pothos.org

What was he thinking??? Forcing conquered Persians to be conquered a second time by conquering Macedonians. Was it not enough that the Persians were conquered, but then Alexander *dreams* up this idea of subjugating Persian women (not Macedonian women to Persian men --that would be dishonorable)to Macedonian men, who were also, indeed, *forced* to marry them. Is this where Alexander's idealism turns into delirium? Did he not *foresee*, using his intelligence (perhaps impaired at this point of his reign, that this would cause volatile resentment within both peoples, AND cause violent consequences on the innocent children born from these unions (like his own Macedonian/Bactrian son)?Debate anyone?Thalestris

These men had nothing to lose and perhaps lots to gain. These were all royal women and likely very wealthy. And Alexander wanted them to set an example as part of his integration of the nations.
Anyway, most of those wives were left behind when the army (veterans in particular) left Persia and went back home.

It's an interesting way of looking at it, but we have to be careful about imposing 21st century viewpoints on these weddings.Most marriages, particularly amongst the nobility, were conducted for political or financial reasons - right up to fairly recently - so the idea of 'forcing' these women into marriage suggests a coercion that simply wasn't viewed in that way at the time. The Persian women expected to be given away in marriage - and I doubt whether they were marrying Greeks/Macedonians rather than Persians caused them any particular problems.The men might have been more aggrieved, but because they were marrying Persians, rather than the fact that Alexander was making them marry at all - and that was purely a cultural thing, because of the Greek attitudes towards 'barbarians'. This is, of course, demonstrated by the fact that most of them got rid of their wives once Alexander was dead.All the bestMarcus

I think the Idea was not so bad. After such marriages (maybe little forced but I thing mostly for Macedonians) next generation wouldn't care if his father or mother was Persian or Greek. And it could be one of Alexander's aims - to make one huge country with one king. When he sent old soldiers back to Balkans he promised them that their children will be in good care. All this collapsed after his death so it's hard to judge if it would work or not...Maciek

Hi Maciek,I agree with you - it wasn't such a bad idea. Whether or not Alexander had any high ideals behind it is debatable - in fact, you could argue that he had very mercenary ideals behind it - create a large group of people who have no special affinity to a particular country or culture, and they will follow only Alexander!Whether that would have worked in practice is also up for debate, but as I don't believe in the "unity of mankind" ideal it works for me :-)All the bestMarcus

Hi Markus!! It's nice to hear from You again!!It had to be like that, they should "follow Alexander" - because nobody else could realize this plan, as it appeared after his death. It is no matter if he wanted them to follow him or not (although he was the king so had to want his people to be after him). By this marriage Alexander was about to create new nation, which could be so unified, that they maybe wouldn't start next war but economic activity as Alexander made basics for. Maciek

HELLO ALL COMPANIONS!THE MASS WEDDING OF 5000 WAS A VISION OF ALEXANDER'S TO SHOW THAT TWO DIFFERENT CIVILIZATIONS COULD LIVE AS ONE, WITH ONE LEADER, AS HE QUOTED IN THE CONTRACT OF LOVE SPEECH WHICH HE GAVE AT THAT WEDDING.I THINK THAT HE HAD SEEN ENOUGH KILLING AND BLOODLETTING. HE HAD WITNESSED SO MUCH OF IT THAT HE REALLY WANTED EVERYONE TO LIVE IN PEACE, "SO THAT YOUR CONDUCT WOULD RESEMBLE THE COHABITATION OF SIBLINGS WITHIN THE FAMILY".
AMAZON QUEEN, DID YOU WATCH "CHILD OF FIRE" WHAT DID YOU THINK? REGARDS!

Unfortunately, he followed the Susa weddings with somewhat of a reign of terror - and he was planning another invasion. I don't think peace was on his mind.As to the reasons for the weddings, he was grappling with the problem of setting up a new aristocracy loyal to him. The supply of Macedonian troops would dry up, and they were an army of occupation - they couldn't stay there forever. He needed to replace them with a new generation loyal to him. Family and kinship ties were obviously important to both Persian and Macedonian ruling classes - he was trying to make one that would be loyal to him and his generation, rather than their grandfathers' generation.There must have been some children born of these marraiges - I can only think of Seleucus' children, but there must have been others.
I have already speculated that this may have been the reason for Craterus's slow return to Macedonia - he stopped in Cilicia about 9 months after the Susa marriages, and his wife, Darius' niece, was with him.These children were really 'war-babies' , not belonging to either side - but if Alexander had not died they would have been the basis of his new aristocracy.
Susan

I have to agree, Alexander had no concept of the unity of mankind or stoic ideals like that. He was determined to go West in a big way and needed to secure his rear. He had found during the Sogdian Revolt that blood-ties were more binding and less costly than blood-letting. Thus the marriages of the nobles the men who were allowed to marry their mistresses and have their debts cancelled were surely encouraged to do so as Susan and Marcus say to provide a manpower resource and also to give the offspring some status in the law; at this time Alexander was troubled by te problem of displaced Greek Exiles who trolled around hiring their spears because they had no status at home; he will not have wanted to add an army of half-caste by-blows to this pool of potential trouble.Craterus, by the way may have been supervising the building of the fleet for Alexander's western venture (arguments rehearsed in Bosworth 'From Alexander to Arrian') Craterus' bride is quite interesting as she ended up with Lysimachos via Dionysius of Heraclea. I don't think we know lysimachos' Susa bride.

Dear Karl,>He had found during the Sogdian Revolt that blood-ties were more binding and less costly than blood-letting.He had found during the Sogdian Revolt that blood-ties were more binding and less costly than blood-letting.He had found during the Sogdian Revolt that blood-ties were more binding and less costly than blood-letting.

Dr PalDo you happen to know who Spitamenes' wife was ? I think I read that she was an important Achaemenid, but I can't find the reference now.Also, do you know what religion the Bactrians would have practised then - I've read that it was Zoroastrianism, and that Darius himself was by origin likely to be a Bactrian.
Susan

To me,it seems simply the old story of love the one who is near. Some may try to imply that there were political consequences; but I am inclined to believe that men who needed partners had to take what was available to them. Worked then, works now.

Greetings, Demetrios!YES!! The video was awesome! The entire focus on the spirituality of ATG and his impact on global religions is enlightening! I want to *find* another copy of it to own it, but I know the video is not available. I searched eBay, BBC website, and the History Channel website---to no avail. You have the Holy Grail of ATG videos! Lucky! Efharisto!I fili sou,
ThalestrisAlexander's Amazon Quen

I am persuaded to follow your lead, Susan and Agesilaos. Well stated and thank you! The Susa wedding affair has always perplexed me, wondering what was circulating in Alexander's mind the weeks prior to that grand *conjugal conception* of mass matrimony.

Is this the Tony Spalforth video - if so I've got it but in UK format only. I had it copied for American format once, it cost about $25. Susan