Philips foreign policy

[amyntoros]

Jim, I donGÇÖt know the exact article that you have quoted, but BorzaGÇÖs words have been taken somewhat out of context. This is the relevant part of his movie review.GÇ£GǪPerhaps one reason for the apparent happy collaboration between Stone and historical-advisor is that they shared a need to give meaning to AlexanderGÇÖs conquests, even where there wasnGÇÖt any. And so they fell back on that tired old saw, a version of the Brotherhood of Mankind theory, an idea strongly advocated in the mid-twentieth century by the late W.W. Tarn, but which has been thoroughly discredited by most modern scholars as not being rooted in the evidence from antiquity.The problem for Stone and Co. was that, lacking any purpose beyond conquest for its own sake, they would have been saddled with an Alexander who was little more than a brilliant commander traveling an endless path of conquest. And so the filmGÇÖs creators adopted a corollary to TarnGÇÖs Noble Purpose, that AlexanderGÇÖs mission was to spread Greek culture into the nether regions of the world. A sober review of the evidence from antiquity, however, suggest something quite different: there is no doubt that Alexander, who had been a pupil of Aristotle and who continued to be devoted to Homer and Euripides, was enamored of Greek culture. This is part of his person baggage, but it is not a component of his policy. That is, there is a difference between what Alexander himself held dear, and what he intended for the rest of the world. This is not to deny that, as a result of AlexanderGÇÖs Asian conquests, Hellenism spread, in greater or lesser degree, into Egypt and western Asia. But this is a by-product of AlexanderGÇÖs passage, as his overthrow of Persian rule removed the long-time bloc against the spread of Greek Culture into the East. One wonders why Stone and Lane Fox were unable to recognize what AlexanderGÇÖs army saw so clearly: there was no point to it all. And so the army mutinied on the Indian frontier, refusing to go further.GÇ¥Best regards,Amyntoros

[jim]

Hi Linda, I am nor advocating the Camalot Utopin version of of Tarn Brootherhood of Man ,nor am I implying that ATG was on a Hellenization crusade. However, for Borza to imply that it was a mere training excercise with NO purpose what so ever is absurd.Obviously there was some purpose and stateigic goals with the bottom line being expansion of power rescources money prestige glory ect. In fact, I used the Spanish Conquistador analogy.The Spainiards did not conquer most of the Americas to spread the virtues of Spanish culture language and Catholism anymore then ATG conquered Persia to spread the virtues of Hellenism.However in both cases the culture of the conqueror was spread as the result of conquest.The spreading of the culture,language and religion to the conquered subjects is a natural result of virtually any conquest.The Romans would be another example. For whatever reason one might beleive, the campaign of ATG was certainly meaningful to him and his troops and certainly not a mere training excercise.ATG and his troops would not have been willing to risk death in a so called training excercise with no meaning to it. Borza has in many of his writings implied that ATG was nothing more then this attention seeking spoiled little narcassitic character.I agree with Frank Holt that while the Tarnian ATG was certainly
to idealistic the Badian Borza Green camp has gone way to far in the other direction.

[jim]

One wonders why Stone and Lane Fox were unable to recognize what AlexanderGÇÖs army saw so clearly: there was no point to it all. And so the army mutinied on the Indian frontier, refusing to go further.GÇ¥ The Army felt that its objectives had been met and there was no purpose in continuing to further expand the frontiers of the conquered empire. What made made the film genuine crap was the amount of time devouted to ATG's so called sensitive side.ATG was 1st and formost a military genius and a conqueror.This is where the emphisis should of been.But lets not blame Fox he was simply a consultant.It is Stone that emphisized the content of the film.

[marcus]

Jim,Forgive me, but you appear to be switching between a criticism of what Borza said about the film, and a criticism of the film itself. If what Amyntoros posted was, indeed, the article that you have been referring to throughout, then there's a fundamental difficulty in all the prior discussion ... in that I do not think that at any point Borza is saying that Alexander's conquests were "meaningless". It doesn't make the discussion we'd had any less interesting, of course!ATBMarcus

[jim]

Hi Marcus,
Amyntoros posted was, indeed, the article that you have been referring to throughout, I did reference comments made by Amyntoros regarding the view of Tarn and Amyntoros made a point that toward the end of ATGs campaign that the soldiers looked upon further expansion of the conquered Persian Empire as meaningless ( certainly at some point in the campaign questions began to arise).Amyntoros point can certianly be a subject of debate.We know Parmenion was urging ATG at a much earlier point to consolidate his gains."if I were Parmenion" however,taking the campaign into the the heart of the wealth and power of the Persian Empire certainly had strategic merits -- This of course is a subject of another debate. In virtually any military campaign or conquest objectives change.What was ATG's point in pushing the campaign into the Indin frontier?Good topic for another discussion. What ever one might beleive were the objectives of ATG's campaign the statement made by Borza that it was a mere TRAINING excercise and nothing more is
ABSURD.You agreed that it is. Conquests are not motivated by training excercises to test limits of endurance. Spain did not conquer the New World nor did Ceasar conquer Gaul as a mere training excersise.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim.I think you need to get past the Borza thing. It's becoming a fetish. Before you do though, could you supply the full quote (in context) that you endlessly refer to? If it is from the article (and section) that Amyntoros has provided then I can't see what the problem is.By the time the Macedonians had overcome Porus (if not before) the whole exercise was in fact meaningless to everyone bar Alexander and possibly Hephaestion. That Coenus refused to run Alexander's arguments to the troops in instructive. After all, this bloke was complicit in his father-in-law's murder (Parmenion).The tradition that Parmenion was forever urging Alexander to cease and be happy with what he had (wherever that may be) is GÇô along with the attack by night advice; don't attack at Granicus advice etc GÇô part of a concerted campaign to marginalise the old boy. He is the foolish conservative old rump to Alexander's dashing conqueror. As one example, the tradition has Parmenio recommending to Alexander that he accept Darius' offer of the territory he'd already taken. This from Philip's most trusted general. The general that had lead Macedonian armies against and subdued the Illyrians amongst others. This tradition then has the most experienced soldier in the Macedonian camp essentially asking Alexander to accept a situation where hundreds of miles of frontier would need to be garrisoned GÇô Alexander's wall so to speak GÇô against a yet to be defeated Achaemenid monarch and his army. An army GÇô which in your estimation GÇô numbered some half a million a year later.Ridiculous. The advice of a neophyte armchair hack.Given I did not invoke the phrase "meaningless conquest" I'll address the real issue: what do I think of Alexander. A conqueror first, a brilliant general and tactician second, a conqueror third, fourth and fifth. He was not cute and cuddly. He was not on Tarn's brotherhood quest. And, by the time he suffered the rejection of his army, conquering for the rather meaningless reason that it was not yet conquered.Paralus.

[amyntoros]

It's likely, Paralus, that the newspaper was referring to the Borza article that I excerpted. It was published by the Archaeological Institute of America and was frequently quoted by the press and many websites in the period after the movie's release. Having published such a thorough review of the film I doubt that Borza also did individual interviews . .. but then again, you never know. If anyone wants to see the complete review it's still on the web. First link is to the AIA page and the second one should take you directly to the PDF.http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.p ... ew.pdfTime constraints have prevented my getting too involved in this thread, but I must say I agree with your viewpoint. Conquest for the sake of conquest has meaning only to the conqueror and those closest to him (who also benefit from the spoils). I may be opening up another can of worms here - but didn't Alexander have to "lie" to his men after the death of Darius in order to persuade them to go onwards? I know that the speeches in Curtius are suspect, but the fact that Alexander had to address his men in order to continue his eastwards campaign probably is not. "A four days march for us . . ." is what Curtius claimed Alexander promised his Macedonians, and then it would all be over. Mmm, right.Best regards,Amyntoros

[Paralus]

G'day Amyntoros.Pity I'm at the officeGǪno reference material and having an Alexander lunch break.Curtius' speeches are specious at best. Rhetoric dressed up as history. That of course does not mean there is no grain of truth to the tradition he records.Probably more instructive is Plutarch's recording of a letter apparently sent to Antipater:"Fearing that his Macedonians might tire of the rest of his expedition, he left the greater part of them in quarters, and while he had the best of them with him in Hyrcania, twenty thousand foot and three thousand horse, he addressed them, saying that at present they were seen by the Barbarians as in a dream, but that if they should merely throw Asia into confusion and then leave it they would be attacked by them as if they were women. However, he said, he allowed those who wished it to go away, calling them to witness that while he was winning the inhabited world for the Macedonians he had been left behind with his friends and those who were willing to continue the expedition"This just after Gaugamela. Already he is playing on the "will you leave me with just my friends, me, having conquered the world for you" routine that he would polish for India and turn into a harangue in Babylon.

The above is also reported in Arrian I think GÇô without my Arrian to hand I can't confirm it . If I'm correct and memory serves, he uses the phrase "the more reliable". Makes one think. At this stage Arrian describes some of the troops as "more reliable"?Anyhow, how'd we get to here from Philip's foreign policy??Paralus.

[amyntoros]

****Anyhow, how'd we get to here from Philip's foreign policy??****It's like good dinner conversation where there is a convivial atmosphere and interesting people. You start with one topic and the conversation gradually evolves - and if enough people are at the table you may end up with several different conversations going at once.

[Paralus]

Yes, it is indeed like a decent dinner party conversation Amytoros. As to the conversation "evolving", it would appear GÇô given your Cotinthian excursus GÇô that you may also be known as the dinner party equivalent of natural selection?Got to say I quite enjoyed it. Particularly "Pausikraipalos" GÇô nothing is quite so constant in the human condition than the hangover. Not, of course that I would knowGǪGiven "The Saint's" (Saul's) preoccupation with those dastardly Corinthians, it appears that your "convention facilities" were among the first buildings reconstructed! It appears also that GÇô if your assumption is correct GÇô delegates numbered not a few degenerates in antiquity as well!You would be a welcome addition to my dinner table conversation any time. In the very least, whatever the romancing to be done by others at the table, precious little would transpire GÇô over Alexander GÇô at our end it would seem.Some judicious editing of those occasioning the need in others for strong antacids, rather than decent red, as well methinks.To Pausikraipalos! Bottoms upGǪParalus

[Paralus]

In all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread Amyntoros, I neglected to comment on the review.Some may find this hard to credit, but I find little to argue about. I think the boy's nailed it in one. As reviews go it's an absolute ball tearer. One might possibly nit-pick over the anachronism of the lighthouse being in picture a generation early, but most would find that as a recognisable symbol of the ancient city GÇô possibly the only thing many may know about it in fact.As for the rest, I can't disagree with the bloke. Historically speaking, the film was an enormous let down. Borza's list of what was left out is rather enlightening. Distill it out and you are essentially left with those rather nasty scenes of crucifixion in Tyre, dragging Batis 'round Gaza, leveling Thebes, eliminating large numbers of Mallians and allowing himself to be portrayed as a god at Siwa. Of course there is the conflation of Granicus/Issus/Gaugamela, about which I've said enough elsewhere.I can only agree with his summation. Alexander is yet to meet his (film) maker.Paralus.

[amyntoros]

Ah, Paralus GÇô how delightful it would be to sit down and sup together while conversing on Alexander. However, with you down there in Australia and me up here in NYC GÇô well thereGÇÖs not much likelihood of such an occasion taking place! I envy our British and western European contingent who do manage to get together once in a while. . . .On the movie, BorzaGÇÖs review and your statement that GÇ£Alexander is yet to meet his (film) makerGÇ¥ - yes, I do agree with most of what Borza has to say, except that he is viewing the film from a purely historical point of view, yet the movie was, by its very nature, a fictionalization GÇô a representation of one manGÇÖs (StoneGÇÖs) vision of Alexander. If one views it as such then itGÇÖs possible to find more things to like. ItGÇÖs much easier for us to condemn a film than it is to actually make one GÇô especially if attempting total historical accuracy. I composed a long (no surprise!) post about what would be involved in the making of an Alexander film that would attempt to please everyone. We all know what it is *we* want to see on the screen, but we also have to consider the mechanics of film-making and GÇô most important of all GÇô what the average movie-goer desires from the experience. Anyway, I decided not to post it here as it will take the thread waaaay too far in a different direction. I may start a new thread on the movie or, more likely, IGÇÖll wait for someone else to (inevitably) begin one. Best regards,Amyntoros