Did Alexander CONTRIVE the mutiny at the Hyphasis?

[amyntoros]

Although I am already reading several books concurrently, I have been frantically pouring through a book I have out on interlibrary loan (from Vassar College!) because they want it back within a mere two weeks. This is BrillGÇÖs Companion to Alexander the Great (2003) edited by Joseph Roisman. At a trifling $194 (yeah, sure) I am not likely to be purchasing this book. As for the contents that I haveve read so far, Maria Brosius' article on Alexander and the Persians is startling to say the least, but would be difficult to discuss here unless others have read it. A comment from Walter Heckel, however, invites debate. In his chapter entitled King and Companions; Observations on the Nature of Power in the Reign of Alexander, Heckel says on page 225:

Similarly, there were no serious mutinies by the army: the secessio at the Hyphasis was, in all likelihood, contrived, to put the onus for turning back on the men rather than on Alexander himself*; the Opus mutiny was a reaction to Alexander's orientalism.

*As suggested by Spann 1999, an argument which I develop elsewhere.

I have absolutely no idea how to find out where Heckel might have developed this argument further, so if anyone has any suggestions, please let me know. The article he refers to is that of P.O. Spann, Alexander at the Beas: A Fox in Lion's Skin. In F. B. Titchene and R. F. Moorton, Jr., eds, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity (1999). Berkely and Los Angeles: 62-74.

To get to the nitty-gritty of Heckel's comment; I could see it being possible that Alexander himself might have wanted to turn back at this point. Yes, there are those who believe he would have continued further, ever onwards, but how far could he have gone before he said, Enough? China? He had received reports of what lay ahead and must surely have realized that the encircling ocean was not to be found within any short distance. Perhaps his intelligence reports made him aware that he was not going to find it at all? Alternatively, maybe the information caused him to believe that further conquest would be too problematical and that there was the possibility of a defeat somewhere ahead?

Behind him, Bactria remained unsettled, and if he went further he would have the Indians to his back without any major Macedonian military presence to keep them in line. The thought that his rear could be cut off must have entered his mind, don't you think? And it is one thing to keep moving forward, but the knowledge that the rest of his empire also needed to be ruled after its conquest could not be suppressed forever.

So, supposing Alexander did want to turn back but was not willing to admit this to the world, how could he have contrived the mutiny at the Hyphasis? This is where I have difficulty with the theory. I believe that there must have been discontent amongst the army, but the theory seems to assume that they would not have professed their feelings directly to Alexander. So are we to understand that Alexander sent agents amongst them covertly to stir things up, and that Coenus was also an agent of Alexander? It sounds a bit far-fetched to me. I don't know the details of Heckel and Spann's argument (I only just ordered a used copy of The Eye Expanded) but I cannot think of another scenario offhand. Nor can I understand why Alexander would have made an impressive speech about continuing westwards if he really didn't want to go there. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Just one more comment: if we were to accept this proposition as true, it would put an end to all the hostile suggestions regarding the death of Coenus, and no one could continue to claim that the march through the Gedrosian desert was to punish Alexander's men for their previous so-called mutiny!

Best regards,

[alejandro]

Hi Amyntoros,

Interesting hypothesis. I think I heard about it before, but unfortunately I don't remember where!

As you said, it is unlikely that Alexander would contrive the mutiny "from scratch" if there was not some discontent among the troops. But I can certainly see that he could have used it to avoid losing face if he had wanted to turn back. Being reknowned for gathering intelligence about every area he intended to visit next, I would be surprised if he didn't know that the encircling ocean was not even close.

Someone (Bosworth maybe?) wrote that Alexander's goal for his expedition was to conquer the Persian empire, and so stopping in India is consistent with this hypothesis and reinforces the idea that Alexander may have gladly welcomed the mutiny.

I don't think that he didn't want to fight any more (he fought all the way down the Punjab rivers until he hit the ocean). He may have just realized that "civilization" stopped there, and there was no point in going further (notice that his alleged plans for conquest in the west don't have this problem), and so he may have stirred a nest of wasps that was waiting to explode and voila! you get your mutiny.

Well, at least that's my opinion. Nothing more and nothing less!

All the best,
Alejandro

[marcus]

Interesting hypothesis. I think I heard about it before, but unfortunately I don't remember where!

As you said, it is unlikely that Alexander would contrive the mutiny "from scratch" if there was not some discontent among the troops. But I can certainly see that he could have used it to avoid losing face if he had wanted to turn back. Being reknowned for gathering intelligence about every area he intended to visit next, I would be surprised if he didn't know that the encircling ocean was not even close.

Finally I've managed to post a reply - been having a few problems with IE and it kept bugging me out of Pothos when I clicked the reply button.

I hadn't heard this one before, but I agree with Amyntoros and Alejandro - there must have been some murmuring amongst the troops, which perhaps Alexander got wind of and decided to act on it. It would have required priming quite a few officers, and while he would not necessarily have put the words in Coenus' mouth, he would have had to have "made it known" to Coenus and others that they would need to confront him.

Not beyond the realms of possibility, although very Macchiavellian! As for the theory that Alexander did away with Coenus ... well, I never bought that one: a theory put forward by Worthington to support his accusation that Alexander, at this time, was systematically murdering his chums in a frenzy of paranoia, and accusation that has never stood up to scrutiny.

ATB

[abm]

Hi Amyntoros,

Heckel elaborated this theory in his article 'Alexander the Great and the "Limits of the Civilised World"', in W. Heckel & L.A. Tritle, The Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander, Claremont, CA: Regina Books 2003, 147-174.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to engage in the debate, but I must say that I was not convinced at all by this article, and neither was E.A. Fredricksmeyer, who wrote the introduction of the book it features in.

regards,
abm

[dean]

Hi Amyntoros,

With regards to Coenus I suppose that it is very easy to link his death with his recent endeavours in freedom of speech.
The theory that Alexander contrived the mutiny situation he faced and then as you say went on to defend the idea of going on- even spending three days as Achilles did sulking in his tent- "angry" is to me, to say the least, "far fetched". Alexander was in charge and if he wanted to turn around then I don't see why he simply couldn't have commanded it so or used his seers to manipulate the signs as he did anyway after the mutiny- to say the gods warned against "going on". Either way, I think the troops were sick of the snake bites, malaria and the constant rains and hot weather found in India.

What I do believe as I mentioned in a recent thread was that India was the limit and once Alexander had subdued the main threats in India then it was time to go home- I even went as far as to say that Aristotle had set the limit thanks to his idea of the ends of the earth beyond India, Hindu Kush.This is obviously pure speculation yet it is a coincidence that the troops got tired in exactly the same spot as Aristotle said was the final limit.
Also, I don't think that China was to enter the realm of knowledge of the west for some time.

Best regards,
Dean

[Paralus]

I think that's a conspiracy theory too far. Good though Alexander was at his court's politics, I doubt he'd have arranged this mutiny. At this stage of the campaign the bloke was in near full-on control freak mode. Dissention was not something he embraced and as such, he was unlikely to foment it. No matter that he might have created it, the look will not have been good. And that, quite aside from the fact that such things have a very nasty habit of taking on a life all their own.

No, by the time the army reached the Beas it was well and truly p***ed off. It was, in fact, unhappy before ever reaching the Jhelum. Clietus was not Robinson Crusoe and, if he were, a significant percentage of the army was called Friday. That Coenus - the erstwhile self seeking infantry commander well in Alexander's Philotas tent - was the spokesman ( if we take the sources at their words) will not have been greeted with effusive enthusiasm eirther. This time the army was not about to mollified with plunder and gratuities. Home James and step on it! That was the message.

It's as well to bear in mind the anger back in Babylon and Opis - not only over the Asian replacements - but over the gratuities. The Silver Shields were still angrily demanding their gratuities at Triparadisus. Antipater gave them the bullion to cart to Babylon where they were to guard it GÇô after having accepted their gratuities one assumes.

[dean]

G'day Paralus,

As you say the troops were well tired of the endless continuance and finally they saw the reality that there could never be an "end".
To be honest, even when Alexander set up the bronze obelisk with the inscription "Alexander stopped here" they were only words, for,although he had said they would return, there were still many more sieges and small towns to "subdue" or in other words, "massacre". The troops were still being driven on like pack animals, whether it be through the Gedrosian or being criticised by Alexander for not showing enough energy in the attack, as in Multan.

So, really, although the troops were initially happy and wept with joy, they should have known that Alexander could never let em off the leash.
Best regards,
Dean

[Paralus]

G'day Dean.

Yes, the army really did think it had won the day against its king, poor mosquito fodder. They'd no idea the attrocities they'd be part of in the coming atricious campaigns to Ocean.

Regardless of all the prosaic words from Alexander apologists (Arrian, Plutarch), all he feasting and all the drinking back in Opis/Babylon, the army which Alexander had campaigned with for empire was no longer in that first blush of love with its king. Like many other relationships, the fevered, lustfull love of the begining had long since devolved into the make an appointment for sexual gratifaction stage by then.

Green has it fairly correct with his summation of Gedrosia: time to restore the aura of invincibility. Pity about the losses. The real indicator of the army's view of their king's "climb every mountain; fight every people" view of administering empire was given in their summary dismissal (at the bidding of a Perdiccas more interested in garnering control of what already was) of the "last plans". No thanks, time to sit back and enjoy it all for a bit.

In fact the army sounds like the classic sitcom wife archetype:

"What? Off conquering again are we? When were you planning to tell me or were you going to just keep going thinking I'd just follow eh? And follow you to just where? Ocean? Ocean my arse! You and your bloody ocean. It's that bloody mate of yours Heph - you pair never know when enough's enough do you? Go on, you and Heph, get off with you then. Conquer, conquer, conquer. It's all you two think about. Well, not this time Alex, not this time. This time you're going without me. I'm not buying all that crap about gold dust and the rest of the nonsense you've bought into. Go on, get going - and take your bloody mate Heph with you! Ocean, your mind's awash in ocean!"

[kennyxx]

Dean Amintros Etc

Its all conjecture but hopefully we try put a rational thought to it all. Dean you say Alexander conquered India. Myself I would call that false and history ever since indicates that that particular part of the world has been impossible to conquer and control. Fair enough Alexander crushed what was in front of him. But in my view it was the proverbial donkey Chasing a acarrot it never quite gets there. Maybe had he gone further he would find peoples more easy to pacify and call it his kingdom. But we know once Alexander had smashed a city towm or countrysideonce he was gone the Pheonix rose in rebelion.

As quoted his intelligence should have shown him that the lands Eastward were endless and reasonably had to turn back. Its reminisent of Hadrian Building his Wall in Northern England even the Roman Empire got too big and stretched as Hadrian had to call a stop. Even by then it was too big with all Romes manpower and Recources. Although Alexander had the money did he really have the manpower and aliances to press further East I believe not. Safer to call a halt build the Alters and go back. I feel the march through the Macran was also planned but nearly went terribly wrong. I feel Alexander was looking for a more direct and quicker rout back.

Ive believed for a long time maybe Alexander didnt orchesrate the mutiny but it sure as hell did him a favour. He more or less through the Carrot to Poros. Secondly to say the conquests stopped at the Beas was wrong The Macedonians were fighting and scrapping all the way down the river to the ocean. I do say Alexander was a total mind player not off his head nor meglamanic. I think it correct to go back. or would any Porthonians say he could have gone on and on. Some would say its a greater general who knows when to turn back and an even greater general to make someone else think it their idea.

Kenny

[dean]

Hello Kennyx,

Some would say its a greater general who knows when to turn back and an even greater general to make someone else think it their idea.

The duke of Wellington said apparently that a great general is like a cannonball and cannot stop.
Coenus, if I am not mistaken, allegedly said it was the sign of a great man who knew when to stop- 2 opposing arguments.

Like I said in my last post, the boys were fooled into beleiving that it was time to go home and step on it, when in reality Alexander whereever he went, had to weak havoc or prove that he "could" do it.

I don't know the expanse of land he controlled in India- and maybe the size of the victory over Porus was immensely magnified by Greek propoganda to sound like the conquest of India.
Either way, he never reached the Ganges and beyond was a region called Patna which supposedly had an immense army who knows what would have happened if Alexander had crossed the Ganges.

Well, that is just my farthing worth.
Best wishes ,
Dean

[kennyxx]

Dean Hi

Indeed you are correct. I remember a quote from Napoleon wheras he says a genius makes his own luck. I guess Alexander although mostly tactically sound had his share of luck. The Persian Gates could have beeen a fatal error. He needed luck or indeed a Persian Turncoat to show him round.

It was somewhat lucky that the Persians underestimated Alexander and didnt really put much effort into stopping Alexander crossing the Hellespont and it could be a little luck that stoped any Persian thoughts to do Scipio and throttle Alexander from the rear. Indeed Alexander in siege and pitch battle in any scenario was unequaled. But just how long could Alexander have carried on. Maybe he could have gone on and on Im sure won major victories but as I said there must come a point of going to far and stretched far too thin. The further away he got the more Precarious his control over the western Empire would have become. The govenors were already behaving like little despots and irrespective of so called purges of bloodlust I doubt any of those satraps executed were innocent.

Maybe an army can go on and on. the Monguls got all the way from Mongolia to Europe. so who knows.But Alexander was venturing into unchartered territories. We all have opinions mine is he had gone far enough fair to say its not a defeat to Alexander for wanting it so. just a little practicallity thrown in with a little mutiny to say it wasnt his idea.

Kenny

[marcus]

I remember a quote from Napoleon wheras he says a genius makes his own luck. I guess Alexander although mostly tactically sound had his share of luck. The Persian Gates could have beeen a fatal error. He needed luck or indeed a Persian Turncoat to show him round.

That's always an interesting one, Kenny. You are, of course, right, in that he got himself into a bad situation - it was one of the few times that he made a serious error of judgement, was perhaps too cocky; and Ariobarzanes (I think he was in charge) showed him that there was still some life left in Persia.

However, Alexander had no choice but to take the Persian Gates; and, until he found his guide over the mountains, there quite possibly was no way to attack other than straight down the middle, despite the obvious death trap. So maybe there was no "error" involved, no cockiness, merely the knowledge that he would have to sustain huge casualties in order to dislodge the enemy.

ATB

[Paralus]

Some would say its a greater general who knows when to turn back and an even greater general to make someone else think it their idea.

G'day Kenny.

Interesting line that. I don't think that was how it was though. Your line earlier about the Phoenix rising behind is good though. Alexander's policy in India was little different to that which he practised in Bactria/Sogdia GÇô if a little more bluntly applied. That policy GÇô in stripped down terms GÇô was to reward the locals who submitted; establish garrison towns (outposts of empire) and thoroughly root out decimate those who rose in rebellion. That last GÇô increasingly murderous as time went on GÇô in the Indian campaign was extended to those who resisted the conqueror (Porus, for logical reasons, being the exception to prove the rule) let alone rebelled afterwards.

Alexander having "settled" Indian affairs in said manner then turned east to the Beas in exactly the same fashion as he had decamped Bactria for India. He'd no real idea how deep the resentment was among the troops at the endless quest. If he did, he surely overestimated his ability to overcome by fiat or by cajoling and bribery. No, he didn't foment this. It rose up and bit him on the bum.

He seems not to have understood the huge resentment of the most recently "pacified" peoples at their absorption into empire as well. Porus was content in his enlarged domain but others were far from it. As a matter of pure manpower, Porus needed to be trusted to his "Satrapy". The garrisons and their implanted towns would GÇô like Bactria GÇô have to see to the rest. In this, they were not capable as was amply demonstrated after Alexander's exit and his death.

Appears that some people just didn't take to the forced diet of Homer, Euripides, Aristophanes, the comic poets, gymnopaedia, theatres, games and all the other high Hellenic culture that was, to some, the point of the conquest.

Uncultured swine!

[kennyxx]

Paralus Hail

I guess well have to disagree. But thats the fun with topical debate to try understand a subject from all aspects. Your quote that the mutiny bit Alexander in the butt I would say on a few exeptions was Alexander bitten on the but. I dont think the mutiny was unknown nor the feelings of his soldiers.

He must himself have realised he couldnt keep pushing them also. There were many reasons in my opinion to turn back and basically to safe face and his heroic legend he needed a good excuse.The Pheonix analasis is very close as you know you cant really keep knocking something down for it to keep getting up. In my own words in Alexanders mouth its gotta be saying im pissed off with this game . Im out of here and need a good reason. We can assume if he really wanted to go on he could have pressed and commanded it. And as the soldiers were basically lost in the wilderness without Alexander they would have had to go on.

Kenny

[amyntoros]

Just wanted to say that I am not avoiding this thread - every single post here has given me food for thought, but I am waiting to fully respond. (Must say though that I am inclining towards Kenny's argument - I think Alexander had to know how his men were feeling at this point.) Anyway, I recently ordered the book that contains Heckel's theory on this subject; so when it turns up I will see what he has to say and will then weigh in with further comments of my own. And thank you so much, ABM, for the information on where to find Heckel's article. It is always good to see you on Pothos, however briefly.

Best regards,