Why did he give in to his army?

[George]

Here's a question that I would appreciate feedback on:
Why did Alexander agree to put an end to his campaign after the battle of Jhelum, and then began his way back?
a. Was it really a personal realization/redemption/catharsis sign or was it really that he realized that without his army he could not go on?
b. Was it simply because he knew that in Babylon he would get new reinforcements (as he did) from Antipater, hence he pretended to agree on going back?Please let me know your thoughts on this.

[maciek]

Hi George!Alexander turned back because his army doesnt't want to go any furher. They herd rumors about very strong indian army with many elephants as till that moment they thought that they are near the end of the world. It was to complete diferent reactions on the news that there is far more land after Penjab. From Aristotele work they knew that India is a small triangle and farer is only ocean. Alexander was very exited to go as far as the manned territory lies - his soldiers was tired and desperatly wanted to go back. Koinos was the man who deared to tell it to the Alexander. Alexs was engry but he hide it and went into his tent for three days. When he saw there his orations and enger gives nothing he come up and for not loosing the face fabricated some bad portent allowing him to change his mind and to go back. Still he was not happy going back and because of this and few more sirious facts this part of expedition was most cruel in all that conquest.Maciek

[marcus]

Hi George,I agree with Maciek, and therefore with your first hypothesis. The army just simply refused to go any further, they had had enough.We must be careful not to think that the soldiers were fed up with fighting at all. It is clear from the episode at Opis that they were happy to continue serving in the army and, if that meant more fighting and conquest there is no indication that they were unhappy with that. It was, as Maciek says, just that they had had a particularly hard campaign in India, they were in the middle of the monsoon season and the only prospect ahead of them was an unquantified enemy with more elephants than you could shake a stick at.I can't say I blame them, personally!All the bestMarcus

[nick]

Hi George -1. Alexander did not turn back after Jhelum (Hydaspes), but after the campaign against Sangala, near the Hyphasis river, roughly two months after Hydaspes. There is a part about Sangala in out "Battles (Minor)" section. Sangala was an exceptionally 'dirty' campaign: terrible conditions for the army, high losses during the siege and brutal massacres of the local population. The war was no fun anymore.2. Hydaspes must have been a diffucult battle. Plutarch writes it blunted the courage of the Macs. In Curtius Coenus complains that the Macs had lost most their gear and weapons and talks about a "naked" army. I like the controversy about Hydaspes: opinions differ, but I guess something really awful must have happened on that battlefield.3. In another interpretation: Alexander had a new role now: he was the new Great King of Persia. After Hydaspes he had more or less restored Persia to its widest eastern extent as it once had during the reign of Darius I when the Indus valley was conquered (around 518 BC). If you like to see Alexander as the eternal conqueror, his mission was aborted after Sangala. If you like to see him as the new Great King of Persia, his mission was more or less completed after Sangala: all traditional Persian possessions in the east where under his rule now.4. Dr. Pal has promoted a revolutionary vision on this and other websites: after Sangala Alexander did not 'retreat' as such, but continued his war against Moeris, the Mauryan king, whose power base was located far more to the west than traditional historians assume (downstream the Indus river and west from there) - if I summarize dr. Pal correctly.Regards -
Nick

[George]

Dear Marcus & Maciej & Nick,Thank you all for your elaborate replies.So Marcus, you are basically implying that the Macs never wanted to go back to Greece; they just objected on moving further on. This makes sense to me with regard to the fact that at Opis they "begged" for forgiveness, pleading Alex to keep them with him. This creates a controversy to me though:
Initially, yes, it does make sense if we assume that the only reason for the "Indian" mutiny was that they wanted to head back towards the west; but was that the reality?
Don't all primary sources indicate that, as Coenus explicitely said, the army wanted to go back to Macedon? This is the most rational explanation for me but then this contradicts the fact that there was another mutiny in Opis where they were asking to stay with him.what's your take on this?
thx

[George]

Thanks a lot Nick,
Who's the professor you mentioned and can you direct me to his work?
thanks a lot.
appreciate it.!

[nick]

Dr. Pal said:
I have found Bosworth's book "Conquest and Empire - The Reign of Alexander the Great" useful for many references but I agree with Thom Stark's view that it is an abyssal sump of academic dishonesty and deep and fundamental scholarly hypocrisy. Stark gives many instances where Bosworth fails as an objective scholar and I shall add that, like his mentor Badian, he totally ignores historical details. Alexander was surely chasing Moeris of Pattala through Gedrosia and a little circumspection shows that Moeris was the leader of the Indians whose defeat he celebrated at Kahnuj in southeast Iran. Thus Kahnuj was Palibothra, not Patna in the east where not a single archaeological relic of the Mauryas has been found. This shows that Moeris was none other than Chandragupta Maurya, the leader of the Prasii. In fact Moeris was also the same as the satrap Sasigupta ('Sashi'='Chandra'= moon). This rubbishes Bosworth's claim that Alexander's Gedrosian expedition was only due to his insane desire to surpass Dionysius and Semiramis.Furthermore, as I have shown, (http://www.geocities.com/ranajitda) Alexander's altars have not been found because these were overwritten by Asoka and converted into his pillars. At least one of the famous Asokan pillars (Topra) was shifted from the Beas area where Alexander had setup his altars. Plutarch wrote that in his days the altar's of Alexander were held in much veneration by the Prasiians, whose kings were in the habit of crossing the Ganges every year to offer sacrifices in the Grecian manner upon them. This exposes the shallowness of Bosworth's claim about the triviality of Alexander's legacy. As the Prasiians after Bindusara were Buddhists, Plutarch's report clearly hints at Alexander's role in the revival of Buddhism in pre-Asokan India. From Asoka's references themselves it can be inferred that the inscriptions in the altars were related to his call for homonoia. Historians have to guard against undue glorification but this should not be a blind exercise. Tarn and Lane Fox took a saner view. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... pta.htmlOK, but please do not think that I do agree with dr. Pal right away. I just think this is a 'rebel' interpretation that should not be dismissed without a good argument.Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

Good point about what Coenus says!It's obviously difficult when we are dealing with secondary sources and where the historians basically wrote the speeches that they reckoned were made, or reckoned *should* have been made.But to me the explanation is that, when you've just been through hell and high water (literally!), you're on the edge of the world and you know it ain't going to be easier on the other side of the river, your automatic response is "Mummy, I wanna go home". Once you have been through the desert, killed a few naughty satraps, had a darned good party, had all your debts cleared and, most important, the weather, wine and women are good, then you think "that's better, this is where I belong. Now, where can we get more of the same?"Don't know how this hangs together as an explanation, but it's the best I can do :-)All the bestMarcus

[ruthaki]

Right on, guys, I agree with you all. They simply couldn't cope any longer and wanted to go back.How could he go on without them?