AtG statue at site of Gaugamela?

[marcus]

Good evening Pothosians.

Interesting article in the Khaleej Times (which came to me via our old friends RogueClassicism.

I found the final line intriguing - Alexander claimed as "part of" Greek heritage, partly due to the fact that he was tutored by Aristotle. Hmmm!

ATB

[athenas owl]

Dang it...I thought someone had FOUND an ATG statue at Gaugamela. That would be fantastic.

This...someone somewhere will be offended, I am sure.

And that last sentence, again, someone somewhere is going hate that. But it's is an interesting take on it.

As an aside, I really miss the old format at RC. Since he moved, it seems so bleak. Though I appreciate everything he does.

[Paralus]

I found the final line intriguing - Alexander claimed as "part of" Greek heritage, partly due to the fact that he was tutored by Aristotle. Hmmm!

Yes, someone somewhere will find that nostril-irritating. Personally, I find it rather ironic and terribly amusing.

Athens’ relationship with its one time Macedonian overlords might best be described as a cordial hate. This found expression in the somewhat frenzied execution of Phocion, bestowed with the epithet “the Good” though sedulously servile might be a better description, during the brief restoration the democracy in 318. Closely identified with the Macedonian regime which patronised him and used him (amongst others) as their pawn, he was done in with enthusiasm. He symbolises the well to do who, in general, prospered under Macedonia’s rule.

Still the demos – precipitate, rowdy and patriotic by turn and always flighty – had its days. Poliorcetes and Monophthalmos, Macedonians to their toenails, had “liberated” Athens from Macedonia in 302 and Poliorcetes was welcomed in true demos style. The city voted two new tribes (Demetrias and Antigonas) and, with true Athenian extravagance, built a gold statue to each (one assumes Antigonus was represented in his earlier - less expensive size-wise - years).

After the One-Eye’s fall at Ipsos the city, overjoyed at this latest “liberation”, closed its gates against its remaining “saviour god” and, presumably, removed the statues (that which remained of Poliorcetes was discovered down the well it had been ditched). When the Beseiger returned in triumph in 291 the bootlicking Athenians fell about themselves in voting honours upon the “god amongst them”:

For other gods do at a distance keep,
Or have no ears,
Or no existence; and they heed not us -
But you are present,
Not made of wood or stone, a genuine god.
We pray to you.

Unlike Alexander, neither Poliorcetes nor his dad needed to request recognition as gods. This was something of a tradition at Athens in the Hellenistic age. Later, for example, when Philip V was bent on restoring Macedonian rule throughout Greece, Athens sought new allies. In Rome and Pergamon it found them. The Athenians were so impressed with the ageing Attalus I that they abolished the tribes honouring their erstwhile saviour gods (Demetrias and Antigonas) and created an Attalid tribe.

So we come to today and here is a Greek proposal to build a monument to Alexander. That the proposal emanates from the Greek capital is expected; that it is Athens is ironically humourous. Perhaps a statue of Philip II at Chaeronaeia?

[Efstathios]

Ok, where do i begin? Michael, you need to have an at least good all around knowledge of the history of Greece, including Byzantium and later on, in order to understand some things. What may seem to you ironic, is indeed ironic but only with the measures of 300 b.c. And of course what you may think as being just an act of patriotism and for political reasons, the ATG statue at Gaugamela, is not exactly how you percieve it. But i think you already know this in a way. But i will tell you anyway

Long before the age of the city states there were kingdoms in Greece. Then came the city states and the rivalries between them. After that came Philip and Alexander, and that time was essentially the end of the city states. Not long afterwards came the Romans, and whatever rivalries there were between the Greeks, were essentially gone. At the first centuries a.d. the Athenian Spartan rivalry, and all vs the Macedonians e.t.c., was in history books. Essentially, Macedonia with the occupation at the rest of Greece (i consider Macedonia as being part of Greece of course) put the city states' wars to an end. Eventually and especially after the Roman invasion the Greeks were as one.

After the Roman empire gradually gave it's place to Byzantium, all the Greeks, Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians e.t.c. were part of the Byzantine empire as a whole. What really united them furthermore was Christianity. By that time there were Christians and ethnics (worshipers of the old religion) but Theodosius in a very unfortunate event, turned them all to Christians, by burning the ethnic temples, killing them and banning all that had to do with the 12 gods of Olympus. Anyhow, after that the Byzantine empire was a religious and a military empire that ruled the area for over 1000 years, until the Othomans occupied it at 1453 when Constantinopol was conquered. In 1821 there was the big rebellion, the new Greek state was founded, and the rest is known.

What you need to understand though is that for a very long time, much longer than the Classical and Hellenistic era, the Greeks were as one. The old heroes, philosophers, and conquerors were accepted by everyone. There was no Athenian hatred towards the Macedonians, and e.t.c. Even at the time of the Roman occupation, Alexander was widely accepted by all.

So after thousands of years, the Greek state wants to build an ATG statue at Gaugamela. There is nothing ironic with that. For most of the Greeks Alexander was one of the first, or maybe the first who tried to unite Greece, not only for his own agendas, but because he himself proudly said that he was a Greek.

[Paralus]

Stathi, Sathi! Whoa!

If only Greenfish (Murray cod) bit so hard or reliably!

I'm passingly acquainted with Greek history and, yes, I'm well aware of the inherent anachronism of a modern day nation being compared with an ancient city-state (hence the mention of the modern capital). Couldn't resist though. I just happened to be doing some reading on the period (after Triparadeisos) and was re-reading about Phocion's end when I checked this thread for a break. I found it quietly amusing that, after all these centuries, Athens (and, yes, I know acting as Greece not a city state) is still erecting statues to Macedonians. They will surely stop short of adding anything like that paean to Polircetes though!!

After that came Philip and Alexander, and that time was essentially the end of the city states. Not long afterwards came the Romans, and whatever rivalries there were between the Greeks, were essentially gone. At the first centuries a.d. the Athenian Spartan rivalry, and all vs the Macedonians e.t.c., was in history books. Essentially, Macedonia with the occupation at the rest of Greece (i consider Macedonia as being part of Greece of course) put the city states' wars to an end. Eventually and especially after the Roman invasion the Greeks were as one.

I do not subscribe to the notion that the coming of Philip and Alexander and the Macedonian empire was “essentially the end” of the city states – in particular Athens and Sparta. Sparta spent the entire first half of the “Hellenistic” period attempting to resuscitate its one time glory. It’s pathological pursuit of Megalopolis and Messene was key. Athens – belted at Chaeronaeia, sunk at Amorges and crushed at Crannon – was still up for the Chremonidean War.

With respect to the Roman occupation, what you say might well apply to late first century AD and on but it is far from the reality in the later Hellenistic period. Rome, I’m certain, found the Greeks similar to argumentative children. The senate was somewhat perplexed at the requests for arbitration of their affairs and the resistance to the Romans’ interventions whilst other Greeks happily “Rome-ised”. Sparta, under Nabis, saw Rome as a ticket to Peloponnesian ascendancy. The Achaean League couldn’t decide. Athens figured to get back some of her Island possessions by aiding Rome. This did not stop her from rising with Mithridates in 89 BCE leading to the slaughter visited upon it by Sulla.

For most of the Greeks Alexander was one of the first, or maybe the first who tried to unite Greece, not only for his own agendas, but because he himself proudly said that he was a Greek.

I don’t believe that notion stands scrutiny. The Greeks – of the time – had been compelled by force of arms to “unite” by Philip. Alexander, by literally destroying Thebes, enforced that “unity” in the basest terms. Moderns may look back and idealise Alexander (and his father) as unifiers but that, given the evidence, is in my opinion a flawed view. Philip wanted a quiescent Greece so as to facilitate the expansion of the Macedonian empire. He achieved that in a very Greek fashion: belted the daylights out of them and then provided a symmachia (or league) with a council in which to argue and seek redress. The Greeks were still doing this when Rome appeared on the scene. They then roped her into their arguments and invited absorption.

Plutarch was to bemoan the constant internecine warfare which led to the Greece he knew. A Greece that could not put an army of any note into the field

[Efstathios]

Michael, you are right, we are saying the same thing. The city states' status quo started to change with Philip and Alexander because from that time and on they were under occupation, either by Macedonia or by Rome. It happened gradually, and of course some times with the use of force.

As to the text you quoted, in general the opinion of the people was not always the same as the opinion of the politicians. Meaning that surely, Athens hated Macedonia, and that's natural, but still there were people that admired what Alexander did in the far east. And that by the time of Roman occupation was more widespread.

The thing here that troubles me about the statue is something completely different. We want to build an ATG statue. A statue of a conqueror. Are you getting the point? A conqueror. Either it is in Gaugamela, or Athens, or anywhere else, it doesn't matter. It is ATG. And that leads to a very long discussion as to whether it is morally right to build the statue of a conqueror. Of course almost all nations do that. They build statues of important people including conquerors, with the exception of Hitler for whom there is no comparison with ATG. And they name roads after them and e.t.c. And in the same manner, a lot of people all over the world almost adore ATG. So here there is the discussion of Alexander and his personality, and the things he had done and why, and all this stuff that for the most part we don't really know. I mean, there are tribes in Asia that still worship Alexander. But i guess this is what Alexander was, a unique person, a conqueror that also did good things that other conquerors didn't, and that's why people admire him.

[amyntoros]

The thing here that troubles me about the statue is something completely different. We want to build an ATG statue. A statue of a conqueror. Are you getting the point? A conqueror. Either it is in Gaugamela, or Athens, or anywhere else, it doesn't matter. It is ATG. And that leads to a very long discussion as to whether it is morally right to build the statue of a conqueror....

Apart from whether it is morally right to build a statue of a conqueror or not, I think the location DOES matter - in this instance at least. Does no one else think it rather bizarre that someone wants to build the statue of ATG in the land that he conquered? And on the battlefield where so many Persians were killed?

I can't figure out from the article which of the two countries first made the proposal – Greece or Iraq. First there's this: Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis said she was involved in the talks along with Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, who said: 'It's a great idea and we back it'. It appears from this that Greece proposed the statue and Iraq approves. But then we're told that: The project must symbolise the reciprocal influence between the people of Greece and Iraq, the Greek foreign minister said, adding that Athens was ready to provide some of the funding. Doesn't that sound like it was an Iraqi proposal as Greece is stating "conditions" and only partially funding it? I can't figure it out, but I think it strange either way. I mean, if Turkey approached Greece and said they wanted to put up a statue of an Ottoman emperor in Athens we'd ALL think they were crazy, not just the Greek government. And if Greece itself made such a proposal . . . well, it just wouldn't happen, would it?

What a curious situation.

[athenas owl]

The thing here that troubles me about the statue is something completely different. We want to build an ATG statue. A statue of a conqueror. Are you getting the point? A conqueror. Either it is in Gaugamela, or Athens, or anywhere else, it doesn't matter. It is ATG. And that leads to a very long discussion as to whether it is morally right to build the statue of a conqueror....

Apart from whether it is morally right to build a statue of a conqueror or not, I think the location DOES matter - in this instance at least. Does no one else think it rather bizarre that someone wants to build the statue of ATG in the land that he conquered? And on the battlefield where so many Persians were killed?

I can't figure out from the article which of the two countries first made the proposal – Greece or Iraq. First there's this: Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis said she was involved in the talks along with Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, who said: 'It's a great idea and we back it'. It appears from this that Greece proposed the statue and Iraq approves. But then we're told that: The project must symbolise the reciprocal influence between the people of Greece and Iraq, the Greek foreign minister said, adding that Athens was ready to provide some of the funding. Doesn't that sound like it was an Iraqi proposal as Greece is stating "conditions" and only partially funding it? I can't figure it out, but I think it strange either way. I mean, if Turkey approached Greece and said they wanted to put up a statue of an Ottoman emperor in Athens we'd ALL think they were crazy, not just the Greek government. And if Greece itself made such a proposal . . . well, it just wouldn't happen, would it?

What a curious situation.

I can see one reason why Iraq would favour it..Alexander the Great is good for tourism. Tourism is money. If Iraq is able to reconstruct itself in a way that is inviting to tourism...Gaugamela could be a draw. Maybe a statue of him in the anciently controversial Persian tunic...

[Paralus]

[I can see one reason why Iraq would favour it..Alexander the Great is good for tourism. Tourism is money.

Given, of course, that Iraq is good for tourism...

I too thought odd that Iraq would decie that a statue of its conqueror, in Iraq, was a fine idea. Perhaps they'll add one of GW Bush in another two thousand years?

[athenas owl]

Haven't you seen or heard of the statue in Tikrit, in "honour" of Bush? It's a big bronze shoe.

[artemisia]

Irak is not Iran, it was occupied by the Persian kings, and therefore Alexander is seen as a liberator (as Bush fancied to be) from the iranian (= islamic mullahs?) yoke. The statue may be a symbol of the "modern western way of democracy" which Irak is expected to go now. And a signal to Iran that democracy approaches (maybe in a violent way - it is so long now a target of american oil imperialism).

Alexandria in Egypt got too an equestrian statue of Alexander sponsored by the Greek state in 2002.
More about the reasons for erecting the statue at Gaugamela are mentioned in http://katskornerofthecommonills.blogspot.com/.

[amyntoros]

Irak is not Iran, it was occupied by the Persian kings, and therefore Alexander is seen as a liberator (as Bush fancied to be) from the iranian (= islamic mullahs?) yoke. The statue may be a symbol of the "modern western way of democracy" which Irak is expected to go now. And a signal to Iran that democracy approaches (maybe in a violent way - it is so long now a target of american oil imperialism).

Alexandria in Egypt got too an equestrian statue of Alexander sponsored by the Greek state in 2002.
More about the reasons for erecting the statue at Gaugamela are mentioned in http://katskornerofthecommonills.blogspot.com/.

Well the statue of Alexander in Alexandria makes sense as he was the founder of what became a great city and that's the more common perception of him in Egypt. And I can understand if Alexander is viewed as a liberator in Iraq (thank you for that info), but I just can't think of him as a symbol of the "modern western way of democracy". He has been - and continues to be - many things to many people, but a democrat he was not.



Best regards,

[Paralus]

Nor was he any "liberator" of Babylonia; he merely replaced the former regime with his own in a like image. Though, like Amyntoros, I can imagine that some modern day Iraqis might see him as a remover of the Persians. That does not equate to liberty though.

[marcus]

Nor was he any "liberator" of Babylonia; he merely replaced the former regime with his own in a like image. Though, like Amyntoros, I can imagine that some modern day Iraqis might see him as a remover of the Persians. That does not equate to liberty though.

Gaugamela wasn't in Babylonia, either; so, arguably, whether or not he "liberated" the Babylonians isn't the point in this case.

Anyway, Gaugamela was merely the location of the battle, which was fought between two foreign regimes. The people of Arbela had no choice over who ruled them, the Persians or the Macedonians, and life was hardly any different after the battle from before

As a comparison: there's a big tourist centre at Waterloo, as well ... (although, admittedly, there isn't a statue of Wellington, or Blucher).

ATB

[Paralus]

Gaugamela wasn't in Babylonia, either; so, arguably, whether or not he "liberated" the Babylonians isn't the point in this case.

Cheeky bugger! From the Greeks' perspective it will have been the land of two rivers or Mesopotamia. It is likely located in the north of the province of Babylonia (or Assyria - if that is listed as a separate satrapy). In any case, Alexander not liberating Arbela hardly has the same ring to it...