pothos.org

I often wondered what the Persians thought of Alexander's dream to join the east and west together to live in harmony. Did they just go along with it to appease him? Did they really think it could work and wanted it to? As we know from our readings of many classics the Macedonians weren't fond of this idea and viewed Persians as barbarians.
I think Alexander was viewed by the Persians as genuine in his desire to unify these cultures. It seems the Babylonians didn't resist as much as other parts of the Persian empire.

I offer some information I have come across from www.iranchamber.com

"Alexander thought that the empire that he wanted to consolidate could be ruled in peace and no arrogance was needed like some of his generals had suggested. The official treatment of the beaten Iranians was by ancient standards remarkably lenient and human. Not only Alexander continued to employ many of the provincial governors in his own administration in Asia, he also behaved according to the customs prescribed for an Achaemenian monarch, recruited noble Iranians for his army and gave them high rank and privilege, and undertook to marry his generals to aristocratic ladies of Iran. Alexander's policy of fusion of East and West found its most impressive expression expression in his celebration at Opis, where Greeks and Persians consummated together a sacrificial communion meal, while Alexander the Idealist prayed that, homonia, a "like-mindedness, concord," might be created and made to last between his European and Asiatic subjects. Greek seers and Persian Magi (a class of Zoroastria priest in ancient Iran, reputed to possess supernatural powers) together conducted rites to solemnize this attempted marriage of East and West.[6]"

{So Alexander was seen remarkably lenient in his treatment of their people.} Yet I have found information about Persians that didn't want Alexander's "union"

Iranian resistance to the Macedonians, therefore, never lacked for provocation, and in fact never stopped after the death of Darius. Some of the satraps Alexander had retained in service turned out to be halfhearted in their support of the new regime, and some actually rebellious to it. Those who remained loyal to the idea of native Iranian rule were gradually eliminated and replaced by Europeans. The failure of guerrilla resistance like that of Spitamenes of Sogdiana, however showed the Iranians that the immense technical and organization superiority of the Europeans made further attempts at open military resistance as vain as the deployment of the huge armies of the Great king. But if the physical resistance was impossible, religious resistance was not. It was even natural to the ideals of Iranian civilization.
Iran in the third century was prosperous, and its sanctuaries remained wealthy. What it did reflect was the resentment of a dispossessed imperial nobility. The bare fact of European control in Iran threatened the dominance of not only the military but also the religious aristocracy. Hellenic customs did come into Iran with Greek settlers, armies, and government officials, and were practiced alongside the older Iranian customs. When some Iranians began to adhere to Hellenic customs in general and religious practices in particular, the most anti-Hellenic of the Iranians reacted strongly against this cultural treason. Ancient Oriental societies were conceived of people arising from religious causes and kingship who were involved with religious functions as well as political duties. Other phases of human activity were closely linked with religious belief.

In comparison with the Iranians the Babylonian propaganda was much less vigorous and aggressive. The Iranians looked forward to the destruction of the Greeks, and optimistically believed that after they had been destroyed and rule of the East had been restored to them, the world would be a much pleasanter place. This degree of hate is not apparent among Babylonians. The survey of Western Asia had showed that in the third century and in the first years of the second there was only the slightest resistance to Hellenism, and that was almost entirely in the old imperial capital of Babylon.

{I don't know how long the "union" would have lasted even if Alexander had survived. It seems that there were a good number of people against it and not just the Macedonians.Care to discuss?}

As biased Plutarch may had been towards Alexander, some of his writings may represent actual social changes that happened up until his time. He describes that Greek education and way of life changed some "barbaric" customs of the people across Asia, such as young people in tribes killing the old, sexual relations amongst the family in the Persian aristocracy, the benefits of philosophy, theatre and poetry, and other things. It's fair to assume that many of these things were preserved at least until Plutarch's time, the 1st century a.d. So we can say that many of the Persians and other people around Asia welcomed some of these changes.

However this doesnt mean that they generally welcomed the Hellenic-Macedonian rule. But i believe that the rebellions and the anti-hellenic movements were sparsed and isolated incidents. At least in Persia. Babylon didnt care about the change because they generally were occupied by different nations throught history, and maybe the hellenic occupation was more gentle than the Persian one.

But other places surely revolted. I dont think though that after the Macedonians left, that all of the hellenic cultural influence was discarded. At least that is what Plutarch implies.

I noticed when I was researching the site I listed that as you said some of the Greek customs did merge with Persian. Alexander definately left his mark and had a hand in cultrural changes.There aren't too many figures from history that can claim that in my humble opinion.

Yes, but it think the key here is to see if these changes were welcomed, rather than became part of the cultures through the centuries as a habit. I believe that these people didnt want to revert to the old habits, after they had seen the benefits from the new merged ones. Meaning that as we do not want to go back to the time that we had no electricity, they also didnt want to discard theatre and poetry and other things. I dont know in which extent these things were preserved, but as you said they were merged with their own cultures to suit them better.

That is what's different between Alexander's campaign and other campaigns. That Alexander brought with him the hellenistic culture which was beneficial in most forms. Paralus may disagree, as it sounds like that he showed them the light, but in a way it was like that. In the way that the hellenistic culture was beneficial to them and it merged with their own culture.

_____

"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.

I agree that the Persians did gain knowledge and art from the Greeks that they put to their own use. They learned that some of the Greek ways were beneficial to themselves and used those while leaving the less desirable ones to fade away.

It seems some parts of the Persian empire didn't hate the Greek's being there yet other's couldn't wait to be rid of them. I guess Babylon had been taken over before and they were maybe used to change? Could it be that because of Babylon's location they saw people of different cultures more often and were more accepting of change? The area's that were deeper into the Persian empire seemed to be the ones that did not welcome change.

I think it was an amazing vision Alexander had but to make it work seemed an impossible task. He didn't seem to have prejudice against other cultures like some of his Generals. I do admire that.

The Babylonians had never been terribly happy with Persian rule and were excited to see them kicked out when Alexander came in. The reason they received Alexander so generously is due to his treatment of them. For starters he appointed a native as satrap, and upon entering the city, paid tribute to their god. He was tolerant of their customs as well, even going as far as adopting a few of them. Under Alexander the Babylonians were not treated as subjects to be exploited, but rather subjects which made up a part of his empire. He allowed them to practice their religion and customs without restriction, which gained him much popularity.

rocktupac wrote:The Babylonians had never been terribly happy with Persian rule and were excited to see them kicked out when Alexander came in.

That belies what would appear to be a period of negotiation with Mazaeus before he handed over the city. It was not at all that simple as Alexander's arrival in battle order before the city might indicate.

rocktupac wrote:The reason they received Alexander so generously is due to his treatment of them. For starters he appointed a native as satrap, and upon entering the city, paid tribute to their god. He was tolerant of their customs as well, even going as far as adopting a few of them. Under Alexander the Babylonians were not treated as subjects to be exploited, but rather subjects which made up a part of his empire. He allowed them to practice their religion and customs without restriction, which gained him much popularity.

Which treatment is in absolutely no way dissimilar to Cyrus some two hundred years earlier. All of what you have noted here as Alexander's "differing" treatment is exactly how the Babylonians were treated by the Achaemenids. There is every reason to believe that Cyrus' fist governor, one Nabû-ahhe-bullit (who succeeded Gobryas his general a few weeks after the fall), was in fact a "natiive". Mazaeus was not native, rather he seems to have married into the local elites going on the names of his sons.

The "multi-cultural" nature of the Achaemenid empire fostered exactly what you ascribe to Alexander - particularly the continuamce of local cultural mores and - a fortiori - religions.

According to "The Search for Alexander" by Robin Lane Fox:

The Babylonians actually revolted four times against the early Persian kings due to the encroachment of aristocrats on their farmland and property. They kept taking away land from the natives and using them to maintain large horse stables and pastures, not to mention using the revenues of the village to fund the queen of Darius II's "shoes, girdles and wardrobes."

Alexander was greeted by the priests with open arms, followed by a procession of wild animals. Mazaeus, who wasn't a (true) native Babylonian, was married to a Babylonian wife and bore sons with Babylonian names. Alexander again used the theme of revenging the misdeeds of Xerxes to gain a favorable position, since Xerxes damaged many of Babylon's temples and shrines, and above all, the gold statue of Bel-Marduk had been melted. Even if Cyrus had been well-liked, these acts by Xerxes would not have been good for Persian reputation. Alexander ordered the temples to be rebuilt and next sacrificed to Bel.

The negotiations between Alexander and Mazaeus were no doubt short. Upon arriving at the city Alexander had his men ready in battle formation in case of a surprise attack. Seeing this, and wanting to avoid any type of conflict, Mazaeus offered the city to Alexander, marching out with his sons as a sign of good faith.

rocktupac wrote:The Babylonians actually revolted four times against the early Persian kings due to the encroachment of aristocrats on their farmland and property. They kept taking away land from the natives and using them to maintain large horse stables and pastures, not to mention using the revenues of the village to fund the queen of Darius II's "shoes, girdles and wardrobes."

There is plenty of conjecture on the actual number of "revolts". Revolt they did though and they weren't alone. None of which is to discount the treatment they received from Persian rule. It was as I have described for the great part - post revolt treatment aside. Indeed the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Lydians were treated in exactly the same fashion - until they revolted. By the time of Alexander's "liberation" of them things were, for the great part, back to normal and the majority were quite content.

Pierre Briant devotes an entire chapter to the treatment and the entreaty of Mazaeus prior to the march on Babylon. He also includes the wooing of Abulites (Susa) in this treatment of Persian grandees by Alexander. It was infact, as he states, the surrender of both these bastions of power that drove the wooden stake into the heart of the Achaemenid vampire. The tendency is to see Guagamela as the final nail; that is modern hidsight. Darius will have issued instructions for these to hold out to the last as he prepared a final showdown. Hence his domicile in Ecbatana. He leaves here only after the disastrous news of the surrender - without a fight - of the two citadels and at Alexander's subsequent march. The taking of these two citadels by Alexander was of paramount importance before he could move on. That he secured them without the loss of a man and without a fight testifies to some dedicated diplomacy. It also serves to highten Alexander's anger at Abilutes after the latter's perceived failure of the Macedonian king on his return from India.

The motif of the temples and the staues of the gods - specifically their "restoration" by new rulers - is one that recurrs throughout near eastern history; much as does that of monarchical single combat. What you need to bear in mind is that these preists were, for a great part of their tenure, "businessmen". The temples had lands and finacial accruals from those (and ritual) attached to them. There are many a long record of the dealings of the preist of this or that Babylonian temple throughout the long Persian occupation. Business was transacted as per usual. That some of those earnings now went to a satrap might well have itched. Anything that disturbed the finacial and power structures that these preists were supported by would be met with resentment. Alexander understood this too. He would "restore" the temples but the preists could do it at their cost. When it came to ancient preisthoods (and not too few modern) piety and penury rarely attended upon each other.

Instructive is the relative ease with which Selecus took back Babylon and Babylonia in autumn of 312. With a force of about 800 foot and 200 horse, he set off from Syria for Babylon. Along the way he picked up "all the Macedonians" in Carhhae". These were, almost certainly, a portion of the Silver Shields settled there after Gabiene. Men who were, in Bosworth's words, well experienced in "poliorcetics". That explains the success of the assault on the citadel in Babylon. What then explains the enthusiastic "going over" of the Babylonians themselves? Most likely the exploitative rule of Antigonus' satrap (as with Persis). Wars have to be paid for and Antigonus was wielding large numbers at this stage.