Alexander's speed

[Fiona]

I get the feeling that he honestly thought India was it--the final frontier and the end of his feasible conquests. Alexander could be quite cruel on occassion, but lying to his troops about where he felt the end of the world was just to induce them on one more conquest seems petty, though. Had they beaten the Nanda kings only to discover there were yet uncharted (by the Greeks, at any rate) lands, he would have had to turn about anyways.

Hey Phoebus, great to see you back! And you've left Bactria behind and are now in Italy? Sounds like a nice posting.
I think that's a great point about the lying. I don't think he would lie to his troops, either. They trusted him to have followed him that far, and it's hard to believe they would have trusted someone who could lie to them. More than that, there's no evidence he ever lied to anybody - it wouldn't have been in character. He may have had his faults, but slyness and deceit weren't among them. So we can say that when he said 'the area of country still ahead of us, from here to the Ganges and the Eastern ocean, is comparatively small', and then went on to speak of the oceans and how they were connected, he was speaking the truth as he saw it.

Reaching that end, the edge of the world, seems to have been part of the "romantic" Alexander (the half that wasn't terrorizing NW India's populations). The fact that he didn't seem too hell-bent on heading north kind of reinforces that to me.

Reading that speech again, I do get the feeling that the 'pothos' is for the Eastern ocean, not the conquering of the intervening people. He'll do that, of course, but that's only to achieve the main objective. Good point about 'north'. He knew there were lands up there, of course, though possibly not how much further east they extended. Would he have found out, before reaching the eastern seaboard of India? Can imagine him acquring a new set of objectives if he'd realised quite how big China is! But I do think that if he'd made it to the shores of the Indian ocean, there would have been some satisfaction and sense of completion in that. Psychologically, I bet it would have felt like 'journey's end'.
Fiona

[Phoebus]

Hi again, Semiramis

You raise very interesting points. Against them, I can only question what Alexander felt he could gain by misleading his soldiers about the distance to Ocean's shores. If he had an understanding of the geographical issues you brought up, he had to have known that his obfuscations wouldn't last long.

Could he have been so desperate for one more conquest?

Hello Fiona, and thanks.

A quick note--when I mentioned the north, I was thinking less about "north of India" (e.g., heading toward China) and more "north of Bactria" or "north of Persia". Either of the two would have led him to conquests and lands hitherto unseen by any (mortal) Greek-speakers, but only the route through India would have led him to the shores of Ocean.

So, we're still on the same page... but I just wanted to clarify what I was saying (since, hindsight being 20-20, I can see how it comes off as rather vague!).

[Paralus]

Could he have been so desperate for one more conquest?

Always. It is the one thing not in doubt about his character.

I don't think the evidence exists for any expressed desire to conquer the "north" - be that of India or Bactria. Alexander had seen an indication of those who ranged these areas: they were not a practical proposition for conquest. One finds it difficult to imagine the hypaspists storming the tent "cities" of ever departing nomadic horsemen.

The only evidence for the direction of further conquest - unarguable evidence - is the massive build up of money and materiel in Cilicia. The money deposited in the treasury of Cyinda financed the wars of Perdiccas, Eumenes and Antigonus for over twenty years. It was not stockpiled for any adventure beyond the Caspian or Aral seas. It was stockpiled with Carthage, Sicily and Italy in mind.

[amyntoros]

I don't think the evidence exists for any expressed desire to conquer the "north" - be that of India or Bactria. Alexander had seen an indication of those who ranged these areas: they were not a practical proposition for conquest. One finds it difficult to imagine the hypaspists storming the tent "cities" of ever departing nomadic horsemen.

Plus there would have been little in the way of material benefit to be gained. I believe that Alexander did, on occasion, have a pothos, but it's difficult for me to accept that he had NO interest in continuing to garner further wealth. In Greek Gold: Jewelry from the Age of Alexander (page 19-20) we're told:

Among the major deposits from which the ancient world of the Eastern Mediterranean drew gold, were those in Nubia, Arabia, Bactria and Asia Minor. The meager deposits in Greece had, by Hellenistic times, already been exhausted. Although we are told there was still gold to be found in the Cyclades, Macedonia and Thrace, the fruitfulness of the two latter sites is debatable.

Perhaps it is not coincidence that the swathe of Alexander's conquest through Asia Minor and Iran include all of their rich gold deposits. His empire engulfed Egypt with her Nubian sources as well. Certainly, the greatest portion of Hellenistic gold came from these conquered lands. Most of it was raw gold, but some may have come in the form of ornaments, the spoils of war, which were melted down and refashioned.

Interesting also that Arabia was next on Alexander's list of conquests. The more romantic reason given in the sources is not Arabia's gold mines . . . and they don't mention spices either. Arabia was the major source of the spices used extensively in ancient times; frankincense alone was practically worth its weight in gold! Okay, maybe a little exaggeration there, but not all that much. As Frank Herbert might have said about Alexander's intentions for Arabia: "He who controls the spice controls the civilized world."

The only evidence for the direction of further conquest - unarguable evidence - is the massive build up of money and materiel in Cilicia. The money deposited in the treasury of Cyinda financed the wars of Perdiccas, Eumenes and Antigonus for over twenty years. It was not stockpiled for any adventure beyond the Caspian or Aral seas. It was stockpiled with Carthage, Sicily and Italy in mind.

And if Alexander had lived, the gold in Cilicia would probably have been spent in a shorter time. Maintaining a conquering army the size of Alexander's was no small expense. Add that expenditure to the rest of his grand plans and his generosity in other areas and the money would have run out eventually unless the coffers continued to be replenished. That's how I see it anyway, although I've no doubt some will think me a cynic.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

That's how I see it anyway, although I've no doubt some will think me a cynic.

The "some" have not invited me into their fold.

Resources, resources: it's what wars come down to. Throw in Alexander's demostable appetite for war and conquest and you have "the perfect storm".

Frank Herbert indeed. Who then would be the Bene Gesserit of Alexander's day? Further, would that make Hephaestion Alexander's Duncan Idaho or Gurney Halleck? Aristotle is plainly Thurfir Hawat and the Silver Shields might be comprised of Fremen....

[Phoebus]

Resources, resources: it's what wars come down to. Throw in Alexander's demostable appetite for war and conquest and you have "the perfect storm".

Frank Herbert indeed. Who then would be the Bene Gesserit of Alexander's day? Further, would that make Hephaestion Alexander's Duncan Idaho or Gurney Halleck? Aristotle is plainly Thurfir Hawat and the Silver Shields might be comprised of Fremen....

Paralus!

I will withhold responses to the above topics later. For now, I just wanted to say--you've made my day with this reference!

The Argyraspides could never be Fremen. To me, they are far more like later-day Sardaukar--still formidable, prideful and casual killers... but corrupted by their own needs and wants. In this "darker Dune", they are far more fitting as the bodyguard-elite of a far less innocent "Paul Atreides" than the Fremen*. Likewise, if any member of Alexander's violent court should substitute for a grimmer Gurney or Duncan... it should be Cleitus.

* Let's face it: wouldn't the Fremen more likely be Alexander's opponents?

Thanks for starting my day off on the right note!

[Paralus]

Indeed I thought of Cleitus immediately after posting. Paul killed Duncan Idaho - or his clones - over and over as I recall.

Your observation with respect to the Silver Shields is deadly accurate: mercenaries in a national clamys.

[Paralus]

Actually, now I think of it, the Sarduakar may be a closer fit for the Silver Shields.

[Phoebus]

Indeed I thought of Cleitus immediately after posting. Paul killed Duncan Idaho - or his clones - over and over as I recall.

That would have been Paul's son, Leto II (or "B", since we're speaking of parallel Greeks).

[Fiona]

A quick note--when I mentioned the north, I was thinking less about "north of India" (e.g., heading toward China) and more "north of Bactria" or "north of Persia". Either of the two would have led him to conquests and lands hitherto unseen by any (mortal) Greek-speakers, but only the route through India would have led him to the shores of Ocean.

So, we're still on the same page... but I just wanted to clarify what I was saying (since, hindsight being 20-20, I can see how it comes off as rather vague!).

Oh, I see what you mean! It's not you being vague, it's my geography, which is about as shaky as Alexander's. So what do you think of the planned expedition to Arabia? Was that primarily conquest, d'you think, or exploration? I've got the impression that it was a lot to do with sea routes and anchorages and finding places to found new settlements - improving the prosperity of the empire as a whole, and not just himself. Arrian mentions two islands, too, that seem to have attracted his interest. What I'm getting at is that his mind is working on the phsical aspects of the land, rather than wealthy cities or large populations to conquer, so I think for that reason that he was thinking more of exploration than conquest.
Fiona

[Fiona]

Frank Herbert indeed. Who then would be the Bene Gesserit of Alexander's day? Further, would that make Hephaestion Alexander's Duncan Idaho or Gurney Halleck? Aristotle is plainly Thurfir Hawat and the Silver Shields might be comprised of Fremen....

Oh, Paralus, I'm going to have to read 'Dune' now, to see if you're being mean or being nice to Hephaestion!
Fiona

[Paralus]

Gurney Halleck and Duncun Idaho were the young Paul's "weapons master" and "sword master" from memory.

Phoebus is closer to the money with Cletus though: he died a nasty death in front of Paul. Difference was, he was defending him against the Harkonnen invasion if I recall.

Read the book as it is most engrossing.

[artemisia]

As for this discussion about the Eastern Ocean, the first question is: what in the speeches by Arrian and Curtius are truly the words of Alexander, what is rhetorical exaggeration by the authors and what was the common belief circulating in the years after Alexander, the “myth” about his Indian conquest.
Surely some of the contemporary biographers had given some points of this speech, but the overall shaping is by Arrian respectively Curtius, therefore they are so different.
Of course Alexander would have learned already from the Achaemenid archives about the existence of China, the opposite is simple not possible.
So I believe he spoke about the conquest of the Gandaridae region and going down to the Ganges delta and the Indian Ocean (this information is given by Plutarch and Diodorus). This is truly not so far anymore and it’s possible to return to Babylon by ship.
This thing with the Eastern Ocean seems to me coming from tractates of some philosophical school in later times (could be titled: “About Alexander’s lack of moderation”), which influenced the later historians.

[Semiramis]

Hi again, Semiramis

You raise very interesting points. Against them, I can only question what Alexander felt he could gain by misleading his soldiers about the distance to Ocean's shores.

[...]

Could he have been so desperate for one more conquest?

Hi Pheobus,

Amyntors and Paralus have covered these topics wonderfully. I have nothing as valuable to add, but here goes.

I don't know that the conquest of the Kingdom of the Nandas would have to have any special motive compared to the other conquests. According to the sources the invaders had heard that this kingdom was even more powerful and wealthy compared to the others they had come across in India. Judging by the large number of troops and elephants the Nandas were reported to have, the chance to take that treasury would have been rather lucrative. I also can't help but notice the numerous times the sources specifically mention the elephants Alexander took after the other Indian conquests. Macedonians seem to have recognized their importance as weapons of war.

He then sent Porus with his forces to the cities which had submitted to him, to introduce garrisons into them ; whilst he himself with his army, advanced to the river Hyphasis,’ to subjugate the Indians beyond it. Nor did there seem to him any end of the war, so long as anything hostile to him remained.

IT was reported that the country beyond the river Hyphasis was fertile, and that the men were good agriculturists, and gallant in war; and that they conducted their own political affairs in a regular and constitutional manner. For the multitude was ruled by the aristocracy, who governed in no respect contrary to the rules of moderation. It was also stated that the men of that district possessed a much greater number of elephants than the other Indians, and that they were men of very great stature, and excelled in valour.

For they were told the kings of the Gandaritans and Praesians expected them there with eighty thousand horse, two hundred thousand foot, eight thousand armed chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. Nor was this a mere vain report, spread to discourage them. For Androcottus, who not long after reigned in those parts, made a present of five hundred elephants at once to Seleucus, and with an army of six hundred thousand men subdued all India.

If he had an understanding of the geographical issues you brought up, he had to have known that his obfuscations wouldn't last long.

If Alexander had managed to persuade his troops about the ocean and they had found out later that there was no such thing, perhaps they still would have had no choice but stay loyal to Alexander. The Macedonians had refused to go on before, and he had made motivational speeches before. The difference is, this attempt was the most desperate so far.

These were men who were very far from home, feared and hated by the local populations - a significant number of whom they had recently butchered. They were under constant threat of attack from those same populations, and forced to rely on conscripts from other lands that they had recently conquered. As if that wasn't enough, they were commanded by ambitious officers who were at times openly hostile to each other. The soldiers would have known that the army would likely fragment without Alexander and had to trust him to lead them back safely. The decision to march through the Markan Desert was yet to come of course.

We simply don't have enough information to judge whether it was in Alexander's character to lie. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one specific mention in the sources, regarding the killing of Indian mercenaries at Massaga. From Plutarch of all people - usually so effusive in his praise for Alexander's mission civilatrice.

But the best soldiers of the Indians were mercenaries, who entered into the pay of several
of the cities, and undertook to defend them, and did it so bravely, that they put Alexander to a great deal of trouble, till at last, after a capitulation, upon the surrender of the place, he fell upon them as they were marching away, and put them all to the sword. This one breach of his word remains as a blemish upon his achievements in war, which he otherwise had performed throughout with that justice and honour that became a king.

Arrian tells a slightly different story. But neither version is pretty.

He was glad to preserve the lives of brave men ; so he came to terms with the Indian mercenaries on this condition, that they should be admitted into the ranks with the rest of his army and serve as his soldiers. They therefore came out of the city with their arms, and encamped by themselves upon a hill which was facing the camp of the Macedonians; but they resolved to arise by night and run away to their own abodes, because they were unwilling to take up arms against the other Indians. When Alexander received intelligence of this, he placed the whole of his army round the hill in the night, and intercepting them in the midst of their flight, cut them to pieces.

Make of that what you like..

[Semiramis]

Hi Artemisia,

Great point. I too have serious doubts about whether most of Alexander's words preserved in history were actually ever spoken by him. Layers upon layers of propaganda and myth-making here. When it comes down to it, fear may have played a larger part in troop discipline than lofty speeches about the great Ocean and the glories of Dionysis.

Alexander had seen an indication of those who ranged these areas: they were not a practical proposition for conquest. One finds it difficult to imagine the hypaspists storming the tent "cities" of ever departing nomadic horsemen.

Just to add to your point Paralus, the interaction between Central Asian nomads and settled populations shows a theme from prehistory onwards. The nomads, whose lifestyle was not conducive to accumulating wealth, periodically raided the settled agricultural populations to the south, west and east. This same pattern repeats all the way to China, where a great wall built in an attempt to keep these barbarians at bay still stands. Medes and Persians themselves once belonged to these humble ranks before rising to the dizzying heights of empire.

So, you can see that I agree that the material gain from conquering the northern nomads would be negligible compared to those from settled populations.

Also, perhaps Alexander had learned from his predecessors? If we're talking about the same areas - Cyrus had died trying, Darius was put in his place and later Great Kings were even forced to pay them for safe passage. Like Cyrus, Alexander built garrison towns to keep them at bay. Unlike Cyrus, he wisely chose to leave them alone.

Amyntoros, your post about spices made me so hungry!