Unity of Nations - Idealism or Pragmatism?

[amyntoros]

I begin this post with a response to some comments on the Reason Why Alexander was Great thread, but as I diverge into a discussion of the "Unity of Nations" theory (and the other thread is getting quite unwieldy) I decided to start this new thread.

Any spreading of “Hellenic” cultural mores was, in my opinion, of a seriously secondary concern.

In a purely conventional way, you're right. It doesn't seem that a short-term cultural inheritance for the masses was in plan. It's much more likely that an off-shoot of a Macedonian-military model would have been in store--egalitarianism through service, as it were.

Had he lived, these means to an end (in my opinion) will have continued in the same vein: defence and the supply of recruits. His father had been doing similar throughout the Balkans for some decades before this.

You're obliged to your opinion, of course, but I feel that you're assuming the worst of him.

Well, on the issue of short term/long term plans versus means to an end, I'll throw in a third view here – that of Winthrop Lindsay Adams in his Alexander the Great: Legacy of a Conqueror.

On Philip’s policies: "The task in which Philip was engaged is what we would call state building. He was creating a nation with an integrated population, a national economy, national political institutions, and coincidentally, an army. It is too easy to concentrate on this last point alone, as most sources do. All during his reign, this was what going on in Macedonia internally and along all the barbarian frontiers (as opposed to Philip’s relations with the Greeks). … … …"Non Macedonian ethnic groups from the frontiers were settled in the heartland in large numbers. For instance, following a campaign late in his reign against the Scythian king Atheas, Philip resettled some 20,000 Scythians to the interior of Macedonia. By giving them land and making them liable for recruitment, Philip was in fact making Macedonians of them. Indeed, our source for this, Justin, says that it was precisely in this manner that Philip "from many peoples and tribes made one kingdom and one people."

On incorporating Persians and others into Alexander's army: "In a sense, Alexander was actually following Macedonian principles and practice. Philip had done just the same things with his frontier policy and this was just an extension of that. The political definition of being a Macedonian citizen had revolved around holding land from the king in exchange for military service. This fulfilled that."

On the "reconciliation" feast at Opis: "Modern scholarship about this reconciliation has ranged from the idea that this was an expression of Alexander’s altruistic hope to unite East and West to it being a cynical attempt to gloss over what Alexander considered a temporary problem. The former points to the language of the event, the latter to the fact that no policies indeed changed and that it was just rhetoric. The truth lies somewhere in between, and the key to it is in Alexander's Macedonian background. The Persians and Macedonians were united in being under Alexander’s rule (arche as it was expressed in the prayer), and such rule in both traditions was based on kinship and custom. Alexander was related by blood and marriage to both Persians and Macedonians. Holding land and status from the king in exchange for military service supplied the formula for being a Macedonian citizen: Both Persians and Macedonians did that. Alexander's policies were in fact no different from Philip's only on a grander scale. The call to make common cause (koinonia) was a pragmatic rather than an idealistic goal, for that was the only way to control so vast an empire.

So … in essence Adams supports both your arguments. Yes, a Persian could achieve egalitarianism through service and yet Alexander's polices were in essence about defence and the supply of troops based on policies which Philip had first put into effect. I'll add some thoughts of my own here. Any trickle-down effect of cultural assimilation – thinking non-military persons, Persian women and their families here – would have been just that; a consequence of standing political and military policies rather than idealism. The formula is politically and militarily based and that's what's important, although I do think that there's one thing that Alexander did which was further to Philip's policies and could have eventually changed attitudes to ethnicity and the face of the world – the encouraging of his elite and his army to marry within the conquered nations. It's still pragmatic, IMO - see my comments on another thread about there being no marriages between Persian men and Macedonian women - because in essence he intended to create new generations of Macedonians, the line of descent being paternal.

Given enough time, and had he lived, I suspect that maps of the world would have shown Macedonia everywhere rather than the names of the conquered lands, and the elite, at least, would have been seen as Macedonian. Whether this would have spread throughout the rest of the populace is questionable. Egypt under Ptolemy may have had harmonious relationships between native Egyptians and Macedonian/Greeks, but because Alexander's policy of intermarriage was not actively encouraged they tended to maintain a side-by-side existence (or subservient in many cases) rather than completely blending their cultures (and ethnicity) into one. This can be seen even down to the time of Cleopatra when she wore both Egyptian and Greek clothing depending on which group she was addressing (and, I believe, dressed one of her young sons in Macedonian attire and the other in Egyptian). Alexander's principle of intermarriage might have had a different effect. On the other hand, it might not. Without marriage also between Persian noblemen and Greek women it could be that the offspring of Macedonian elite/Persian women would have married within their own circle and the separate ethnic (though not political) identies maintained. Much would depend on whether the "mixed" children of the regular army would have done the same or married back within the Persian population.

Alexander's intent to conquer further territories westward and the creating of a new generation of mixed-blood (though technically Macedonian) elite would have meant that he had a continuing pool from which to draw the administrators of his Persian empire. Best of all, both this new elite and the native population wouldn't have had any objections to Alexander IV's Persian blood. I believe Alexander would have continued (like his father) to marry local women as he went west, perhaps encouraging his men to do so also. Maybe even dividing his empire between numbers of sons, all related in part to the native population? It does seem like a reasonable long term plan to me. Still pragmatism rather than idealism, though. And all hypothesis, of course.

Best regards,

[Phoebus]

Hey, I never said his "idealism" was "ideal" by our standards.

I've always pointed to the fact that his choice of language for the new troops, his intended population transplants (read: likely forced), and his establishment of a growing number of cities was aimed at the dilution of Asian qualities in favor of Hellenic ones.

Hence, as you said, men marrying foreign women and not vice-versa.

[Paralus]

The formula is politically and militarily based and that's what's important, although I do think that there's one thing that Alexander did which was further to Philip's policies and could have eventually changed attitudes to ethnicity and the face of the world – the encouraging of his elite and his army to marry within the conquered nations. It's still pragmatic, IMO - see my comments on another thread about there being no marriages between Persian men and Macedonian women - because in essence he intended to create new generations of Macedonians, the line of descent being paternal.

Indeed, the formula was always militarily based. Philip began it well back in the early part of his reign when he incorporated “Upper Macedonia” into the kingdom. This, of course, involved the “remake” of the “Companionate” (and, one suspects, the basilikoi paides or “pages”) by bringing the incorporated aristocracy to court. Hence we find Coenus’ father, Polemocrates, receiving estates in the Chalcidice.

Theopompus (F 224) sweepingly notes that Philip “collected Companions, some from Macedonia, some from Thessaly ansd some from the rest of Greece”.

The resettlement of conquered territory (Chalcidice, Thrace and Magnesia for example) with Macedonians is echoed by Alexander in the east. Crenides, for example, is resettled with “Makedones” and the locals are forced to supply the labour for those Makedones to live off.

I would argue that although Alexander followed these policies, his settlements in the far east of his empire were far more basic in intent. It is doubtful exactly how many of the garrison troops were, in fact, Macedonian. They mostly appear to be mercenary Greeks. This seems supported by the fact that the satraps for this area are Greek (Stassanor for example) and remained so after Alexander’s death. That, of course, may be coincidence.

Many of these towns were created and populations transferred to them. Whether Alexander viewed these Greeks as Makedones is uncertain. Certainly they had been granted land by the king and so, if the reasoning is followed, that may be the case. It is interesting to note that the Greeks of the mainland are never considered “Makedones” and have no rights under “Macedonian law”. That would not relieve them from having to supply troops to the king though.

Like to scribble more but the office awaits.

[Semiramis]

Alexander's intent to conquer further territories westward and the creating of a new generation of mixed-blood (though technically Macedonian) elite would have meant that he had a continuing pool from which to draw the administrators of his Persian empire. Best of all, both this new elite and the native population wouldn't have had any objections to Alexander IV's Persian blood. I believe Alexander would have continued (like his father) to marry local women as he went west, perhaps encouraging his men to do so also. Maybe even dividing his empire between numbers of sons, all related in part to the native population? It does seem like a reasonable long term plan to me. Still pragmatism rather than idealism, though. And all hypothesis, of course.

The mixed blood kids in Alexander's army gave him the added bonus of having troops without the support of their ethnic kin. These guys were probably the least likely to rebel. Even if they wanted to visit their fathers' land Macedonia, I doubt they would have been welcome or accepted. In any case, to them, this Macedonia of their fathers' stories would have seemed far away and a cultural backwater compared to Babylon or Susa. Neither were these boys likely to be accepted wholly by the relatives of their "fallen" mothers. Alexander's army would have been the only place where they would belong. The Persian Great Kings had the system of holding on to nobles' sons. Phillip had learnt from them and started the institution of the Royal Pages. For Alexnader, I wonder if these boys could've served as hostages to ensure "proper behaviour" once the veterans made it back.

Take care

[Semiramis]

Hey, I never said his "idealism" was "ideal" by our standards.

I've always pointed to the fact that his choice of language for the new troops, his intended population transplants (read: likely forced), and his establishment of a growing number of cities was aimed at the dilution of Asian qualities in favor of Hellenic ones.

Hence, as you said, men marrying foreign women and not vice-versa.

How does this sit with the idea that Alexander was apparently rather Persianized himself? It was not just a matter of personal preference, he encouraged his close non-Persian entourage to do so as well. Why dilute the "Hellenic qualities" of the most powerful men in the empire for favour of "Asian ones"? The simple answer is I guess to make his rule more palatable to the Persian elite, hence making them less of a threat.

As for the choice of language for the new troops, Asians would eventually move into parts of the army that were previously purely Macedonian. It would make sense to get new recruits from Asia after having bled Macedonia of its manpower. Why change the mode and method of instruction that had served Alexander and Phillip so well? I recall you mentioning a very good point regarding this in another thread - that the same instruction and language would serve as cohesives for the army.

As for the garrison towns, I have huge doubts that the local population had enough (if any) access to their cultural centers such as temples and gymnasia to introduce too many "Hellenic qualities" or reduce any Asian ones. Unless these towns possessed other avenues for cultural instruction, I see no evidence in these cities of Alexander's desire to Hellenize any barbarians.

I see an attempt to make a bleak life far from home, among a hostile population, a little more liveable for the settlers. As Cleitus puts it in the movie "We all know what a pension and exile looks like after 30 years of service". Saying that, were these buildings built to hold particularly large numbers? Perhaps larger than would be explained by the number of settlers? Anyone?

None of the examples above support the idea of Alexander the idealist or Alexander the Hellenizer. It almost seems as if Alexander was Hellenizing (Asian troops) or Persianizing (himself, his chilliarch and others) depending on what would suit him best at the time.

Take care

[Phoebus]

How does this sit with the idea that Alexander was apparently rather Persianized himself? It was not just a matter of personal preference, he encouraged his close non-Persian entourage to do so as well.

Again, I apologize if I'm off, but I have nothing but my Plutarch on hand. Near as I can tell, he approved of Hephaestion's mimicking of his efforts, but didn't actually look to his men to change their mode of dress and such. If anything, his implied acceptance of Craterus' decision not to change mode shows that his choice of dress (tellingly, the most Hellene-like of the Great King's garments) were an attempt at acceptance.

Plutarch also tells us that, correspondingly, Alexander also worked to change native custom to meet Macedonian lines.

Why dilute the "Hellenic qualities" of the most powerful men in the empire for favour of "Asian ones"? The simple answer is I guess to make his rule more palatable to the Persian elite, hence making them less of a threat.

My thoughts exactly.

As for the garrison towns, I have huge doubts that the local population had enough (if any) access to their cultural centers such as temples and gymnasia to introduce too many "Hellenic qualities" or reduce any Asian ones.

In and of themselves, no. But transplanting population groups here and there while installing in the new population centers a Hellenic upper tier would have only served to dillute native quality. Ultimately, I think Alexander saw greater prospect for security in cities that may have only been 10-15% Hellene-speaking, but that also had no single Asian minority (be it Persian, Median, Lydian, Bactrian, etc.) larger than it.

As Cleitus puts it in the movie "We all know what a pension and exile looks like after 30 years of service".

Cleitus said this in the context of getting an unwanted satrapy... not for the state of the cities being built.

Saying that, were these buildings built to hold particularly large numbers? Perhaps larger than would be explained by the number of settlers? Anyone?

Alexandria-on-the-Oxus featured one of the largest gymnasiums built by Hellenes and a considerably-sized theatre, capable of seating roughly 5,000 people. By contrast, the famous theatre of Epidauros seated about 10,000 people prior to the Roman expansion of its seating.

[Paralus]

Ai Khanum, which may well be “Alexander-on the-Oxus”, is a classic example of the Graeco-Macedonian implant. The size of theatre and gymnopaedia is largely irrelevant. This demonstrates only that these cities catered for an elite. Be assured that those who supported this elite saw little of the “cultural life” that transpired amongst the peristyle courtyards and porticos of the acropolis.

Indeed, as I wrote on another thread, the enclave sealed itself off so well that it sealed itself off from the Greek west. This demonstrated in the fact that its arts were far behind the “Hellensitic West”. The mosaic in the bathing area of the palace (dated to c 150 BC), for example, uses workmanship current one hundred years earlier.

The Hellenistic world had passed this enclave by.

Much is made of the Ptolemies and their “adoption” of Egypt. This too is an implant, one indelibly stamped by Alexandria, Alexander’s lasting gift to the cities of the world. There was never any absorption of Egyptian mores or culture. These Macedonians and Greeks ruled and a sub-class of Egyptians served them. This is as it was down to and until the Roman annexure. Little changed afterward.

The Diadochoi “adopted” local mores as it suited. Just as they proclaimed the “autonomy of the Greeks” as it suited. That they, or their Macedonian/Greek enclaves, ever assimilated into the local populations is unlikely at best.

[Phoebus]

Ai Khanum, which may well be “Alexander-on the-Oxus”, is a classic example of the Graeco-Macedonian implant. The size of theatre and gymnopaedia is largely irrelevant. This demonstrates only that these cities catered for an elite. Be assured that those who supported this elite saw little of the “cultural life” that transpired amongst the peristyle courtyards and porticos of the acropolis.

Indeed, as I wrote on another thread, the enclave sealed itself off so well that it sealed itself off from the Greek west. This demonstrated in the fact that its arts were far behind the “Hellensitic West”. The mosaic in the bathing area of the palace (dated to c 150 BC), for example, uses workmanship current one hundred years earlier.

The Hellenistic world had passed this enclave by.

There's no disagreement with this reality. You're 100% correct in how you describe these states. The question I ask is whether this was what Alexander would have intended for them had he lived on.

That the initial settlers didn't want to be in many of these cities is largely irrelevant. The important thing (in my eyes) that Alexander expressed (and demonstrated, in some cases) an interest in expanding trade relations and routes and in forming cities to go along with them. At least some of the cities in the "eastern frontier" thrived as political, mercantile, and, to a degree, cultural centers despite Alexander's death. I don't see why they wouldn't have succeeded just as much had Alexander lived. In fact, given his supposed interest in population movements and such, I don't see why they wouldn't have thrived on even greater level.

That those cities would hace catered to an elite goes without saying. I'm simply wondering whether that elite would have remained as static as many suppose. If military egalitarianism and inclusiveness along Hellenic-Macedonian training and rearing was to be the rule, the elite would only have grown.

Cheers,
P.