New Michael Wood documentary

[kurnigandy1]

J. F. C. Fuller has already told us where the Battle of Gaugamela was fought: near Arbela (near present day Mosul), the plateau of Tel Gomel. Of course he did not find this himself, he got it from Schachermayr.

I have to admit I do not know this Michael Wood character. Is he a histrorian? If he is a good historian he will no doubt draw his narrative from the likes of Devine, Tarn, Hammond, Badian, Fuller, Griffith- just to name a few!

I am very interested in seeing what he makes of the elephants! My thesis is in... ...

[Alita]

From what I know kurnigandy, he uses primary sources whenever possible: Arrian, Curtius and Plutarch. He also spent a great deal of time during In the Footsteps talking to locals and trying to get their viewpoint of Alexander to give a more complete or balanced picture. It would be interesting to see how he does this one.

Marcus: I agree, the plain on which the battle of Gaugamela was fought is bare, but as you say, to the north there are lush mountainous areas with natural springs and raging rivers (Dr Asahel Grant, the Americal physician, visited this area in the 19th Century and has commented on different geological aspects of the area, notably, that it was both perilous and breath-takingly beautiful). I think if it is only a 50 minute doc however, that Wood won't bother with the surrounding areas! (But it doesn't stop me wishing I could be in his shoes.... or at least a fly on his back during his explorations!)

[Paralus]

Using dramatic new finds in the UK – a cuneiform clay tablet in the British Museum and a papyrus dug up in Egypt – Michael sheds new light on the course of events.

Then to reconstruct the campaign, he follows Alexander’s route through Damascus and Alleppo to the river Euphrates in Syria and travels into Northern Iraq with the British and US military.

One wonders at the cuneiform tablet. Most likely the Astronomical Diaries and more likely that (BM 36390) which describes the omens presaging the Persian defeat and the desertion of Darius by his troops. This material is provided on Jona Lendering's site with a new translation by Bert van der Spek and Irving Finkel of the British Museum. I wonder also what the papyrus is.

As to Alexander's route through Syria and northern Iraq, that seems fairly well known but it will be nice to see it as it exists today. The site of the battle has been known in general terms for quite some time. The clues are in the distances and time it takes to get agreed modern indentifiers (the Lycus river, "Arbela", etc) but the actual battlefield has probably been pinpointed to within a cruise missile strike on a Baghdad market's distance from actuality. I'd be interested to see the rationale for the seemingly exact determination.

[Semiramis]

As to Alexander's route through Syria and northern Iraq, that seems fairly well known but it will be nice to see it as it exists today. The site of the battle has been known in general terms for quite some time. The clues are in the distances and time it takes to get agreed modern indentifiers (the Lycus river, "Arbela", etc) but the actual battlefield has probably been pinpointed to within a cruise missile strike on a Baghdad market's distance from actuality. I'd be interested to see the rationale for the seemingly exact determination.

Wherever it is, it needs a great big manly statue to celebrate the glorious victory. Alexander's altruistic mission I mean, not the more recent one.

[Paralus]

Wherever it is, it needs a great big manly statue to celebrate the glorious victory. Alexander's altruistic mission I mean, not the more recent one.

Cheeky, very cheeky. And, on this site!

Nice to see you back.

[kurnigandy1]

Did you use the words primary sources and Curtius in the same sentence? I am just being cynical, I know what you meant.

In contrast to Alexander, are you aware, as Badian as recently argued, that our sources (either secondary or primary-Arrian=Ptolemy) for Alexander are also our same sources for Darius III. I must admit, because of my uninterest in Darius, that the thought never crossed my mind. Is it necassary, or on the otherhand, can it be unnecassary, to study one without the other? Afterall, Darius III was Alexander's greatest adversary.

Here is the article by E. Badian:

"Darius III." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 100 (2000). pp. 241-67.

[Paralus]

Here is the article by E. Badian...

I'm afraid, kurnigandy, you've little idea of what you've done. Fancy referencing a paper by the arch apostate Ernst Badian?!

I suppose it only remains for me to utter the names of the others of the Apostate Trinity:

Eugene Borza.... Peter Green....

Where's the fellow with the painted on six pack: "This is Pothos!"

[kurnigandy1]

I beg your forgiveness, Paralus, I was not aware of your attitude toward Badian. I, too, must admit that I have never been a huge fan of Badian, but, nevertheless, I try to remain objective.

On the other hand, I am a fan of Peter Green. Not to many articles out there by him though, just two excellent books.

I will read some of the reviews and come back....

[Paralus]

I beg your forgiveness, Paralus, I was not aware of your attitude toward Badian.

You misunderstand me: I've no issue with Ernst Badian (or the others of the Apostate Trinity). Indeed, I can even read Worthington and Bosworth without suffering the overbearing compulsion to seek forgiveness through the priests of the Plutarchian Alexander as Civilising Saviour-God confessional.

Peter Green remains one of the masters of the English language - especially in print. He - like many a medicinal dose - should be read even if one does not agree with him because he is "good for you".

The issue, rather, is the fact one or all of those listed can - and do - excite polarised views more often seen in the Israel / Palestine "debate". Quite fun to watch at times...

[Semiramis]

Cheeky, very cheeky. And, on this site!

Nice to see you back.

I learn from the best Paralus.

Did you use the words primary sources and Curtius in the same sentence? I am just being cynical, I know what you meant.

In contrast to Alexander, are you aware, as Badian as recently argued, that our sources (either secondary or primary-Arrian=Ptolemy) for Alexander are also our same sources for Darius III. I must admit, because of my uninterest in Darius, that the thought never crossed my mind. Is it necassary, or on the otherhand, can it be unnecassary, to study one without the other? Afterall, Darius III was Alexander's greatest adversary.

Here is the article by E. Badian:

"Darius III." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 100 (2000). pp. 241-67.

Hi kurnigandy1,

I think the same can be said about Cyrus I. The parallels between the careers of Cyrus I and Alexander III are quite striking. Reinstating defeated foes to their kingdoms, respecting the harem of the adversary, appointing joint rulers (native and conqueror) - it's all there. I wonder how many of Alexander's actions were inspired by Cyrus?

[agesilaos]

That Alexander held Cyrus in reverence is shown by his treatment of the tomb at Pasagardae; however, it seems likely that it was Xenophon's Cyrus who impressed him rather than the real Great King.

Perhaps the greatest similarity between the two rulers is the alacrity with which modern commentators are willing to foist well meaning Christian(?) values of tolerance upon them. Cyrus' reputation was boosted by the Greek idea of Persian decline, in order for even Xerxes I to be depicted as a decline the virtues of his predecessors had to be exaggerated. This is only latent in Herodotos but becomes a common place in the Fourth Century. Today, his reputation is boosted by the seemingly liberal diktats of the 'Cyrus Cylinder' and his alleged release of the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. Alexander's propaganda has lent him a similar air of liberality but both are really only acting within the constraints of Realpolitik. Only by selective reading can we arrive at significantly positive (or negative a la Badian) pictures of either.

Incidentally, the only primary sources surviving, other than a handful of fragments are the letters that Alexander wrote to various Greek cities. Arrian makes use of primary sources, Ptolemy and Aristoboulos, as well as secondary and even tertiary material, but cannot himself be accounted anything more than secondary himself. Curtius too uses primary sources, Ptolemy for certain but seems more rooted in the secondary tradition of Kleitarchos so is sort of a 2 1/2er!

[kurnigandy1]

I love the word realpolitik.

I believe that Ptolemy stole away to Egypt with more than just Alexander's body. Tarn was under the assumption that Ptolemy made use of a certain soldier's journal. Some historians today - i.e. Badian, argue that it did not exist.

[agesilaos]

There is a theory, propounded most fully by Hammond, that the Royal Journals went to Egypt with the corpse and that from them Ptolemy was able to right factually accurate accounts of all the events on the Expedition, presumably including talking snakes and boastful Gauls! From the actual snippets (if so they are) preserved verbatim the so called 'Ephemerides' or Journal seems to be singularly wanting in the very details that Hammond wants it to preserve. This is a classic example of deciding what you want to believe and then concocting supporting circumstances.

Tarn had taken things a stage further with his so-called mercenaries source in inventing a whole new source tradition, basically so that he could cherry pick the vulgate for any details he liked whilst simultanaeously rubbishing the general tradition. He is particularly at pains to show that Kleitarchos is a late writer and turns a fair few somersaults in the attempt to prove it; late equals less reliable. It would be impossible for anyone as bad as Kleitarchos to preserve anything worthwhile hence the 'Mercenaries' Source'.

This is not really the place for a full (and contentious) discussion of the sources though. That would absorb a thread of quite impressive length and never reach any firm conclusions. Tarn's attack on the idea that Diodorus summarised one main source is a good example of his 'method', in one sentance he distinguishes seventeen different sources! Up with this nonsense I cannot put.

[Semiramis]

Agesilaos,

Thanks for that really good post. The examples I mentioned, such as the treatment of the harem, re-instating defeated foes etc. are often held up as examples of Alexander's "generosity towards the Persians". Cyrus seemed to have followed similar policies of some form of joint-rule with the Medes, Lydians and Babylonians (possibly others that haven't been recorded). Unless one is speaking to a fervent Iranian monarchist, I think most people would agree that these were simply clever and self-serving actions, regardless of the propaganda overlays. It seems to me that Alexander had learned of at least some of these approaches from Xenophon's Cyrus. It appears that both men were fond of using the same carrots in their carrot-and-stick approach to conquering the Near East. Not the the sticks were negligible...

With Alexander, however, one often runs up against an idea of an "enlightened" empire that is "beneficial" for the natives. Hence, suggesting pragmatic motives for his actions, or even precedence in Achaemenid history becomes contentious. Plutarch may be to blame for some of this "civilizing mission" whitewash. But I think we also need to take into account the modern tendency to reflect the professed ideals of later empires onto Alexander's one. Some of Tarn or Robin Lane Fox's musings and their treatment of source material make more sense in that light.

I've been reading Pierre Briant's excellent "From Cyrus to Alexander" again recently. Briant mentions the Achaemenid-period rule of having to bring a gift for the Great King when he passes through one's land, usually a portion of harvest, animals etc. One popular story went that a man was so poor that all he could bring was a jug of water (in other versions a pomegranate). But the Great King in his infinite generosity awarded him the title of 'Benefactor'. I guess when we're talking about things as brutal and exploitative as conquest and empire, the term generosity becomes rather relative.

[agesilaos]

Briant is quite good, I have not got that book but picked up 'Darius dans l'ombre d'Alexandre' on a trip to Calais. The book i am currently re-reading is Wiesehofer ('Ancient Persia) in his chapter on the Achaemenids he deals interestingly with the images of Cyrus and Xerxes. Using the Eastern evidence, the Nabonidus Cylinder in fact, its seems that far from sparing Croesus, he was killed as was Astyages, I don't know if there is a translation of this online anywhere. He is also useful on the Jewish need for a saviour figure which they retrojected to explain the return to Jerusalem quite probably to the wrong era; since I do a fair bit of boozing with the local representative of the Anglican Church any Biblical criticism is welcome grist to the mill - not like arguing with a believer,though!

There are a multitude of parallels between the Achaemenids and the Temenids which throws an interesting sidelight on Alexander's attitudes and the real origins of Macedonia's royal institutions.