Alexanders Seemingly Brutality In India

[kenny]

Of Late weve had arguments and critisisms of Alexanders pointless massacres in India. At one stage I never understood and thought it was a case of chasing bandits and nomads.If you bother to read David Lonsdales Killer Of Men. I would say it gives a great understanding of what Alexander was doing and his tactics. We do know there were tribes and upserpers fighting a guerilla hit and run campaign throughout the Indian campaigns an anccient insergent force.According to David Green Alexanders campaign was a deprevation of sympethisers and hidingf places for these renegades. In other words even brutal he was giving them no where to hide nor anywhere to go. The slaughters were the aim to put of anyone paying sanctuary. We know its not nice its war and a tactic Alexander used.Kenny

[Paralus]

Kenny,I imagine that we'll likely not agree here. The argument that the brutal rampage by Alexander in the Punjab was a "tactic" to put down "Insurgents" (isn't that just today's word?) doesn't quite match his actions in Sogdiana and Bactria. Whilst there were some punitive measures taken in those satrapies to quell resistance, it did not match the brutality shown in the Punjab.It has been said that a good deal of the "rampage" can be laid at the feet of Alexander's seething rage at having his army "defeat" him (by refusing point blank to go further). I think this has some merit. Alexander's intemperate reaction to other events (Callisthenes, Cleitus, Tyre and Thebes) gives the impression he did not brook dissent to his will. Aspendus in Pamphylia is rather a good example. This city remitted its tribute to Persia in kind (horses). Alexander demanded the city pay both the horses plus the exorbitant sum of fifty talents. When the city procrastinated, Alexander swiftly and ferociously reacted by garrisoning the city, doubling the monetary "contribution" and demanded the horses as well. Carteledge ("Alexander The Great", Overlook, 2004) suggests this may be the reaction wanted: Aspendus was the Asiatic Thebes. At least it wasn't razed.By the time we get to the Mallians, many of those who run counter to Alexander's will are dead. Parmenio GÇô described by Peter Green as "a thoroughly political animal" and right hand of his father GÇô is gone as are his web of family army appointees. The army high (and not so high) command is peopled by Alexander's men to a man. The refusal of this restructured army to follow their king would have seemed tantamount to outright betrayal: another Thebes/Tyre. But of course, you can't murder your army can you? You might though avail yourself of the next best thing: the Mallians. And, when you get back to Babylon, pay them bonuses, demob them, send them back to Macedonia and replace them GÇô with the "Successors".It's easy with modern mores in mind to exaggerate Alexander's excesses beyond the context of antiquity. Some of those excesses though remain just that GÇô even in the context of antiquity.

[agesilaos]

It seems a hopeless case to say massacre is a legitimate tactic in the face of insurgency, unless you wish to condone every war crime ever; a defensible but hardly popular position. However Alexander also slaughtered some mercenary tribe whose name escapes me after they had surrendered, hardly rebels. Resistance was fierce due to the mistreatment in Indian eyes of the Brahmin and Alexander's lack of understanding and sympathy for the culture. And the campaign in Bactria and Sogdia is a catalogue of towns razed and inhabitants slaughtered too. Killing people in large numbers was a typically Alexandrian response to resistance and we should not duck the issue merely because we admire his accomplishments.

[Paralus]

Kenny,Karl points up the Bactrian/Sogdian experience and it entails some rather gruesome examples. It unlikely a co-incidence that many of these dove-tail with what can only be described as fierce and entrenched Macedonian opposition to Alexander's "orientalising" policy (as well as pay back for those Macedonian losses in the uprising in the area GÇô in particular the ambush).I think you need to read a little more of the source material. Arrian - although attempting to keep the rose coloured "idol" view from being destroyed - can't pass up criticism of Alexander's "orientalising", drinking to excess and rising megalomania. There are times when even he cannot find reason or excuse for his champion.It has to be said that the man's exploits (achievements/accomplishments?) - though extraordinary - cannot hide a streak of cold, sometimes calculating (other times instinctive) callousness that found expression in some of his actions.Particularly once Alexander felt "secure" enough to dispense with the command structure he'd inherited from Philip and to change the nature and composition of his forces by adding local troops - much despised and reviled by the Macedonians - which would be trained in the Macedonian fashion. Which, of course, entailed becoming part of the Macedonian Companions to the king - something his veteran troops resisted with a passion.It is against this (briefly described) background that Alexander set off for India to be confronted with what can only have appeared to him as the ultimate betrayal and treachery: mutiny.Unfortunately, the Mallians were next up on the grand tour of the Oucemene to be closely followed by the Gedrosian desert (deliberate or abominable miscalculation?) and de-mobbing in Babylon.

[kenny]

Mark Karl HailIndeed your right I cant really condone The massacres etc. But war and the whole concept aint at all nice. Anyone with the intent of wholesale killing is bottom line a killer. But empere conquest is solely based on mass murder and killing.Although unpleasant Ill stay loyal to Alexander and admit he had a ruthless streak. Every military leader had it such.Mark with the Indian revolts and Alexanders so called punishment of his soldiers following thew mutiny. Ill go along with that also. Although I am not sure to call it a mutiny. Alexander could have commanded to go onward I guess. I sometimes think maybe even Alexander got fed up of chasing nomads and bandits through hostile territory etc.Also the replacement of the higher command. To be honest I am sure Alexander became more and more disilusioned with those around him. Forever moaning and been against his policies as a whole power sharing etc. Some scholars argue against Alexander the visionary and unifier. But out of all the brutality and killing I would hope that Alexander did in the end aim for some kind of end to it.kenny