Alexander's Values

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Who knows about motives really? Maybe Alexander got just as much joy out of telling the Greeks to worship him as a God as he did out of Persian gold? Both in poetic, philosophical ways of course...:)
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Well, I don't doubt that (on a basic level at least) he extracted a measure of pleasure out of bringing under his power the people that had defied his father and his people for so long. I'm just saying that the strategic reasons for breaking potential opponents to the south outweighed the needs of his cult of personality. :)
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Hm.. that's a few cities chalked down to strategy.. It still leaves the motivation for the rest... I'm having a hard time swallowing the poetry and philosophy line of argument... I wonder how popular I'd be in Greece if I suggested that for the Ottoman empire? :)
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Well, like I said... "Arguments of wanting to civilize the east aside"... :wink:

I personally feel that any social and/or cultural transformation of the conquered Persian territories driven by Alexander was going to come courtesy of the need that arose from said conquest--not as part of a pre-meditated aim to impose Hellenic values on Asian peoples.

I'm curious about a few things related to this discussion.

Had Alexander lived, do you all think he would have allowed for the existing status quo for the Greek poleis? Or would he have eventually brought them under his direct dominion as his Diadochoi did eventually? Would he have eventually added a Basileus Hellenon to his collection of titles?
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Post by smittysmitty »

Phoebus wrote: I'm merely saying that, having decided to invade Persia, securing his southern "flank" was a logical move for Alexander.
I doubt very much that southern Greeks of the day saw their subjugation by Macedon as 'simply' a case of tactic or strategy in order to bring about some (forced) notion of panhellenic enterprise.
Phoebus wrote: Being familiar with the past 100 years' of history from his era, Alexander would have known that serious imperial ambitions launched from the Greek mainland had to be reconciled with the other Greek factions.


I'm not sure what you mean by serious imperial ambition launched from the Greek mainland - but for the most part Greek imperial ambition amounted to little more than attempts to establish hegemony over their own kind. Macedon's imperial ambition went beyond controlling individual poleis and engaged itself with subjugating wide regions that were inhabited by ethnically diverse populations. I fail to see any distinction between Macedon's subjugation of Thrace, Illyria, the southern Greeks, or any Near Eastern regions and peoples.

It is rather peculiar that people should assume that the subjugation of the southern Greeks was any different to any other peoples, cities or regions.


Just my thoughts!

cheers.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

smittysmitty wrote: I fail to see any distinction between Macedon's subjugation of Thrace, Illyria, the southern Greeks, or any Near Eastern regions and peoples.


Nor do I - aside from the politics of it. Philip was at some pains to maintain the "League" and its pan-Hellemic fiction. All "the Greeks" had a voice in the League's symposium. Problem is, the biggest voice - by far - was Philip's. In the end it was the only voice that mattered. He'd already trilal-run the notion with the Amphictyonic League and the Thessalin (where he was archon for life).

Antipater, after Crannon, ruthelessly demonstrated the place of the Greeks: a separate settlement would be enforced on each "rebel". Governments acceptable to Macedon would be installed. The Greeks, if they'd not realised it before, were little better off than the subjugated of the east. They were to shut up and do as they were told.
smittysmitty wrote:It is rather peculiar that people should assume that the subjugation of the southern Greeks was any different to any other peoples, cities or regions.
The Greek polies were dominated by main force and ruled as part of the Macedonian empire as much as were any other Macedonian domains. The dead of Chaeronea and Thebes will attest to it. The utter subservience of Athens during Alexander's anabasis attests to it. The Greeks were, to all intents and purposes, vassal states.

Only in the period of the Diadochoi were the polies to regain any semblance of importance. This only so as contending dynasts could claim their support under the complete fiction that was the oft proclaimed "autonomy of the Greeks".

The record shows that the southern Greeks absilutely loved their sunservience to Macedon - not.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

smittysmitty wrote:I doubt very much that southern Greeks of the day saw their subjugation by Macedon as 'simply' a case of tactic or strategy in order to bring about some (forced) notion of panhellenic enterprise.
I'm not trying to justify Alexander's move. I'm pointing out that it was strategically logical. See below.
I'm not sure what you mean by serious imperial ambition launched from the Greek mainland - but for the most part Greek imperial ambition amounted to little more than attempts to establish hegemony over their own kind.
I mean this. Post-Peloponnesian War, it wasn't unknown for a Greek power to seek money and aid from the Great King in order to thwart a rival. Given this trend, Alexander would have been a fool to assume that the rest of the Greeks would happily sit back and allow him to conquer Asia.

Well, it's either that, or historians have grossly underestimated the value of those 6-7,000 tribute hoplites Alexander got from his Greek "allies". ;)
It is rather peculiar that people should assume that the subjugation of the southern Greeks was any different to any other peoples, cities or regions.
I don't think I argued that at all, though. I posited that, like other conquests, that of the Greeks to the south served a strategic purpose.

Cheers right back,
P.
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Post by smittysmitty »

Phoebus wrote: I'm not trying to justify Alexander's move. I'm pointing out that it was strategically logical. See below.

I mean this. Post-Peloponnesian War, it wasn't unknown for a Greek power to seek money and aid from the Great King in order to thwart a rival. Given this trend, Alexander would have been a fool to assume that the rest of the Greeks would happily sit back and allow him to conquer Asia.
It was no more strategically logical than any other region conquered by Argead dynasts. To put it simply, it was a strategy of conquest. You seem to imply, had the southern Greeks posed no threat to Macedon's eastern expansion they would have been left alone? I doubt that was the case. The Argead's were set upon building a new world empire, of which the Greek mainland as well as East Greeks were to be incorporated into.
Phoebus wrote: Well, it's either that, or historians have grossly underestimated the value of those 6-7,000 tribute hoplites Alexander got from his Greek "allies".
The 6-7,000 Greek hoplite are no different to the thousands of other soldiers supplied by other conquered nations .
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

smittysmitty wrote: To put it simply, it was a strategy of conquest. You seem to imply, had the southern Greeks posed no threat to Macedon's eastern expansion they would have been left alone? I doubt that was the case.


The “Greek” conquest was Philip’s. It was a natural extension of his re-creation, expansion and consolidation of the Macedonian state. It was masterful in its execution – particularly Philip’s exploitation of the poleis’ natural belligerence and distrust of one another as well as his sizing up of Greek politicians’ hubris and predilection for having their watered wine served in personalised gold cups. His dealings with Athenian politicians over Amphipolis and Pydna, early in his reign, have always brought me immense amusement.

Having secured the Illyrian and Thraceward regions, the time for the sweetest fruit was at hand: the Greek city states. These had played Macedon – in their turn – like a soccer ball in an FA Cup final. Macedonian “monarchs” like Perdiccas II, Amyntas III and Alexander II (and their many rival claimants) had been the dice in the city state craps games.

That was always going to be redressed.
smittysmitty wrote:The 6-7,000 Greek hoplite are no different to the thousands of other soldiers supplied by other conquered nations .
Indeed they were no different. These were drafted troops. It was, considering the membership of the Corinthian “League”, a paltry sum. One is left to wonder whether this number represented hostages or pan-Hellenic window dressing. I’d think it a mixture of the two with the latter predominating. This was, at bottom, a Macedonian adventure of grandiose imperialism. It would be a Macedonian empire when all was done.

What is fascinating – and not often remarked upon – is the fact that this upstart Macedonian invader (from the Persian viewpoint) heads off to tackle the greatest empire his world has known with some 47,000 troops (if we accept the upper figure). An empire that had stood for over two centuries and had, some century and a half earlier, invaded Greece with some 1,700,000 combatants and 1,000 ships. Yet Alexander is happy to launch an invasion of this empire – to fight this Great King and his armies in his empire’s heartlands – with a mere 47,000.

Yes, think about it. Either Alexander was insane or he knew that he was not ever due to face such numbers. When Alexander reached Asia Minor he was searching for the climactic showdown between his forces and those of the Great King that would decide the issue. He chose not to levy any more than 7,000 from his “League”.

Perhaps he felt he might be fighting forces not terribly much larger than his own?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Subjugation of the Greek states was unavoidable

Post by marcus »

smittysmitty wrote:It was no more strategically logical than any other region conquered by Argead dynasts. To put it simply, it was a strategy of conquest. You seem to imply, had the southern Greeks posed no threat to Macedon's eastern expansion they would have been left alone? I doubt that was the case. The Argead's were set upon building a new world empire, of which the Greek mainland as well as East Greeks were to be incorporated into.
Well, that much is clear from the fact that Philip set about subduing Greece before he ever sent troops over the Hellespont. True, he did expand along the Thracian coast, and attempt to take Byzantion - but that in itself backs up what you said. The simple fact is, that Philip couldn't expand in any direction (except North) without coming into conflict with the poleis. Therefore, he had to subdue Greece before he could go into Asia.

From Alexander's point of view, he could only have left the Greek states alone if they hadn't attempted to regain independence following Philip's death (the cads). As it was, he couldn't cross the Hellespont without ensuring that his rear was going to be safe.

So Phoebus is right inasmuch as it was a strategic move; but Smitty does make the point, correctly, that conquest of Greece was an unavoidable precursor to the invasion of Asia, as controlling the Thracian coast and the Hellespont could not fail to bring Macedon into conflict with Athens.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Subjugation of the Greek states was unavoidable

Post by Paralus »

marcus wrote: The simple fact is, that Philip couldn't expand in any direction (except North) without coming into conflict with the poleis. Therefore, he had to subdue Greece before he could go into Asia....

…Smitty does make the point, correctly, that conquest of Greece was an unavoidable precursor to the invasion of Asia, as controlling the Thracian coast and the Hellespont could not fail to bring Macedon into conflict with Athens.
Well put. Philip’s intentions were never to avoid Greece though. Occupied with establishing his secure rule at home, he nonetheless did not shrink from confronting Athens – even early on. His political and diplomatic skills were just as acute as his military skills. Many a time his division and exploitation of the Poleis was his masterstroke.

Athens, though a pale shade of her former imperial self, was still a formidable adversary. She was not ever really in a position to thwart Macedonia and Philip’s policy toward her was…ambivalent, to choose a word. She was the key to any Greek “unity” or pan-Hellenic façade. She also had a decent fleet. Far better, if possible, to have her “onside” via alliance. Problem was, such alliances with Philip were often very much to his benefit.

The period of the Sacred War was one of much internecine Greek conflict; a dance floor upon which Philip performed a Macedonian Sarisa Lake all the while avoiding asking Athens directly for a dance. As the 340s wound down the inevitable came to pass even though Athens would, seemingly, refuse to believe it was happening. Philip decided – in eminent Spartan fashion – that Thrace could not be allowed to exist as an entity. Better it was under multiple client kings and settled with “cities of the Makedones”. This, as night follows day, saw Philip at the Hellespont and at Byzantium. If Athens had been “playing” at being at war until now, harsh reality supervened and a rude awakening settled on a dilatory assembly. Fleets were fitted out and money released. Philip had his imperial Macedonian foot firmly planted on Athens’ throat – literally and figuratively. Had he succeeded here Philip will have had Athens’ signature on any treaty he’d offered. In the end he got it after Chaeronea.

The history of Philip’s reign is a history of conflict with and courting of Athens. It was, as politics goes, that frustrating relationship that dare not speak its name that film writers constantly endeavour to establish between the feisty male/female leads. The problem is that only Philip (and Demosthenes) realised the actuality.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Subjugation of the Greek states was unavoidable

Post by smittysmitty »

marcus wrote: The simple fact is, that Philip couldn't expand in any direction (except North) without coming into conflict with the poleis. Therefore, he had to subdue Greece before he could go into Asia.
Hi Marcus, I'm afraid I can't agree with you. In saying what you do, you presume Philip had already preconceived plans to embark upon an Asiatic expedition. We have no reason to believe Philip harboured such ambitious designs whilst engaged in subduing Thrace. There can be little doubt at this point in time his immediate attention was to establish an empire that was European based - and yes that had to include the subjugation of the southern Greek states - irrespective of those Greek poleis on the Thracian coastline.
marcus wrote:From Alexander's point of view, he could only have left the Greek states alone if they hadn't attempted to regain independence following Philip's death (the cads). As it was, he couldn't cross the Hellespont without ensuring that his rear was going to be safe.
Yes what you say is true, but the very same attention was required of the Thracian and Illyrian's in revolt. Is there something particularly significant about the southern Greek states? Do the other European subjects not also have this significance? It seems to me far too much emphasis is placed on the southern Greeks being strategically important! Yes they were important, but no more or less than any of the other newly aquired European subjects f Macedon.

Having established a European empire, Macedon could only then turn its attention to Asia. That would appear to be the strategy by my reckoning.

cheers!
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

smittysmitty wrote:It was no more strategically logical than any other region conquered by Argead dynasts.
I beg to differ. The conquest of Thrace gave Macedon a good deal of control over a rather strategic spot in that part of the world. The Hellespont, access to the Black Sea and all that.
You seem to imply, had the southern Greeks posed no threat to Macedon's eastern expansion they would have been left alone?
Initially, yes. Assuming the southern poleis posed no enmity to Macedon and could not be subverted by Persia to attack them, a-la Agis, there was absolutely nothing to gain from conquering them initially. The point is, though, that there was that enmity, and Agis' revolt showed that the Greeks were more than willing to attack given the chance. Turning the clock back some, had Phillip not invaded the poleis, the abberation would not have been them working against him and whatever plans he had (for the Persians or for their own aims); it would have been to sit back and let him go about his business.

Now, later on, after coming back from Asia, I have no doubt Phillip or Alexander would have conquered them, regardless of how peaceful they were--if no other reason than to make the map look neat.
The 6-7,000 Greek hoplite are no different to the thousands of other soldiers supplied by other conquered nations .
I was being sarcastic. Obviously Alexander and Phillip didn't invade the poleis for what amounted to a fraction of their infantry. Hindsight being 20/20, they probably could have just hired the same number for the right money. :)
Last edited by Phoebus on Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Paralus wrote:Yes, think about it. Either Alexander was insane or he knew that he was not ever due to face such numbers.
First, a quick caveat: I don't think Xerxes showed up in Greece with anything resembling 1.7 million troops. Personally, I favor the idea that each of the 29 (IIRC) named infantry commanders in Herodotos' account led a Baivabaram (nominally 10,000 men, with the average being closer to 6-8,000 men in strength... much like a Roman "century").

Having said that, I don't think Alexander thought of Herodotos' numbers being false; I think he recognized that, whatever size army Xerxes mustered, Herodotos made it clear that it took years to marshall it and set up its logistical trail and train--including supply and food depots and an entire civilian navy separate from the military one.

Given that Dareius III was ruling during a political shaky time--not necessarily Persia's apex, if you will, as compared to Xerxes' time--Alexander had good reason to doubt that he would face the kind of mammoth armies the heroes of the last century had stood up to. So we basically agree, but through a different process, I guess.
He chose not to levy any more than 7,000 from his “League”.
Sure, but I think that had less to do with how many Persians he was going to face and more with the performance he could expect from mostly unwilling, politically hostile soldiers. It'd be like Leonidas demanding more than 400 Thebans, knowing that a large enough number of them might have made a mutiny at the worst possible moment feasible.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Subjugation of the Greek states was unavoidable

Post by Semiramis »

Hi Pheobus,

I agree with your ideas about social and cultural transformations in the Greek cities and near east being a "side effect" rather than some noble civilizing mission.

It's hard to answer questions about what Alexander would have done. For all the talk of Hellenic values, I think Alexander was happy to act the Persian-style Great King. Greeks may have despised Persians as "slaves" of the monarchy but that's probably the direction they were heading with Alexander. Things like the proskynesis episode, ordering the Greeks to worship him as a god or wanting to conquer Arabia so he could be worshiped there as a third god seems to suggest that he was liking this god-king thing.
marcus wrote:From Alexander's point of view, he could only have left the Greek states alone if they hadn't attempted to regain independence following Philip's death (the cads). As it was, he couldn't cross the Hellespont without ensuring that his rear was going to be safe.
I just can't imagine Alexander ever wanting to leave anybody alone. Judging from the events in his life, this applies just as much to southern Greeks as non-Greeks. I don't see any evidence he had any special love for the southern Greeks just because modern classicists tend to. I doubt he was wincing any more at the thought of destroying Greek cities than Near Eastern or Indian ones.

Phoebus I don't really understand why you think the chronology of conquering Southern Greeks first and then Asia would have been inverted had it not been for strategic purposes.
Post Reply