pothos.org

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:32 pm**

amyntoros wrote:So … why didn't Alexander marry the eldest daughter of Darius earlier in the conquests? Probably, IMO, because his original intent was to marry the wife of Darius – something he couldn't legitimately do until Darius was dead.

Xenophon, Cyropaidia wrote:[5.1.2] Then Cyrus called to him Araspas, a Mede, who had been his friend from boyhood--the same one to whom he had given his Median robe when he laid it off as he was returning from Astyages's court to Persia--and bade him keep for him both the lady and the tent. [5.1.3] Now this woman (Panthea) was the wife of Abradatas of Susa; and when the Assyrian camp was taken, her husband happened not to be there, having gone on an embassy to the king of Bactria; for the Assyrian king had sent him thither to negotiate an alliance, because he chanced to be a guest-friend of the Bactrian king. This, then, was the lady that Cyrus placed in the charge of Araspas, until such a time as he himself should take her. [5.1.4] And when he received this commission Araspas asked: "And have you seen the lady, Cyrus, whom you give into my keeping?" said he."No, by Zeus," said Cyrus; "not I.""But I have," said the other. "I saw her when we selected her for you. And when we went into her tent, upon my word, we did not at first distinguish her from the rest; for she sat upon the ground and all her handmaids sat around her. And she was dressed withal just like her servants; but when we looked round upon them all in our desire to make out which one was the mistress, at once her superiority to all the rest was evident, even though she sat veiled, with her head bowed to the earth. [5.1.5] But when we bade her rise, all her attendants stood up with her, and then was she conspicuous among them both for her stature and for her nobility and her grace, even though she stood there in lowly garb. And she could not hide her tears as they fell, some down her dress, some even to her feet. [5.1.6] Then, when the oldest man in our company said: `Have no fear, lady; for though we understand that your husband also is a noble man, yet we are choosing you out for a man who, be assured, is not his inferior either in comeliness or intelligence or power, but, as we at least think, if there is any man in the world who deserves admiration, that man is Cyrus; and his you shall henceforth be.' Now when the lady heard that, she rent her outer garment from top to bottom and wept aloud; and her servants also cried aloud with her. [5.1.7] "And then we had vision of most of her face and vision of her neck and arms. And let me tell you, Cyrus," said he, "it seemed to me, as it did to all the rest who saw her, that there never was so beautiful a woman of mortal birth in Asia. But," he added, "you must by all means see her for yourself." [5.1.8] "No, by Zeus," said Cyrus; "and all the less, if she is as beautiful as you say.""Why so?" asked the young man."Because," said he, "if now I have heard from you that she is beautiful and am inclined just by your account of her to go and gaze on her, when I have no time to spare, I am afraid that she will herself much more readily persuade me to come again to gaze on her. And in consequence of that I might sit there, in neglect of my duties, idly gazing upon her.".... [6.1.45] When Panthea learned that Araspas had gone away, she sent word to Cyrus, saying: "Do not be distressed, Cyrus, that Araspas has gone over to the enemy; for if you will allow me to send to my husband, I can guarantee you that a much more faithful friend will come to you than Araspas was. And what is more, I know that he will come to you with as many troops as he can bring. For while the father of the present king was his friend, this present king once even attempted to separate me from my husband. Inasmuch, therefore, as he considers the king an insolent scoundrel, I am sure that he would be glad to transfer his allegiance to such a man as you." [6.1.46] When Cyrus heard that, he bade her send word to her husband; and she did so. And when Abradatas read the cipher message sent by his wife and was informed how matters stood otherwise, he joyfully proceeded with about a thousand horse to join Cyrus. When he came up to the Persian sentries, he sent to Cyrus to let him know who it was; and Cyrus gave orders to take him at once to his wife. [6.1.47] And when Abradatas and his wife saw each other they embraced each other with joy, as was natural, considering they had not expected ever to meet again. Thereafter Panthea told of Cyrus's piety and self-restraint and of his compassion for her."Tell me, Panthea," said Abradatas when he heard this, "what can I do to pay the debt of gratitude that you and I owe to Cyrus?""What else, pray," said Panthea, "than to try to be to him what he has been to you?" [6.1.48] Later Abradatas went to Cyrus. When he saw him he took his right hand in his and said: "In return for the kindnesses you have done us, Cyrus, I do not know what more to say than that I offer myself to you to be your friend, your servant, your ally. And in whatsoever enterprise I see you engage, I shall try to co-operate with you to the very best of my ability." [6.1.49] "And I accept your offer," said Cyrus. "And now I will take leave of you and let you go to dinner with your wife. Some other time you will be expected to dine at my headquarters with your friends and mine."

There is a lot of evidence that Alexander had read the Cyropaidia in his youth. There are many indications that he was greatly influenced by it. It is therefore hard not to suspect, given the obvious parallels, that Alexander's intention was to return Stateira I to Darius and thereby win his loyalty, just as Cyrus returned Panthea of Susa to her husband Abradatas.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:34 am**

Taphoi wrote:There is a lot of evidence that Alexander had read the Cyropaidia in his youth. There are many indications that he was greatly influenced by it. It is therefore hard not to suspect, given the obvious parallels, that Alexander's intention was to return Stateira I to Darius and thereby win his loyalty, just as Cyrus returned Panthea of Susa to her husband Abradatas.

Hey, it's an interesting theory and I'm certainly one who believes Alexander was influenced by the Cyropaida - you might recall my thread not too long ago on the subject where I also quoted John Maxwell O'Brien's many parallels with Xenophon's Cyrus. I do not, however, believe that Alexander was trying to be Cyrus in all things, and given the events in Alexander's campaigns and the fact that Darius fled the battlefield twice I doubt that Alexander either expected or wanted Darius' "loyalty".

And, more importantly, there's a considerable difference between returning the wife of a comparatively minor nobleman to her husband and returning the wife of the Great King - the man who, in fact, Alexander was intending to become - the ruler of all Asia. No matter how much it is romanticized in the sources or elsewhere, Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live. Which is why I find it awfully convenient that Darius died while Alexander dilly-dallied for a few days right after having made such a speedy pursuit.

Best regards,

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:43 am**

amyntoros wrote: No matter how much it is romanticized in the sources or elsewhere, Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live. Which is why I find it awfully convenient that Darius died while Alexander dilly-dallied for a few days right after having made such a speedy pursuit.

You might as well say that the British could not afford to let Napoleon live, but we did - twice! You might as well say that Alexander could not afford to let Porus live, but he did, and thereby won his loyalty and made him one of his most faithful and powerful servants.

You are absolutely correct to acknowledge that the sources depict a very romantic streak to Alexander's personality. The problem that confronts you in your modern hardbitten scepticism is that the facts back them up. For example (as I have written elsewhere) Bessus obviously did not share your view that Alexander intended to murder Darius, since he felt the need to do the job himself instead. I think that Bessus' opinion in this matter deserves more respect than that of modern historians, who find romanticism in history incomprehensibly alien to their modernist views of the world.

The sources are clear that Alexander was incensed by the murder of Darius. I suspect that this was because his plan for a romantic reconciliation with the Persian monarch (returning his wife to him and at that point with his consent marrying Stateira II to cement the alliance in return for Darius' fealty) had been dashed. It seems to me that the reason Alexander declared himself King of Asia rather than King of Persia was partly to allow the possibility of re-installing Darius as puppet king of Persia (as Hammond has suggested). There was however a reconciliation with Darius' family, who became some of Alexander's most faithful supporters: Sisygambis committed suicide at the news of Alexander's death. Are you going to tell Pothosians that she believed that Alexander had plotted the murder of her son? Are they going to believe you, if you do? Pigs may indulge in aviation I suppose!

Although the policy was romantic, I think it was also practical and stood a better chance of pacifying the newly won territories than the aggressive, ideologically driven policies that have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory following certain more recent conflicts in the same region.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:43 am**

amyntoros wrote:And, more importantly, there's a considerable difference between returning the wife of a comparatively minor nobleman to her husband and returning the wife of the Great King - the man who, in fact, Alexander was intending to become - the ruler of all Asia. No matter how much it is romanticized in the sources or elsewhere, Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live. Which is why I find it awfully convenient that Darius died while Alexander dilly-dallied for a few days right after having made such a speedy pursuit.

And, whatever Alexander's romantic notions, he was too much of a realist to hand over his best hostage merely as a gesture of good faith.

One might also question why he didn't hand Stateira back sooner, as well, if he was intending to do so for purely altruistic reasons, rather than waiting for Darius to accede to his demands. The dispute over whether Darius wrote 1 or 2 letters doesn't help here. Neither does the dispute over when Stateira died, either - although even if she died earlier rather than later, Alexander had still had ample opportunity to send her off to her husband with full honours.

Let's not even get onto the question of Stateira's pregnancy ...

Yes, I think Taphoi makes a very interesting point, but I don't buy it, myself.

ATB

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:51 am**

marcus wrote:One might also question why he didn't hand Stateira back sooner, as well, if he was intending to do so for purely altruistic reasons, rather than waiting for Darius to accede to his demands.

Neither I nor Xenophon implied that the wife-returning was done for altruistic reasons. In the case of Cyrus and Alexander, it was to be done in return for fealty. And obviously not until fealty was conceded.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:52 am**

Taphoi wrote:
marcus wrote:One might also question why he didn't hand Stateira back sooner, as well, if he was intending to do so for purely altruistic reasons, rather than waiting for Darius to accede to his demands.
Neither I nor Xenophon implied that the wife-returning was done for altruistic reasons. In the case of Cyrus and Alexander, it was to be done in return for fealty. And obviously not until fealty was conceded.

No, you are right - I re-read your earlier post and see that I have mis-represented you. Apologies.

However, you did say:

Alexander's intention was to return Stateira I to Darius and thereby win his loyalty

which does imply returning her before receiving fealty from Darius. (You might not have meant that, but that's what you implied.)

So you can see where I got an altruism that you had not actually expressed into my mind ...

ATB

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:19 pm**

Taphoi wrote:You might as well say that the British could not afford to let Napoleon live, but we did - twice! You might as well say that Alexander could not afford to let Porus live, but he did, and thereby won his loyalty and made him one of his most faithful and powerful servants.

Yet others he killed or had killed. He was not a one-track pony. He admired the bravery and bearing of Porus and he needed someone he thought he could trust to oversee territories in India. Did he need that in Persia itself in that he thought he couldn't rule the empire unless he had Darius as a puppet? Events show otherwise.

Taphoi wrote:The problem that confronts you in your modern hardbitten scepticism is that the facts back them up. For example (as I have written elsewhere) Bessus obviously did not share your view that Alexander intended to murder Darius, since he felt the need to do the job himself instead.

First of all, I admit I have some skepticism about romanticism in history – however, much depends on the topic or events under discussion. I do recall a discussion between us not that long ago where you exhibited a modern attitude to ancient religious beliefs and you considered my approach to be more romantic, so it is difficult to know how you have reached the conclusion that my skepticism is modern and hardbitten.

Anyway, away from a personal discussion about me - one we should not be having - and back to Alexander. I don't see any facts backing up your argument here, unless we are to believe that Bessus (who didn't know any Greek) consulted with Alexander or others in his army to the extent that he was able to get inside Alexander's mind and know all of Alexander's future intentions. Heck, we're arguing about Alexander's intentions and we have written sources that we can consult.

Taphoi wrote:I think that Bessus' opinion in this matter deserves more respect than that of modern historians, who find romanticism in history incomprehensibly alien to their modernist views of the world.

Again, we don't know Bessus' opinion in this matter and although there's much in the sources about why Bessus killed or wanted to kill Darius there are no facts stating that he killed him simply because he knew Alexander wouldn't. Bessus obviously thought the throne should be his - he later assumed royal robes and gave orders that he should be addressed as 'Artaxerxes' (Curtius 6.6.13) - yet he had two people standing in his way. Darius was in his hands ... Alexander wasn't.

Taphoi wrote:There was however a reconciliation with Darius' family, who became some of Alexander's most faithful supporters: Sisygambis committed suicide at the news of Alexander's death. Are you going to tell Pothosians that she believed that Alexander had plotted the murder of her son? Are they going to believe you, if you do? Pigs may indulge in aviation I suppose!

No, I’m not going to tell Pothosians that Sisygambis believed that Alexander had plotted the murder of her son. That would be ridiculous. How on earth would she have known anything about Alexander's prior intentions in this matter, whatever they were? Does anyone think that Alexander would have told her, knowing the effect it would have upon her? Would those closest to Alexander in whom he might have confided have passed on this information to Sisygambis? I think not. This was a man who threatened the few survivors of the defeat by Spitamenes and the Dahae with death if they divulged what had happened. A great many people knew only what Alexander wanted them to know.

Taphoi wrote:Are they going to believe you, if you do? Pigs may indulge in aviation I suppose!

I know should rise above this but I'm tiring of this kind of remark. Youve described an argument which I did not make and called it a “pig in the air”!!! Surely then an argument based on the premise that Alexander devotedly copied Cyrus in all things (even when there is no evidence in the sources concerning a particular issue or event) could certainly be called the same, although, like Monty Python's sheep it might not so much fly as plummet.

Best regards,

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:31 pm**

I'm not going to get heavily involved in the discussion here, but:

Taphoi wrote:The sources are clear that Alexander was incensed by the murder of Darius.

... which could just as easily mean that he was incensed that Bessus and Nabarzanes had done it, not that he was incensed by the fact of Darius having been killed. I don't have my books easily to hand, or I would re-check exactly what the sources say; but I would lay money on them not saying "he was incensed because he wanted Darius alive".

ATB

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:27 pm**

amyntoros wrote:I don't see any facts backing up your argument here, unless we are to believe that Bessus (who didn't know any Greek) consulted with Alexander or others in his army to the extent that he was able to get inside Alexander's mind and know all of Alexander's future intentions. Heck, we're arguing about Alexander's intentions and we have written sources that we can consult.... Youve described an argument which I did not make and called it a “pig in the air”!!!

You have said that "Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live" and suggested that he dawdled to allow Darius' murder. If you are saying that this is different to plotting Darius' murder, then that is a very fine moral distinction.

The facts are that Alexander wept over Darius' corpse and according to Diodorus some sources said he swore to avenge Darius' death. Oxathres, the brother of Darius, entered Alexander's service in the Companions and Alexander cared for Darius' family "as if Darius were still on the throne." Furthermore, Alexander had already offered that Darius might keep his throne if he accepted Alexander as his overlord (Diodorus 17.54.6). All these things are facts inconsistent with Alexander wanting to murder Darius.

If Alexander had secret and perverse policies which were unknown to Oxathres and Sisygambis, then we certainly can't know any hint of them either, so they are purely hypothetical and entirely speculative.

My problem with your opinion that Alexander wanted Darius dead is that I am unaware of any evidence that suggests any such thing in the sources. Everything I know of in the sources suggests exactly the opposite. You are yourself familiar with the source material, hence Pothosians may suppose your opinion to be based on source evidence. An opinion unsupported by source evidence is fine. However, it is not history, but merely historical fiction or fantasy.

Marcus wrote:I don't have my books easily to hand, or I would re-check exactly what the sources say; but I would lay money on them not saying "he was incensed because he wanted Darius alive".

Plutarch 43 wrote: When Alexander came up, he showed his grief and distress at Darius' death, and unfastening his own cloak, he threw it over the body and covered it.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:43 pm**

Taphoi wrote:
Marcus wrote:I don't have my books easily to hand, or I would re-check exactly what the sources say; but I would lay money on them not saying "he was incensed because he wanted Darius alive".

Plutarch 43 wrote: When Alexander came up, he showed his grief and distress at Darius' death, and unfastening his own cloak, he threw it over the body and covered it.

Which is not the same as "incensed".

And why could it not just as easily have been a show? As it was Bessus who had had Darius killed, Alexander would have been quite aware of the political implications, and also of the opportunity it gave him to act as Darius' legitimate heir, and to continue with the drive eastwards to avenge Darius' death - even before hearing that Bessus had adopted the tiara. Alexander was adept at propaganda already, as we well know, and he was hardly slow on the uptake.

And Plutarch had his own reasons to portray Alexander in certain ways, so while I agree that it is not sufficient to make suppositions without evidence, equally I do not consider it satisfactory to take such statements in the sources at face value.

That's not to say that I necessarily think that Alexander did want to capture Darius so he could kill him; but there are plenty of ways to skin a cat ...

ATB

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:07 pm**

I have only a little time at the moment as I will leave soon for a performance of Aristophanes' The Frogs - in Greek, Efstathios, in Greek! Okay ... it will have 'supra-titles' in English.

Anyway, for the time being let me address the following:

Taphoi wrote:
amyntoros wrote:I don't see any facts backing up your argument here, unless we are to believe that Bessus (who didn't know any Greek) consulted with Alexander or others in his army to the extent that he was able to get inside Alexander's mind and know all of Alexander's future intentions. Heck, we're arguing about Alexander's intentions and we have written sources that we can consult.... Youve described an argument which I did not make and called it a “pig in the air”!!!
You have said that "Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live" and suggested that he dawdled to allow Darius' murder. If you are saying that this is different to plotting Darius' murder, then that is a very fine moral distinction.

There are no fine moral distinctions at play. Your pigs may fly comment had no direct relationship to my remark that Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live, or, for that matter, that Alexander plotted his murder. It was made quite clearly in reference to your suggestion – disguised as a question – that I am/was telling Pothosians that Sisygambis believed Alexander had plotted the murder of her son. I quote in full:

Taphoi wrote:The sources are clear that Alexander was incensed by the murder of Darius. I suspect that this was because his plan for a romantic reconciliation with the Persian monarch (returning his wife to him and at that point with his consent marrying Stateira II to cement the alliance in return for Darius' fealty) had been dashed. It seems to me that the reason Alexander declared himself King of Asia rather than King of Persia was partly to allow the possibility of re-installing Darius as puppet king of Persia (as Hammond has suggested). There was however a reconciliation with Darius' family, who became some of Alexander's most faithful supporters: Sisygambis committed suicide at the news of Alexander's death. Are you going to tell Pothosians that she believed that Alexander had plotted the murder of her son? Are they going to believe you, if you do? Pigs may indulge in aviation I suppose!

As I said – the suggestion is nonsense and it was not an argument I was making. There’s no need to try and interpret MY intent on the forum. If in doubt, ask me. Only I would prefer it if comments are not made about my views, thoughts or opinions before you have ascertained what they may be.

Best regards,

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:07 am**

marcus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:
Marcus wrote:I don't have my books easily to hand, or I would re-check exactly what the sources say; but I would lay money on them not saying "he was incensed because he wanted Darius alive".

Plutarch 43 wrote: When Alexander came up, he showed his grief and distress at Darius' death, and unfastening his own cloak, he threw it over the body and covered it.
Which is not the same as "incensed". :?

And why could it not just as easily have been a show? As it was Bessus who had had Darius killed, Alexander would have been quite aware of the political implications, and also of the opportunity it gave him to act as Darius' legitimate heir, and to continue with the drive eastwards to avenge Darius' death - even before hearing that Bessus had adopted the tiara. Alexander was adept at propaganda already, as we well know, and he was hardly slow on the uptake.

Nothing like romanticism in history eh?

I have not read the lot having been away since last Thursday evening and, yes indeed Marcus, the propaganda element has been largely ignored in this thread. Just in passing though, I find it odd that Bessus might have waited until he did to usurp the throne because Alexander hadn't quite done so or Bessus thought he might nor do so.

As well, the passages from the Cyropaedia need to be taken with a decent dose of salt. Whether Alexander did so (when reading them) is another matter. The classical sources need to be treated with much care when assessing the growth of the Persians as an eastern power. An uncritical reading would see one believing that a group of nomads took it upon themselves to demolish the Assyrians (with the help of the Medes and the Neo-Babylonians) before following up with the demolition of the same Medes and Neo-Babylonians. Whilst dealing with Lydiia and Pactyes as well.

Decent job for the "King of Ansan" and his homeless nomads one suspects.

Anyhow, late lunch, a read of the tread (later) and another post I imagine.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:38 am**

I note that in addition to the possible influence of the Cyropaidia story, Alexander had explicitly offered Darius the Persian throne and the return of his mother, wife and children in return for fealty among the various letters he had sent to Darius.

If it is okay to attribute evil machinations to historical figures, when there is no source evidence to suggest them, then as a parallel case should we consider whether President Bush might be plotting to murder Mrs Clinton? Obviously, she is a great threat to the Republican Party, so Amyntoros might consider that Bush cannot afford to let her live. Is this reasonable? Is this the way forward? A conspiracy theory to re-interpret each event in history to slander all the great men and women of the past?

Best wishes,

Andrew

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:04 pm**

Taphoi wrote:If it is okay to attribute evil machinations to historical figures, when there is no source evidence to suggest them, then as a parallel case should we consider whether President Bush might be plotting to murder Mrs Clinton? Obviously, she is a great threat to the Republican Party, so Amyntoros might consider that Bush cannot afford to let her live. Is this reasonable? Is this the way forward? A conspiracy theory to re-interpret each event in history to slander all the great men and women of the past?

Andrew, you have a lovely way of choosing emotive words in order to make others' points appear unsupportable. It is not fair to accuse Amyntoros of attributing as "evil machinations" what could have been a perfectly understandable objective on Alexander's part. Darius, while alive, was a threat, a figurehead to whom the Persians could still flock, and to have him alive, even as a subordinate, would have been an incredibly risky strategy. Of course you are correct, that there is no source evidence to suggest that Alexander explicitly wanted Darius dead; but as we all know Alexander was a realist. Maybe he didn't want Darius dead, but to use the sources at face value and not to take into account the entire historiography is equally short-sighted, in my opinion.

To then include the Bush/Clinton analogy is ridiculous - if you are going to accuse others of poor historical process, then please don't insult us all with a cheap shot like that.

I don't wish to see this turning into another of those threads where perfectly respectable, and respected, Pothosians end up in personal, rather than academic battles. I am watching the descent with dismay!

ATB

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:40 pm**

marcus wrote: It is not fair to accuse Amyntoros of attributing as "evil machinations" what could have been a perfectly understandable objective on Alexander's part. Darius, while alive, was a threat, a figurehead to whom the Persians could still flock, and to have him alive, even as a subordinate, would have been an incredibly risky strategy.

So are you endorsing the practice of secretly arranging for the assassination of one's enemies?

If so, I must be more careful not to upset you, I suppose

marcus wrote:To then include the Bush/Clinton analogy is ridiculous - if you are going to accuse others of poor historical process, then please don't insult us all with a cheap shot like that.

It was my point that the Bush/Clinton thing is ridiculous. I honestly cannot see any reason or evidence to suppose that attributing murderous intentions to Alexander in respect of Darius is any less ridiculous.

Best wishes,

Andrew

pothos.org

Stateira, Xenophon, and the Death of Darius - Split thread