Alexander the Great Failure- John D Grainger

[Phoebus]

I thought she’d answered the question quite well.

Thanks for the catch, Paralus. Apologies, Amyntoros... you know what they say about assumptions and all that.

For the record, my name is Phoebus. Nice to meet you all!

The first reason people will have been settled there was because these soldiers took up residence with their wives, camp-followers, and children.

How does this explain the crippled, infirm, and otherwise unable to continue serving militarily, though? That's what I'm driving at.

That the basics of a Greek town were granted will have served notice that this was no simple tour of duty.

No disagreement there; only that the ceiling for these cities is set as low as you say it was.

The expectation will have been that numbers of the natives were to be trained in their defence and that the garrison soldiers put down roots. Their children (and so on) will have come to manhood as soldiers in the polis and, a fortiori, frontier defence force just like home in Greece.

Again, this concept seems unrealistic to me. That is, the idea of a frontier town that is never meant to grow. Perhaps Amyntoros was right, and we may have to agree to disagree.

That “bare minimum” amounted to some 20,000 which the Macedonians under Peithon had to convince – by massacring a goodly few – their lot was permanent. And this will not have been all of them.

I don't think I was clear enough, or maybe I was looking to closely at what I thought was part of your argument. If Alexander didn't intend for these towns to grow, then any subsequent colonists or frontier soldiers would have had to be of a "bare minimum" number.

An army of 13,500 under the satrap, Amyntas, and Greek garrison troops in the many Alexandrias was quite sufficient – as it proved even after Alexander’s death.

This one might take me a bit longer to answer. I have to look some things up. Please be patient with me!

I do not necessarily hold him “to task” over the transplanting of peoples. His father had done it and the Persians before him. I will though hold to task those (and I’m not suggesting, necessarily, that you are one) who hold that these towns were all intended to become Athens in Asia.

I merely believe that Alexander understood the concept of colonization and knew that, in a frontier, one starts with frontier towns. I don't believe he was under any illusion those settlements would become anything resembling grand (and even then I'm thiking more Plataea than Athens, if you will) an iota faster than the provinces they were in became an integrated part of the network between the empire and its neighbors (trade routes, etc) .

That the prime motivation for them being the quite silly notion that they would educate the local population in notions of proper (Greek) civilisation; that they were to become the shining lights-on-the-hill of Hellenism and civilisation in a barbarian world and that they would provide the savage and backward locals with the delights of Greek culture: the tragedies, comedies and the notion of democracy.

I don't think so either. I think that the education you speak of would have come courtesy of military programs. To paraphrase Heinlein, "Citizenship through Service". And I'll grant you that Alexander would have had to live to be an old, old man before this sort of thing took off. And even then, its success or failure would have ultimately been tied to the successes (or failures) of the Asian corps Alexander enrolled--Epigonoi, et al.

[Paralus]

To paraphrase Heinlein...

Robert A Heinlein? You, my dear Phoebus, have another redeeming feature...

The Greeks of the eastern Alexandrias were, indeed, Strangers in a Strange Land.

[Phoebus]

Yes!!!

[amyntoros]

I think at this point it would be helpful for me to give an example of the reading which has influenced my thoughts. Take Alexander's first city in the area - Alexandria-Eschate. Quoting Frank Holt (in Alexander the Great and Bactria) who first explains how there was a native revolt even at the planning stages of Alexandria-Eschate; how Alexander was only able to get the walls up to a defensive height against fierce opposition; how he struck back, sacked and raised seven cities which had revolted in the area and killed or enslaved their occupants; and how …

… Like the Sogdian city dwellers, the Scythians considered the Macedonian settlement to be an unwelcome stranglehold upon their necks and they aimed to help destroy the city and to drive off the Macedonian settlers. . . .

The revolt in Sogdiana seems, therefore, to have been a direct response to the foundation of Alexandria-Eschate. So strong a reaction from the Sogdian cities, the Scythians, and such nobles as Spitamenes must be explained in terms of what Alexander's new city represented. It was, after all, the first permanent settlement established by the king anywhere in Bactria or Sogdiana. Only a few soldiers, many of them unfit for active service, had earlier been stationed in the native cities of the region. Thus, the Graeco-Macedonian presence had not earlier seemed particularly large or long-lasting. Alexandria-Eschate, however, marked a considerable change. It was a large new settlement, with circuit walls of sixty stadia. It was, furthermore, of a decidedly military nature, quite unlike the older Greek colonies established in the area by earlier Achaemenid kings. It was Alexander's intention, according to our sources, to make the city a bulwark between the Sogdians and Scythians.

And a couple of pages later:

There can be little doubt that the king conceived the foundation of Alexandria-Eschate for the military purpose of enforcing a sterile frontier against the Scythians. It was certainly not, as some have argued, for the humane purpose of settling and civilizing the nomads. The latter, in fact, were excluded from Alexander's settlements and further alienated rather than incorporated. This practice did more to 'barbarize' than 'civilize' the Scythians. Nor was it Alexander's purpose to introduce cities ('civilization') among the Sogdians as a beneficent gesture. Those natives who were settled in Alexandria-Eschate were, in fact, ransomed prisoners from the seven neighboring cities destroyed by Alexander when the revolt began; most of these survivors had been urbanized before Alexander's arrival, and their status was hardly improved by being carried off as booty to a Graeco-Macedonian fortress.

Adding to the above some thoughts of my own as to the nature of the Graeco-Macedonian settlers in this (and other) cities that Alexander founded: Were not the majority of the settlers Greek soldiers with perhaps a lesser number of Macedonians in charge? Diodorus 18.4.7 tells us that:

Perdiccas first put to death those soldiers who were fomenters of discord and most at enmity with himself, thirty in number. After that he also punished Meleager, who had been a traitor on the occasion of the contention and his mission, using as a pretext a private quarrel and a charge that Meleager was plotting against him. 8 Then, since the Greeks who had been settled in the upper satrapies had revolted and raised an army of considerable size, he sent one of the nobles, Pithon, to fight it out with them.

Later (18.7.3) we are told that:

(323 B.C.) The Greeks who had been settled by Alexander in the upper satrapies, as they were called, although they longed for the Greek customs and manner of life and were cast away in the most distant part of the kingdom, yet submitted while the king was alive through fear ; but when he was dead they rose in revolt. 2 After they had taken counsel together and elected Philon the Aenianian as general, they raised a considerable force. They had more than twenty thousand foot soldiers and three thousand horse, all of whom had many times been tried in the contests of war and were distinguished for their courage.

The above seems to support my theory that the majority of soldiers settled in the cities were Greek. It does, admittedly, also bring weight to bear on your side of the argument, as in: why not a temporary duty – and happier occupants - if the cities were purely militaristic in nature? I think the answer may lie with Isocrates and his published Letter to Philip which Alexander had surely read. Here he speaks of the vast number of Greek "exiles" who had become mercenary soldiers:

[120] Now since Jason by use of words alone advanced himself so far, what opinion must we expect the world will have of you if you actually do this thing; above all, if you undertake to conquer the whole empire of the King, or, at any rate, to wrest from it a vast extent of territory and sever from it--to use a current phrase--"Asia from Cilicia to Sinope"; and if, furthermore, you undertake to establish cities in this region, and to settle in permanent abodes those who now, for lack of the daily necessities of life, are wandering from place to place and committing outrages upon whomsoever they encounter? [121] If we do not stop these men from banding together, by providing sufficient livelihood for them, they will grow before we know it into so great a multitude as to be a terror no less to the Hellenes than to the barbarians. But we pay no heed to them; nay, we shut our eyes to the fact that a terrible menace which threatens us all alike is waxing day by day. [122] It is therefore the duty of a man who is high-minded, who is a lover of Hellas, who has a broader vision than the rest of the world, to employ these bands in a war against the barbarians, to strip from that empire all the territory which I defined a moment ago, to deliver these homeless wanderers from the ills by which they are afflicted and which they inflict upon others, to collect them into cities, and with these cities to fix the boundary of Hellas, making of them buffer states to shield us all.

It seems to me that the above is exactly what Alexander did. By the time he returned to Babylon there is no reference to Greeks in his army (that I recall), even though he had taken many into his service. I suspect that those Greeks "exiled" from their own cities who had entered Alexander's service were the ones placed securely in the new cities that Alexander had founded in the east.

Best regards,

[Phoebus]

Hi Amyntoros,

"It was certainly not, as some have argued, for the humane purpose of settling and civilizing the nomads."

I think the author illustrates nicely the extreme bookends that I am arguing against: the depressingly banal idea of purely military garrisons and the hopelessly idealistic vision of "beacons of Hellenism".

I'm merely arguing that the cities were founded with the same expectations and concerns behind any colonizing effort in a dangerous frontier. Soldiers and fortifications were needed to secure them, and so they were placed there. At least a significant minority of Greek-speakers would be needed to bring about the change Alexander desired, and thus they were planted there.

Where their happiness is concerned, I can't imagine they were an iota happier than any other forced colonist in the history of mankind. They were serving Alexander's needs. Where their motivation to stay put after Alexander's death is concerned... Why would anyone want to stay in a dangerous frontier of an empire that suddenly had no emperor or even an heir apparent? Maybe they saw the storm coming ahead of time? Was there even a guarantee that the mercenaries would be paid?

Where Isocrates' description of those fellows is concerned, I would posit that Demosthenes described the Macedonian fighting men using (at least somewhat) similarly derogatory terms/themes. I'm not sure that Alexander was particularly worried that these mercenaries could be a menace to his nascent empire (any more than the other elements of his army). Rather, I think his decision was driven by a different sort of necessity: it would be inconceivable for his Macedonian soldiers to be placed on long-term garrison duty before mercenaries were--whether the campaigns in Bactria, Sogdiana, etc. were followed by an Indian expedition or not. It would be a slap to their face.

[Paralus]

To paraphrase, if not quite Robert Heinlein, then his creation from Stranger in a Strange Land Jubal Harshaw:


The eastern Alexandrias, as outpost towns, could no more escape their garrison natures than the individual can escape bondage to his bowels.

(Man, as a social animal, can no more escape government than the individual can escape bondage to his bowels.)

[amyntoros]

Hi Amyntoros,

"It was certainly not, as some have argued, for the humane purpose of settling and civilizing the nomads."

I think the author illustrates nicely the extreme bookends that I am arguing against: the depressingly banal idea of purely military garrisons and the hopelessly idealistic vision of "beacons of Hellenism".

I'm merely arguing that the cities were founded with the same expectations and concerns behind any colonizing effort in a dangerous frontier. Soldiers and fortifications were needed to secure them, and so they were placed there. At least a significant minority of Greek-speakers would be needed to bring about the change Alexander desired, and thus they were planted there.

Where their happiness is concerned, I can't imagine they were an iota happier than any other forced colonist in the history of mankind. They were serving Alexander's needs. Where their motivation to stay put after Alexander's death is concerned... Why would anyone want to stay in a dangerous frontier of an empire that suddenly had no emperor or even an heir apparent? Maybe they saw the storm coming ahead of time? Was there even a guarantee that the mercenaries would be paid?

Hi Phoebus,

I understand your reasoning as I am usually amongst the first to argue that there are shades of grey in any situation and not just black and white. However, in this instance I'm afraid I must disagree with the suggestion that the city (cities) were built for military purposes is an extreme bookend – or that it is a depressingly banal idea. Not everything Alexander did was visionary or imaginative (sorry- could NOT resist! ) according to our perceptions – far from it. Although it is evident from the histories that he often had an eye for the future, sometimes his concerns were for the immediate military aspects.

Where Isocrates' description of those fellows is concerned, I would posit that Demosthenes described the Macedonian fighting men using (at least somewhat) similarly derogatory terms/themes. I'm not sure that Alexander was particularly worried that these mercenaries could be a menace to his nascent empire (any more than the other elements of his army). Rather, I think his decision was driven by a different sort of necessity: it would be inconceivable for his Macedonian soldiers to be placed on long-term garrison duty before mercenaries were--whether the campaigns in Bactria, Sogdiana, etc. were followed by an Indian expedition or not. It would be a slap to their face.

Once again I view things differently. I don't see Isocrates description as being exceptionally derogatory in terms of words or theme, especially considering Greek history. The mercenary Greek soldiers, the majority of them exiles, were indeed a realistic threat – first of all to Greece, as demonstrated by their proclivity for finding work/pay where they could which meant that many of them took service with the ultimate enemy, Persia. Isocrates was arguing for the defeat of the Persian empire under Philip. If/when this was attained, then consideration had to be given as to what should be done with the many, many thousands of mercenaries. Only a portion of the mercenaries took service with Alexander, and Diodorus tells us what happened with another large group whom Alexander evidently thought would be a threat to his empire's stability if they remained in service with Persian satraps. (And it think it is relevant to my argument that Alexander chose not to take this vast and proven military force into his own army.)

Diodorus 17.111.1-3 During this period Greece was the scene of disturbances and revolutionary movements from which arose the war called Lamian.The reason was this. The king had ordered all his satraps to dissolve their armies of mercenaries, and as they obeyed his instructions, all Asia was overrun with soldiers released from service and supporting themselves by plunder. Presently they began assembling from all directions at Taenarum in Laconia, [2] whither came also such of the Persian satraps and generals as had survived, bringing their funds and their soldiers, so that they constituted a joint force. [3] Ultimately they chose as supreme commander the Athenian Leosthenes, who was a man of unusually brilliant mind, and thoroughtly opposed to the cause of Alexander. He conferred secretly with the council at Athens and was granted fifty talents to pay the troops and a stock of weapons sufficient to meet pressing needs. He sent off an embassy to the Aetolians who were unfriendly to the king, looking to the establishment of an alliance with them, and otherwise made every preparation for war.

Having learned of this, Alexander then took other steps to solve the new problem:

Diodorus 18.8.2-5 A short time before his death, Alexander decided to restore all the exiles in the Greek cities, partly for the sake of gaining fame, and partly wishing to secure many devoted personal followers in each city to counter the revolutionary movements and seditions of the Greeks. [3] The Olympic games being at hand, he therefore sent Nicanor of Stagira to Greece, giving him a decree about the restoration, which he ordered him to have proclaimed by the victorious herald to the crowds at the festival. [4] Nicanor carried out his instructions, and the herald received and read the following message : " King Alexander to the exiles from the Greek cities. We have not been the cause of your exile, but, save for those of you who are under a curse, we shall be the cause of your return to your own native cities. We have written to Antipater about this to the end that if any cities are not willing to restore you, he may constrain them." [5] When the herald had announced this, the crowd showed its approval with loud applause ; for those at the festival welcomed the favour of the king with cries of joy, and repaid his good deed with praises. All the exiles had come together at the festival, being more than twenty thousand in number.

The Athenians, in particular, were very unhappy with this decree and according to Diordorus they remained quiet for the time being, waiting for a favorable opportunity, which Fortune quickly gave them. The 'favourable opportunity' was, of course, the death of Alexander – the same opportunity seized by the Greek settlers in Alexander's cities in the east. Which brings me back to your statement, above wherein you said Why would anyone want to stay in a dangerous frontier of an empire that suddenly had no emperor or even an heir apparent? Maybe they saw the storm coming ahead of time? Was there even a guarantee that the mercenaries would be paid? Why indeed? I’m with you on this one. However, it seems to me that their actions – and their evident dissatisfaction with their lot – do not lend support to the idea that the cities were founded with the same expectations and concerns behind any colonizing effort in a dangerous frontier. I’m not saying that their actions disprove your theory, by the way. Just that they don't lend any particular weight to it.

Going back to Isocrates – my own tendency is to believe that his Letter to Philip had considerably more influence on Alexander and his motivations than is usually credited. Much of it reads as if it is an intimate guide to how Alexander presented himself to the world - or how he wanted the world to think of him. An absolutely fascinating piece of work! I did, by the way, unintentionally miss the last line to my previous quote from Isocrates. (It was on the next page, duh!) He said: For by doing this, you will not only make them prosperous, but you will put us all on a footing of security. If, however, you do not succeed in these objects, this much you will at any rate easily accomplish,--the liberation of the cities which are on the coast of Asia. Alexander, methinks, was not a person who would ever accept the words "if you do not succeed."


I ought to finish now by saying that I'm not trying to win you over to my viewpoint but am merely trying to explain my own. I don't believe that there is any right or wrong in this debate (or the vast majority that take place on Pothos) – just different ways of seeing things. We are, after all, discussing Alexander's intent which we can never know for sure. But I do enjoy a good, healthy argument and this is certainly one of them. I'm delighted that you chose to join us on Pothos back in September and look forward to many more discussions.

And no, I'm NOT trying to have the final word on this debate. Just wanted to say the above while it was on my mind.

Best regards,

[Phoebus]

I understand your reasoning as I am usually amongst the first to argue that there are shades of grey in any situation and not just black and white. However, in this instance I'm afraid I must disagree with the suggestion that the city (cities) were built for military purposes is an extreme bookend – or that it is a depressingly banal idea. Not everything Alexander did was visionary or imaginative (sorry- could NOT resist! ) according to our perceptions – far from it. Although it is evident from the histories that he often had an eye for the future, sometimes his concerns were for the immediate military aspects.

Of course he had military concerns for those colonies.

I'm simply saying that I can't reconcile the idea that, concurrently, he wasn't thinking of these cities as "seeds" for the future--that he wasn't looking for them to serve a purpose other than military garrisons. Again, I'm confounded by the presence of non-military personnel. If they're not there for the purpose of establishing a community, then why? If they are there to form a community, then how can we assume that there was no intent for these communities to improve and grow?

Similarly, I have a hard time seeing these colonies as a dumping ground for mercenaries. As you pointed out, Alexander, had no qualms about allowing men such as these to go home. Perhaps he was amazingly wrong in doing so (Leosthenes & co. definitely showed what they were waiting for), but all the same this decision was not in line with the concept of exiling potential mischief-makers.

Conversely, if the Successors had allowed the mercenaries stationed in Bactria and the colonists to go home, they would have lost their hold of those Afghan provinces and access to India.

Why indeed? I’m with you on this one. However, it seems to me that their actions – and their evident dissatisfaction with their lot – do not lend support to the idea that the cities were founded with the same expectations and concerns behind any colonizing effort in a dangerous frontier.

Again, I simply argue that both groups--mercenary soldiers for garrison duty and the military unfit serving colonists for the communities--served as the fastest means of starting the process. They enabled Alexander to move on to his next conquest.

[quot]I ought to finish now by saying that I'm not trying to win you over to my viewpoint but am merely trying to explain my own.[/quote]
And I have found it both very enjoyable and refreshing to read yours and Paralus' viewpoints. Sure, we might not agree on everything, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing well-thought out, informed points of view. On a topic such as this, lacking much amplifying data as it is, I wouldn't really dream of converting people to my POV.

I'm delighted that you chose to join us on Pothos back in September and look forward to many more discussions.

Thank you, and likewise!

And no, I'm NOT trying to have the final word on this debate. Just wanted to say the above while it was on my mind.

Neither am I! This is the only part of the online forum format that I find frustrating. Each post in a way adds new data, and I feel compelled to respond... if for no other reason than because I hate to see someone put work and thought into a topic and having it go unanswered.

Maybe we can pretend both of these posts went in simultaneously? Paralus, perhaps you can get be off the hook and weigh in for one last offering?

Cheers,
P.

[Paralus]

Paralus, perhaps you can get be off the hook and weigh in for one last offering?

Absolutely squire.

Again, I'm confounded by the presence of non-military personnel. If they're not there for the purpose of establishing a community, then why? If they are there to form a community, then how can we assume that there was no intent for these communities to improve and grow?

The “non-military” personnel were, first and foremost, the families and camp-followers. All others – aside from particular “tradesmen” – were the servile natives that had been transplanted to supply the needs of the garrisons.

I’d argue that, had Alexander lived, his only real interest in these Bactrian/Sogdian Alexandrias will have been to ensure they performed their role. He may even have settled further military “colonists” in them. I doubt he’d have much, if any, interest in returning to them.

Conversely, if the Successors had allowed the mercenaries stationed in Bactria and the colonists to go home, they would have lost their hold of those Afghan provinces and access to India.

The Diadochoi well knew their purpose. Indeed one of the first tasks of Perdiccas, after brutally crushing the rebellion in the phalanx troops (he learned well at Alexander’s feet), was to deal with those very mercenary Greeks who figured that the Macedonians could go look after their own frontiers.

Again, I simply argue that both groups--mercenary soldiers for garrison duty and the military unfit serving colonists for the communities--served as the fastest means of starting the process. They enabled Alexander to move on to his next conquest.

The last sentence says it all.

[Paralus]

Some populations were not enslaved and transferred. Some were simply put to the sword...or sarisa. Plutarch (Alex, 37.1-3) relates that Alexander ordered the slaughter of the natives of Persis at about the time of the sack, rape and pillage of Persepolis. I'd suggets it was more to do with the campaigns of reduction that followed the fall of Persepolis:

Persis was difficult of access, owing to the roughness of the country, and was guarded by the noblest of the Persians (for Dareius had taken to flight); but Alexander found a guide to conduct him thither by a circuit of no great extent…

In this country, then, as it turned out, there was a great slaughter of the prisoners taken; for Alexander himself writes that he gave orders to have the inhabitants butchered, thinking that this would be to his advantage; and they say that as much coined money was found there as at Susa, and that it took ten thousand pairs of mules and five thousand camels to carry away the other furniture and wealth there.

[marcus]

I now have a copy of this book, although I haven't had a chance to do more than have a quick glance. Grainger's premise seems to be quite acceptable to me, and the context in which he puts Alexander's reign will certainly help his argument.

I think it is important to stress that Grainger doesn't appear to be denigrating what Alexander achieved; merely Alexander's failure to provide an adult heir, and his failure to sort out the administration of the empire, before his death. Both those are, to me, perfectly acceptable criticisms - one cannot entirely blame Alexander for dying so young; but as he was embarking on a campaign of warfare, there was always the possibility that he might not live beyond his 30s ... and therefore his refusal to produce an heir before he set off was irresponsible, to say the least.

That, at least, appears to be the thrust of the argument, and I cannot really take issue with it. I look forward to reading the book properly, once I've belted through a few others on my "to read" pile, to see exactly how Grainger puts his argument forward.

ATB

[Phoebus]

I still fail to see how an 11 year old born to a woman from a family the majority of the Macedonian generals would not have necessarily felt loyalty toward would have somehow countered the storm that came afterwards.

Meaning, would Ptolemaios, Antigonos, etc., have reacted any differently if Perdiccas, as regent (or whoever was filling that role), "put the moves" on a female member of the Argead house? Personally, I don't think any heir of Alexander's would have been safe unless he was old enough to (a) be his own man and (b) plausibly lead an army at the time of his father's death.

Hence, my original line, that Alexander was guilty only of dying young. And yes, while I still am not convinced that alcohol played a role in his death, I can see holding Alexander's abuse of it against him. A guy that had gone through as much as he did certainly didn't need the stress on his constitution that massive binges imposed.

[jan]

I have decided to read James Grainger's book about Alexander as a failure but I see that the book is not really so much about Alexander as about his predecessors and successors so that the title of the book is a bit misleading. Also picked up Steve Berry's book The Venetian Betrayal to read at the library too. Am giving it a second chance since I found it a bit offensive when I was perusing it at the bookstore. I know that it is involves the need to find Alexander's tomb to solve a mystery so that the entire book is bogus and therefore not likely to satisfy my need for a good read. Berry is a successor to Dan Brown in the world of mystery and suspense!

[marcus]

I have decided to read James Grainger's book about Alexander as a failure but I see that the book is not really so much about Alexander as about his predecessors and successors so that the title of the book is a bit misleading.

No, the title isn't misleading at all. Read the forward to the book, then you'll understand what Grainger is getting at.

ATB

[marcus]

I have decided to read James Grainger's book about Alexander ...

Anyway, it's John Grainger ...

ATB