Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:27 am
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...
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: I'm merely saying that, having decided to invade Persia, securing his southern "flank" was a logical move for Alexander.
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.
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.
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.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.
I'm not trying to justify Alexander's move. I'm pointing out that it was strategically logical. See below.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 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.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 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.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.
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: 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.
The 6-7,000 Greek hoplite are no different to the thousands of other soldiers supplied by other conquered nations .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".
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.
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.smittysmitty wrote:The 6-7,000 Greek hoplite are no different to the thousands of other soldiers supplied by other conquered nations .
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.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 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.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.
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: 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.
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.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 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.smittysmitty wrote:It was no more strategically logical than any other region conquered by Argead dynasts.
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.You seem to imply, had the southern Greeks posed no threat to Macedon's eastern expansion they would have been left alone?
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.The 6-7,000 Greek hoplite are no different to the thousands of other soldiers supplied by other conquered nations .
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").Paralus wrote:Yes, think about it. Either Alexander was insane or he knew that he was not ever due to face such numbers.
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.He chose not to levy any more than 7,000 from his “League”.
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.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.