps saw a way of getting away from their "normal" lives, or who possibly did fall in love with soldiers, or who became pregnant and were disowned by their families and saw no other recourse than to follow the army. Such instances have been as much the profiles of camp followers for centuries - very common in the Napoleonic Wars, especially.

Oh, go ahead - disagree with me all you want! Sometimes I just like to stir things up a bit, although here I must say that although I understand your argument, I remain unconvinced by it. Events resulting from invasions can be similar but they are not necessarily identical, and culture and society dictates much about the involvement of women. Although comparatively little is known about the Persian women of that period we do know it was a protective, patriarchal society where marriages were arranged and the women were to remain "unspoiled" until the same. I simply don't see women, especially the younger ones, voluntarily "running away" from their lives to follow a conquering army. After all, even though I would find their lifestyles unappealing I don't have any reason to believe that they were unhappy with events - until, that is, the Macedonians came by and possibly destroyed everything they held dear. I just don't see entire villages of young girls sneaking out at night to "party" with the Macedonians of their own free will (a la The Afghan campaign) and then perhaps becoming pregnant and/or disowned and forced to follow the army. For the majority of them this would have been the first time there were invaders on their lands and I can't see how the sight of 30-40,000 or more foreigners who do not speak their language and who have killed their own people with impunity could possibly be more apealling than say an arranged marriage - something they would have been prepared for since practically the day they were born.

Of course, if they came from a village or city where almost all the adult males had been killed by Alexander's army, including their husbands and families, then they might have felt they had no alternative. And frankly, I doubt that taking up with a Macedonian soldier would have been a matter of "choice" on the part of even these women. If your men are dead and your city is destroyed, what else are you to do but to wait on the pleasures of the invader? And here it wasn't "marriages" that were on offer, unlike your tale of the British empire.

Obviously I'm writing only of the women who found themselves attached to the rank and file, but these would have been in the great majority.

But let's look at the "ideal" relationship of invader and conquered in the histories - the marriage of Alexander and Roxane. Much is made of Alexander's 'love' for her (if it is to be believed) but nothing is said of how Roxane felt about it. Oh, I doubt she had any major objections to being married to the new Great King, but it's not as if she had a choice anyway! Women's roles were different then - even from those in the Napoleonic Wars where women were socially active within society and had more freedom, and 'loose' women of the lesser classes were to be found with frequency. I believe there's no evidence of prostitution within Persia itself (Babylon was supposedly different, before anyone decides to remind me ) and although Persian women did work alongside men in some circumstances they still didn't have the relative freedom of Napoleonic times or similar. I can't help thinking of an episode of Sharpe's War (or whatever it was called) where he took up with a French woman and lived in her cottage. Circumstances were different in Persia and if this were to happen then one would have to suppose that women lived alone and had the freedom to make such a choice and not be ostracized by their own people. Plus, the Macedonian army was on the move, spending only short periods in each place. IF, and I say IF, you still had family which still had a house and/or lands after the army came by and you still had future prospects of marriage, why would you freely give it up to make time with a foreign invader and then follow him through inhospitable lands?

I guess I'm not really arguing with you here - it's more an issue of my seeing it differently and I've tried to explain why I have difficulty accepting the more generalized historical parallels. And as my feelings have evolved from many years of attempting to study the society and culture with a particular interest in women's affairs, I doubt that I shall be moved. This doesn't mean I'm saying not to disagree with me, however. It's just where I stand.

(Athena's Owl, I'm not purposely ignoring you. Am just out of time. )

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:
(Athena's Owl, I'm not purposely ignoring you. Am just out of time. )

Best regards,

Oh no offence taken...the sidelines is great place to be when you and Marcus disagree.

How many of the camp following women were Persian? Once again I'm pulling something from memory (I promise that my comp and my library will someday be on the same floor)...but didn't ATG officially allow women into the camp around 330? I can't remember where I read that, perhaps after Persepolis). Anyway, if that is correct, then it implies that women had been part of the unofficial train for quite some time. The army had plowed through many different cultures, not just the Persians. Anatolia, heck even Thrace (though that's a bit of a stretch I can see), certainly after Issus when they would have gotten those very attractive qualities: sucess, money and loot.

Again, I think women, then as now could be just as opportunistic as men, regardless of their culture (or because of it..nothing like a moving army to get away from the constraints of a culture).

I think the only thing I really disagree with you is the idea that women were helpless slaves to their upbringing, no matter the period. Out of the millions of people the army had to pass by, 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 women might have seen it as a better choice than marrying or staying.. Nothing like an alternate choice to loosen the bindings of culture. It seems that you are assigning many women to a role where they lack imagination or a sense of adventure or opporuntiy. A "nice" girl seeing some strapping and loot covered Macedonian marching through her city might find that a much more interesting and palatable option than staying home and living out ones life in "gentile" and highly predictable poverty or whatever the case may be.

This isn't to say that there weren't miserable captive women (and men, too) dragged along for the ride. But even your example, of Alexander essentially trying to prime the pump for further adventures in India by granting the women rations, etc..shows that they did have some kind of power or influence over their men. Else why bother?

Of course it didn't work, but the fact that he was bribing them says something to me besides them being captive, downtrodden and voiceless.

Also, you talk about the inhospitable lands...as though many of the women weren't from these lands to begin with (I'm very sure they or any of the army ever imagined the Gedrosian desert). I think that women in the ancient world were tougher than we give them credit for, even Thais...Would a woman from the mountain regions of Persia or Sogdia or Bactria not be familiar with some inhospitable landscapes? Would the prospect of famine be utterly unknown to them? I don't think so.

This is an addendum to my previous post because of thoughts whilst preparing dinner. Although I said there was no evidence of prostitution in Persia I meant to add that this would have meant no professional Persian prostitutes joined the camp followers. I accept that any Persian women in the direst of circumstances may likely have turned to prostitution amongst the Macedonians in order to support themselves. But what a terrible existence it must have been. I doubt that they were even responsible for setting the price, having had no prior experience of such matters and little choice in what they accepted as payment. And there were surely competing 'professionals' even of the lowest ilk. I’ve little doubt that there was competition from the women captured and sold into slavery during the campaign (Tyre, for instance). Smart 'businessmen' of the period must have leapt at the opportunity to purchase some of these women and create moving brothels for the soldiers.

Yes, Marcus, you are right in saying that I simplified the matter in my first post, but in actual fact I think that the captured "wives" probably had the best circumstances and you know what I think of their lot in life.

Athenas Owl – a quick response to your latest post (because I wasn't expecting a reply so soon and I still haven’t finished dinner. )

athenas owl wrote:It seems that you are assigning many women to a role where they lack imagination or a sense of adventure or opporuntiy. A "nice" girl seeing some strapping and loot covered Macedonian marching through her city might find that a much more interesting and palatable option than staying home and living out ones life in "gentile" and highly predictable poverty or whatever the case may be.

The thing is, they did for the most part lack imagination or a sense of adventure or opportunity because, with very few exceptions (until the later Hellenistic age) the dictates of culture and society did not allow them to imagine any other existence than the one which was allotted to them. This wasn't a society (nor was Greece) where single women gathered socially at the local bar or restaurant and talked about their dreams for the future. Their future was written, as I said, almost from the moment they were born. A loot covered Macedonian marching through her city might sound attractive to us, but we grew up in a society which gave us the freedom to make choices and even the encouragement to do so. They did not, and given the women’s generally sheltered existence – and the carnage which accompanied the campaign – I think that the Macedonian army would have been exceedingly frightening to a Persian woman of the period rather than "interesting". If your whole life you have been taught exactly what to expect from the future, you would not normally find yourself to be a free-thinking extrovert who is willing to sleep with an invader and risk everything for the sake of adventure. The majority of women of the period simply didn’t “think” anything like us. If they did, female culture and society would not have remained as stagnant as it did for hundreds of years.

Would a woman from the mountain regions of Persia or Sogdia or Bactria not be familiar with some inhospitable landscapes? Would the prospect of famine be utterly unknown to them? I don't think so.

But living in tents and marching for months at a time under such circumstances was hardly an improvement of their situation - or an "adventure" for that matter. And I don’t believe that famine was a frequent event in Persia and the surrounding regions. I don’t have time to look up the details, but one Bactrian/Sogdian noble had enough excess grain stored to feed the entire Macedonian army for a long period. And even those people who lived in the inhospitable region with their houses buried under the snow had sufficient stores for the winter. Until Alexander’s army commandeered all the food, that is.

No time for more right now or I’ll burn the London broil.

Best regards,

Amyntoros, are we certain about the lives of women in Pesia? Ancient Persia?

Before the Fortification Texts and the like were found what did we know really of anything about the lives of Persian women except through our Greek (male) sources?

I still think you underestimate women of the time. We don't know how women thought, because the men didn't bother to record it with rare exceptions. We have gotten into the habit of thinking about the ancient women the way ancient men wrote about them.

I'lll tell you...the whole premise, for example, that Strateira placidly stayed in Susa while Alexander went north to Hamadan with Roxane makes absolutley no sense. Even if she was a cream puff, her grandmother would have made sure that she went....a newly minted Queen, wishing to establish her higher status wouldn't wait around till Alexander mosied back through Susa. Especially as Ectabana was the summer palace of the Persian royals anyway. Getting pregnant, if nothing else would have been a priority.

It is the paradigm of them being weak and do nothing that is very weird to me, because Persian noblewomen, from what we know did no such thing. Yet it is canon. I've tried to figure out where the idea came from. In Curtius, it is said that Drypetis, her brother and her grandmother were together when they got the news that ATG was dead. Strateira is not mentioned. Yet in another source it is said that Roxane and Perdiccas connived at her death by tricking her and her sister to come where Roxane was. Was it really Drypetis or Parysatis who died with the Queen?

Persian Royal women had their own estates, judges, etc...they traveled to them themselves..yet we assume they were docile or at the other extreme poisonous connivers..those Greeks, they could never find a middle when it came to women. Wasn't it the Persian navy at Salamis that had Artemisia with her own ships, one of which she was actually on.

The lower classes we know very little about...but to assume they were unimaginative or would not take risks is unfair to them, based on so little information. Especially when a lot of that information on Persian women was written by Greek males.

athenas owl wrote: The lower classes we know very little about...but to assume they were unimaginative or would not take risks is unfair to them, based on so little information. Especially when a lot of that information on Persian women was written by Greek males.

Have you ever read what was written by Greek males about Greek women? It is generally not a pretty picture and frankly there's nothing said about the Persians that can compare. But a patriarchal society is a patriarchal society is a patriarchal society.

Yes, I know that women of the Persian nobility had more freedom and responsibility in the sense that they could own land and administer estates, etc. But marriages were still arranged, as Maria Brosius says, for reasons of alliances, securing the loyalty of nobles, etc. I see absolutely no reason to believe that the women of the middle/lower classes had the freedom to choose their own husbands in contrast to the nobility. And I don't feel that I'm doing these same women an injustice with my arguments, sorry. I just don't believe we can transfer modern day attitudes on to ancient Persian women any more than we can do the same to the average early Victorian middle class woman or the women of the early pilgrims. If I were to agree with you about the Persian women and the Macedonian army then I might also say that the lives of the pilgrim women were so restrictive that their imagination and sense of adventure would have caused them to run off en masse with the Native Americans. But they didn't ... Social mores, cultural attitudes, and their deep religious beliefs all prevented such behavior. Not to mention what the male elders would have done to them had they been caught. Different times bring about different attitudes from men towards women. Why would you not believe that women could also think and feel differently?

Best regards,

Well, the Pilgrim women didn't have an army of thousands of Native Americans marching through Plymoth either. Though, in the reverse, there are millions of Americans today who DO have some Native American blood running in their veins, myself included, precisely because of the passing through of invaders.. I'm sure that had opportunity arrived, Hester Prynne might have chosen to go with the invading Macedonians rather than wear that scarlet A..

Not all Native women willingly became consorts for the invading white men of their own free will, but many did and chose to leave their lives anf families to march west with the expanding population of the victors, including my ancestresses. From the child of John Rolfe and the famous Pocahontas on down (he survived and became the founder of one of Virginia's "First families" and no I'm not one of them..)

As for the idea that male elders might have caught them, what's an elder to do when the girl is already on the move with a very large army? When such a large, invading army does pass through the old ways do go in for a change. And again, I get the feeling that you are lumping all residents of the Persian empire as Persians...which we all know, they were not. The Persians themselves were a minority in the mass of people of the empire Alexander took over.

Another thing, of the army marching, certainly after ATG was recognised king by Persians included an enormous number of non-Macedonians. Again, I apologise for this, but I remember reading and can not souce right away, that when they showed up to join the army, they came with their women and families in tow.

Arranged marriages, in royalty? Until very recently that was still the common practice...in the west as well. And having thousands of foreign men coming to your town, arranged marriage or no (if the husband or bethrothed was still around in any case)...all bets could be seen to be off.

I am not denying that there were unhappy captives in the camp followers (Tyrians and Gazans especially), but to discount the opposite, that there were willing women who left whatever or wherever because they did see something better does an unfairness to women in my mind irregardless of the era.

athenas owl wrote:Oh no offence taken...the sidelines is great place to be when you and Marcus disagree.

Blimey! And we try to be so civilised about it ...

Doesn't happen much, either - will have to rectify that. Perhaps I'll just disagree with Amyntoros on everything, just to stir things up a bit!

ATB

PS: Amyntoros, I will respond to yours later, when I have more time - am away next week and need to prepare a lot of cover work for my classes ... which has to come first (unfortunately).

Ah, Amyntoros, what can I say?

amyntoros wrote:Events resulting from invasions can be similar but they are not necessarily identical, and culture and society dictates much about the involvement of women. Although comparatively little is known about the Persian women of that period we do know it was a protective, patriarchal society where marriages were arranged and the women were to remain "unspoiled" until the same. I simply don't see women, especially the younger ones, voluntarily "running away" from their lives to follow a conquering army.

Ah yes, but I didn't say that that was necessarily what they wanted - but the exigencies of the situation could have made it the most appealing, or least unappealing, of the alternatives. Of course you are right that the results of invasions throughout history are not necessarily identical - but I bet you that we would find many, many similarities of the sort I'm talking about, if we did a detailed study (and don't think for a moment that I will have the time to substantiate my claim here! ).

For the majority of them this would have been the first time there were invaders on their lands and I can't see how the sight of 30-40,000 or more foreigners who do not speak their language and who have killed their own people with impunity could possibly be more apealling than say an arranged marriage - something they would have been prepared for since practically the day they were born.

Possibly, although the memory of invasion would have been a long and strong folk-memory in their communities; and I am sure that everyone knew what invasion meant. I forgot to mention earlier, but now I've deleted the sentence of your post - but not all of these women/girls we're talking about will have been Persian, of course, and Alexander liberated many cities, as well as destroying communities. Not all the places from where these women came will have been "invaded".

Of course, if they came from a village or city where almost all the adult males had been killed by Alexander's army, including their husbands and families, then they might have felt they had no alternative.

And this is perhaps where it becomes a case of semantics. What you say is true (but see my previous paragraph, too), but having "no alternative" makes the women neither captives nor prostitutes, which were the only two groups that you outlined in your original message.

And here it wasn't "marriages" that were on offer, unlike your tale of the British empire.

Ooh, you beast! You know that that was purely an example of how the exigencies of such a life can affect things, and that I wasn't suggesting that the analogy was complete.

IF, and I say IF, you still had family which still had a house and/or lands after the army came by and you still had future prospects of marriage, why would you freely give it up to make time with a foreign invader and then follow him through inhospitable lands?

Why not?

ATB

athenas owl wrote:Another thing, of the army marching, certainly after ATG was recognised king by Persians included an enormous number of non-Macedonians. Again, I apologise for this, but I remember reading and can not souce right away, that when they showed up to join the army, they came with their women and families in tow.

It probably did after Granicus. It absolutely certainly did after Issus. Whole cities followed Alexander's army. Why? Notwithstanding the victor status, it possessed the bullion. The "women" , of course, followed.

athenas owl wrote:I am not denying that there were unhappy captives in the camp followers (Tyrians and Gazans especially), but to discount the opposite, that there were willing women who left whatever or wherever because they did see something better does an unfairness to women in my mind irregardless of the era.

Of course there were those who left and followed of their own accord. That a great part of these were "camp followers" - for which read "courtesans" (to use the polite speak) - is not really in doubt I'd think. Love, a "better life" and other idealised notions rarely applied.

This was an invading army and it will have taken that which it wanted. Read between the lines of Arrian and see how the the local inhabitants suffered as it took everything it demanded. Popular, romantic modern notions ignore the starvation and privation visited upon local populations by the occupying locusts of Alexander's "bringers of Hellenism and civilisation".

They will have respected local social mores just as well.