Logic and Reasoning behind Alexanders brutality Towards Indi

[kenny]

Hail Companions.I just finished reading Alexander Killer of men.And the book gives a little more understanding why Alexander became more brutal towards the Easter Asians.I would say he was getting rather fed up with the situation. Nearly every town etc that Alexander crushed.He maintained the Satrapies that were already there. Once Alexander left these people would rebel throwing off the Macedonian Garrisons and making a bloody pest of them selves.Spitamenes with his Guerilla Tacics of hit and run and the whole part of Alexander army that was Ambushed.It was in my opinion and all out terror war of atrician on both sides. By the time Alexander started the massacres im sure he was by then a little pissed off.So met like with like. We all know if Alexanders vanquished played the game then they were pretty safe?ALEXANDER Didnt just turn round and decided to do massacres.Kenny

[Paralus]

You seem destined to excuse any excess on behalf Alexander Kenny. Your point about the difficulties of subduing (or keeping subdued) Bactria/Sogdiana is taken. Hegemons of the current era have experienced no less in Afghanistan. The Persians the same before them.To excuse Alexander's brutal tactics GÇô massacres, let's call them what they were GÇô by virtue of the locals rising in revolt when he turned his back as if this only applied in this instance is to ignore a somewhat ugly reality: whenever Alexander felt threatened he most always reacted violently. Indeed one could say over-reacted violently.Many examples exist: Thebes (no, I've little truck with the view that the "League" demanded it GÇô after the fact propaganda), the fifteen thousand or so Greeks at the Granicus (and others elsewhere), the Tyreians and those inhabitants of Gaza to name a few. Not to mention the personal reactions GÇô Clietus being the most obvious.Indeed Plutarch mentions that Alexander charged the Greeks at the Granicus after they'd asked "for quarter", not for any strategic reason but rather he was guided "by passion". Now I know Plutarch can be a moralising old bastard but it's pretty plain why Alexander reacted the way he did: teach the Greeks a lesson (which he repeated) and plain malice.By the time we reach the "Indian campaign" this reaction was now (as if it weren't before) quite instinctive. Better put, it had become somewhat more dominant in his actions both with personal relationships and his relationship with the army. Rest assured that had he been in a position to do what he so dearly would have liked to do at the time of the Macedonian's "revolt" in India he most certainly would have. As it was, he prudently waited untill he got back to Babylon to carry out his by now predictable reprisals. Although I'm sure the march through Gedrosia would have sated most as revenge (I believe it was a grave error of judgement rather than "punishment")I've no wish to tarnish the image, but it does little good to ignore what seem in character actions or at best polish them up as something they necessarily aren't. He was no angel.

[Athanasios]

In addition, it is worth noting that Alexander considered a nation defeated in the battlefield (and theoritically subdued) . Time and time again, in Bactria, Sogdiana and India, he had realised that the occupied saw things slightly differently...and yes, the people of Central Asia have proved throughout history to be a tough cookie to crack!This constant attempt to counteract revolts (a bit like trying to squeeze air pockets out of a rising carpet in a futile attempt) must have been a frustrating thorn in his side. Was it not Porus who told Alexander that an empire is best controlled from its centre and not periphery [for the same reason given above]?Nonetheless, his behaviour was changing [for the worse], some use the Oracle at Siwah as a pivotal point. Were these revolts refraining him from his deity-like status? My thoughts: he was striving for immortality more than deitification (although the two can be intertwined quite easily). To be immortal, he would have had to be great, greater than Dionysus and Heracles that went before him...For this, he needed a larger sphere. Unfortuantely [for him] he neither had the resources nor will of the army, assuming Arabia was to be succumbed, along with the remainder of the [Western] Mediterannean. At some stage he would have realised that there is so much a person can do in their life. Was it a sense of urgency that perhaps led him to be as ruthless as he was (you cannot continue to expand with the continuing threat from within the empire)??Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Waiting for coffee to kick in......these revolts refraining him from 'achieving' his deity-like status?and...greater than Dionysus ans Heracles 'who' went before him.Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Paralus,Just one query concerning your statement on Thebes and the League. If the League was not so keen on revenge as depicted than I assume that you are implying they were 'ordered' to raze Thebes (as opposed to being left to their own devices)? OK, Alexander would have had the same desired affect either way and I am sure that he was aware of this when he permitted it...If so, it doesn't sit comfortably as I am unconvinced about the [extremeity of] loyalty of the League to Alexander. Consider it more obedience.Your thoughts?Regards,
Atha

[marcus]

Hi Atha,Of course, we shall never know, but I envisage the business of the League "demanding" that Thebes be razed to be something along the lines of: the terms of the League quite clearly state that Thebes should be punished for rising in revolt. Alexander, as hegemon, makes it clear that Thebes must be punished with no chance of ambiguity. The rest of the League, many of whom have a grudge against Thebes anyway, and are too small to oppose Alexander on their own themselves, see that the only option open to them is to repeat Alexander's demand, vociferously. I have no doubt that the Phocians, etc. were more than happy to enter into Thebes' destruction; but I am sure that they would not have dared suggest it without knowing what Alexander's own expectation was.All the bestMarcus

[Paralus]

I don't doubt there was "extreme loyalty" to Alexander from the league Atha. Also, I don't doubt that loyalty took the form of obeisance to the far stronger power.Marcus has already written much of what I would have stated. I'd add that the resentment against Thebes GÇô festering never far below the surface in much of Boeotia (and beyond) GÇô had as much to do with Thebes destruction as Alexander's towering rage at the presumption of the city. That the two combined to achieve the same result has ever been portrayed as the league "demanding" Thebes' punishment. I doubt the "League" was ever in a position to demand anything GÇô unless it suited.In my opinion, Thebes was "for it" regardless. That the Phocians or others GÇô in absolutely typical Greek fashion (cf Thebes/Athens in 404; Thebes/Plataea 428) GÇô called for the annihilation of a hated enemy provided the perfect cover.

[Nicator]

Paralus,
I have to agree with Kenny on this one. Alexander was in the midst of a holy war. He had to deal with the Indians harshly, or else get out and give up on the far eastern realm altogether. I think there's also something to be said for a large, more densely packed population in India (that's my impression from Arrian). Also, the state of the army in mind and body during this last phase. Morale was somewhere below freezing and Alexander was forced to act with ever greater heroics and savage ferocity. One gets the impression that the harder he pushed his men, the further they shrank from the task...at least until the arrow shot heard round the world. It still doesn't justify a massacre, nothing would justify that. My point is that I doubt his reasons were just plain vincictive. later Nicator

[kenny]

Hail NickNothing ever justifies war atrocities or massacre but we know and understand how and why they occur.Its all part of the undertaking Alexander had undertaken since strapping a sword to his hips.Show me whenever there was a war or conflict without any. I will never deny Alexander as the noblest of warriors.kenny

[Nicator]

Paralus,
Not that I'm harping on you or disagreeing with you wholeheartedly, but sometimes it can affect your judgement if you study the pre-Alexander royal intrigues right before looking at an atrocity. The atrocities seem less atrocious with a fresh perspective of the genre that Alexander was born to and raised within. Just a thought.Nicator

[Paralus]

Nicator,I don't disagree that the campaign through the Punjab was necessarily anything approaching a "normal campaign" (in Greek experience). And yes, were he to hold these areas, firm measures were needed.Indeed, reading the sources (particularly Arrian), one is (or I was) struck by the thought "why bother?" He was Alexander, that's why bother. You'd think a lesser "driven" personality would have found a more comfortable and accommodating people to obliterate (not a good word GÇô conquer).I'm not sure "holy war" is appropriate. Certainly this (as did a lot of ATG's actions post purge of the high command) had plenty to do with his perceived god-like pretensions (and propaganda) and competition (as he seemed to see it) with Heracles et al. The sources leave little doubt (even Arrian in his most apologetic mode) that Alexander had become increasingly autocratic, unpredictable and violent in his actions and reactions post Gaugamela and during the Bacrtrian/Sogdian campaign. This has a lot to do with the "manufacture" of the case against Philotas and his father Parmenio. It is once Alexander achieves the removal of this pair (and the aggravating connection to his father) that Alexander remakes the army after his own fashion: this is no longer Philip's GÇô the old guard is gone and those that remain be on guard.As I've argued elsewhere, the Macedonians did not appreciate changes Alexander now felt comfortable pressing on them and made it well known GÇô a precursor to the "revolt" in the Punjab. That resentment found its voice in Clietus and he was summarily run through with a spear (regardless of how it actually came about). This whilst at Maracanda and not long before the "Indian" campaign. The final straw of course was the Macedonian refusal to go on. Now, whilst it may be churlish to accord to pique the utter violence with which the rest of the Indian or Mallian campaign was conducted, don't discount it.Yes one needs to remember this was a time without "Geneva conventions" (as is our most recent war apparently) and it was a hard often short life replete with confronting violence. I would argue though that the bloke always had this as part of his make up. Thebes was but an introduction. The rigours of the Asian campaign GÇô particularly the eastern and Indian theatres simply provided the plasma screen on which to display it to the max.