pothos.org

Diodorus (17.84.1-6) preserves a fuller and more chilling account of the massacre:

The mercenaries straightway under the terms of the truce left the city and encamped without interference at a distance of eighty furlongs, without an inkling of what would happen. Alexander, nevertheless, nursed an implacable hostility toward them; he held his forces in readiness, followed them, and falling upon them suddenly wrought a great slaughter. At first they kept shouting that this attack was in contravention of the treaty and they called to witness the gods against whom he had transgressed. Alexander shouted back that he had granted them the right to leave the city but not that of being friends of the Macedonians forever.

Not daunted at the greatness of their danger, the mercenaries joined ranks and, forming a full circle, placed their children and women in the centre so that they might effectively face those who were attacking from all directions. Filled with desperate courage and fighting stoutly with native toughness and the experience of previous contests, they were opposed by Macedonians anxious not to show themselves inferior to barbarians in fighting ability, so that the battle was a scene of horror. They fought hand to hand, and as the contestants engaged each other every form of death and wounds was to be seen. The Macedonians thrust with their long spears through the light shields of the mercenaries and pressed the iron points on into their lungs, while they in turn flung their javelins into the close ranks of their enemies and could not miss the mark, so near was the target.

As many were wounded and not a few killed, the women caught up the weapons of the fallen and fought beside their men, since the acuteness of the danger and the fierceness of the action forced them to be brave beyond their nature. Some of them, clad in armour, sheltered behind the same shields as their husbands, while others rushed in without armour, grasped the opposing shields, and hindered their use by the enemy. 6 Finally, fighting women and all, they were overborne by numbers and cut down, winning a glorious death in preference to basely saving their lives at any cost.

Arrian glosses over the detail: it would not do to have the heroic, civilising Macedonian ambassador of Hellenic culture tainted with such. Diodorus' version is, however, far more realistic.

As to the next horizon and a free people as yet unconquered, the sources are clear that Alexander, informed of such, invariably responded with a mobilising of the army and an instant desire to crush them. The one thing not ever in doubt in his character. His troops knew this. Whilst they needed him thousands of miles from home and with fractious marshals, Alexander needed them far more. Temper tantrums and three day sulks no longer cut the monsoon mustard.

Semiramis wrote:
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.

I think it's in (almost) everyone's character to lie and it would be quite difficult to find someone whose character compelled them to always tell the truth! I know what you mean though about Alexander, and the issue comes further to the fore when we compare him with Philip who had no difficulties whatsoever in using deception to get what he wanted. Still, I can an think of one or two other instances where Alexander did use lies and deception of a sort. For example, he wined and dined Philotas the very night that he was to be arrested and was "able not merely to dine with the man he had condemned but even to engage him in friendly conversation..." (Curtius 6.8.15) He sent executioners to Parmenion with a fake letter from Philotas and another deceptive one "written in his own hand", both letters intended to deceive Parmenion into a false sense of security. (Curtius 7.2.15) Then he urged his army to write letters home and had them intercepted and secretly read in order to "test the sentiments of the troops". (Curtius 7.2.36)

More to the point, there's the time when, at Hecatompylos, rumors spread throughout the army "that Alexander was satisfied with his achievements thus far and had decided on an immediate return to Macedonia ... The soldiers scattered to their tents like madmen and prepared their baggage for the journey – one might have thought a signal had been given for general packing-up of the camp - and the bustle of men looking for their tent-mates or loading wagons came to the king's ears. " (Curtius 6.2.15-16) When Alexander followed this with a speech to his men he told them"

Curtius 6.3.16 'A four days' march remains for us, for men who have trodden so many snows, forded so many rivers, crossed so many mountain ranges. Our progress is not impeded by a sea that covers the road with a surging tide or stopped by the cramping defiles of Cilicia - everything before us is flat and easy. We stand on the threshold of victory.

Now, I doubt that any of Alexander's men truly thought it would be over within four days and it's probable that these were not Alexander's actual words. But whatever he said, surely he gave them every reason to believe that they would be returning home after the final rebels were dealt with? Curtius says, before the speech, that Alexander had already "decided on an expedition to India and the furthest parts of the East." I believe this to be true, and it would take a powerful argument to persuade me that Alexander only set his sights on India after the capture of Bessus. So, here I see an example of Alexander deceiving his troops en masse, and one that they were not likely to forget in a hurry. Which is my l-o-n-g way of responding also to Phoebus' comment:

[

Phoebus wrote: ... 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.

But if it worked previously then why not try again? Unfortunately for Alexander, it seems that the army did not fall for it a second time.

All of the above is open to discussion, of course, and I probably should add that I don't mean for any of my comments to be interpreted as a bad reflection on Alexander's character. Needs must, you know, and it's remarkable that such incidents are relatively uncommon in the story of Alexander.

Best regards,

Semiramis wrote:We simply don't have enough information to judge whether it was in Alexander's character to lie.

That's never really been a question in my head. Alexander and his father had both employed propaganda enough where I don't so much question that he could be dishonest... just that I don't see him seeing it as being particularly worthwhile in this case.

Semiramis wrote: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.

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

It's not the motivation that I doubt... it's the logic of it. I'm trying to picture it in my mind's eye: Alexander very likely knows that the Nanda lands are not the last before "Ocean". He wants to conquer them, but his men are weary, tired, and ready to go home and waste the titanic sums in pay they have been awaiting for so long. Is, to quote "The Girl Next Door," the juice worth the squeeze? He's already had one plot against his life, the troops aren't exactly happy with his behavior... Is this the time to really try to play off his ignorance?

The only way I can really reconcile this is, if in Alexander's head, the Nanda lands equalled access to the eastern shores of India... which he could call "Ocean", even if, technically, he knew there were lands further to the north. In this, I suppose I am of a common mind with Artemisia.

amyntoros wrote: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. ...

Oh, I have no disagreements with this. I just wonder if the wealth of the Nandas would have been worth the hassle, time, and negative reactions among his troops--given the incredible sums Alexander had gained from the Persian treasuries alone!

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.

Hmmm, I don't know. Ansen may have been on to something when he described the increasingly mercenary qualities of Alexander's men. Methinks there was some shrewd calculations being made when the king began dismissing veterans and introducing Epigonoi and Asian missileers... Think of it as starting from scratch, with an unspoiled bunch. Also, didn't he have his veteran's children supposedly waiting in the background... perhaps the next generation of royal heavy infantry?

Should Alexander have directed his efforts to the west, I imagine many of his conquests would have paid for themselves--or would have begun to do so in short order, as domination of Mediterranean and trans-Asiatic trade began depositing his cut to the royal treasuries...

amyntoros wrote:But if it worked previously then why not try again? Unfortunately for Alexander, it seems that the army did not fall for it a second time.

Well... maybe because no one had allegedly tried to murder him prior to that first attempt?

(Oh, and I enjoy long responses!)

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

He's being quite nice.

Duncan Idaho is described as the foremost swordmaster in the House of Atreides, one of the late Duke Leto's most trusted retainers, and listed among the most dangerous men in the known universe (of that series). He dies defending the Duke's son and his concubine from a host of Sardaukar--the elite of the empire's soldiery--armed with, as I recall, a fighting blade and little else. It should thus come as no surprise that various factions in the millenia that followed had an interest in resurrecting Duncan Idaho via cloning practices.

Thing is, though, Duncan never really has that Hephaistion-like relationship with Paul. In fact, none of Paul's companions are of his own age-group--hence my thoughts on Black Cleitus.

amyntoros wrote:[

Phoebus wrote: ... 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.

But if it worked previously then why not try again? Unfortunately for Alexander, it seems that the army did not fall for it a second time.

All of the above is open to discussion, of course, and I probably should add that I don't mean for any of my comments to be interpreted as a bad reflection on Alexander's character. Needs must, you know, and it's remarkable that such incidents are relatively uncommon in the story of Alexander.

Interesting idea put forward by Heckel recently (in The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and also in Alexander the Great: A New History) is that Alexander never intended to go further than the Hyphasis, but that he stage-managed the "mutiny" in order to make it seem like his soldiers' 'decision' to turn back. I don't have the books to hand to set out the entire argument, but it is an interesting one. As part of this, which I found interesting, he analyses Coenus' speech which includes a bit that says that the army will follow him if he does choose to go on - ergo, not much of a mutiny!

It's worth a look. If I get time this weekend I'll write more to give the flavour of Heckel's argument.

ATB

artemisia wrote: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.

But why should the shaping of the speech by the later writers be rhetorical exaggeration? It seems to me that both Arrian and Curtius are merely filling in details to a framework. I agree that surely contemporary biographers had given the main points of the speech, because it is not the differences between Arrian and Curtius that leap out at me, but the similarities. And I would say, myself, that the climax for both, from the literary point of view, the phrasing, is 'Ocean'.
Given that, I would say we would be on safer ground believing our written sources, than supposing that it is so very certain that Alexander had so much information from Achaemenid archives.
Fiona

Fiona wrote:

artemisia wrote: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.

But why should the shaping of the speech by the later writers be rhetorical exaggeration? It seems to me that both Arrian and Curtius are merely filling in details to a framework. I agree that surely contemporary biographers had given the main points of the speech, because it is not the differences between Arrian and Curtius that leap out at me, but the similarities. And I would say, myself, that the climax for both, from the literary point of view, the phrasing, is 'Ocean'.
Given that, I would say we would be on safer ground believing our written sources, than supposing that it is so very certain that Alexander had so much information from Achaemenid archives.
Fiona

Why wouldn't it be rhetorical exaggeration? Curtius was aiming his writing at his own Roman audience with it's own political mess. What better way to make a point than to use a long dead and non-Roman who couldn't have one killed for making a point about current Roman politics.

Arrian, same thing for different reasons, being more positive towards Alexander.

I have wondered myself just how much information Alexander did have that we don't hear from the surviving sources. Was he completely unaware of Scylax? Did the Perisnas who joined him, certainly well educated in their world, withhold information about the East, even though they themsleves went with him, in some cases I'm sure, to India.

Curtius and Arrian were creating narratives (other writers certainly were as well). Like today's politics, sometimes the actual truth gets lost in them. (Oh lordy, I'd've loved to be a blog reader in the 4th century!), They also wanted to create exciting stories, too. And in the case of Nearchus, I think there was some CYA going on in regards to his version of events in the Gedrosian.

Paralus wrote:Diodorus (17.84.1-6) preserves a fuller and more chilling account of the massacre:

Not trying to change your mind, but I would say that Diodorus' account shows that it wasn't a massacre at all. It depends what you mean by massacre, of course, but I'd have said it meant killing those unable to defend themselves - such as, for example, herding your prisoners into a building and setting it alight.
It's a very emotive word. This was a tough and bloody battle, without a doubt, but it was a battle, not a massacre. Plenty of Macedonians will have died on those javelins that could not miss their mark. Yes, it was horrible for the Indian mercenaries who were killed, but I bet it was just as bad in the squash by the river at Issus, and no-one calls that a massacre.
Alexander had admired them so much -

...for him it was a pleasure to save the lives of such brave men, and he agreed with the Indian mercenaries that they should serve under himself, as a part of his own army.

That was an extraordinary gesture on Alexander's part, quite breath-taking. It was thrown back in his face, when they decided to desert. Alexander lost it, no doubt, and I don't blame him.
Fiona

[

Fiona wrote:Alexander had admired them so much -

...for him it was a pleasure to save the lives of such brave men, and he agreed with the Indian mercenaries that they should serve under himself, as a part of his own army.

That was an extraordinary gesture on Alexander's part, quite breath-taking. It was thrown back in his face, when they decided to desert. Alexander lost it, no doubt, and I don't blame him.

I was about to describe that as a leap of logic when I realised that was quite incorrect. It is, without doubt, a leap of apologia.

If all the source material on the matter is read, it is apparent that Arrian has unblushingly airbrushed the entire scenario. He accords it a mere eighty odd words in a discourse of well over 700. The preceding narrative gives the lie to Arrian’s apologia. He has described four days of intense fighting at Massaga which cost him dearly and he, himself, was wounded in the ankle. The results, elsewhere, of such resistance are well documented.

Arrian’s apologia climbs greater heights when he decides to blame the mercenaries for their massacre by claiming that they “were unwilling to take up arms against the other Indians”. Now that would seem a most strange attitude for mercenaries to take. Since they had come from some more distant part of India one supposes that they fought enemies in China? I can only assume that, as they wouldn’t fight against “other Indians”, they didn’t earn much of a living. Imagine Greek mercenaries ever doing such a thing. Plutarch, though, makes it plain that they did fight for other cities - Indian cities

No. This is a construct of Arrian's to exculpate his hero.

The other source material is clear that this was betrayal on Alexander’s part. He had been held up for four days, suffered losses and had been wounded. He did what he did as a salutary lesson and in outright retribution as with Thebes, Tyre and Gaza. It is clear these mercenaries were led to believe they were safe under a truce. Alexander had no intention of honouring such. He surrounded them in surprise and “butchered them” (Arrian) or “Anihilated them” (Plutarch). Interesting is the fact that Plutarch relates this episode in concert with the hanging of the “philosophers”.

As I say, Diodorus describes it well: treachery. The mercenaries call to the gods to bear witness to the perfidy.

A comparison to Issos is out of place entirely here. That was a set piece battle and all knew what they were doing and what was to take place. Plutarch is correct: this action remains a blot on Alexander’s career. Except to the excusatory of heart.

amyntoros wrote: All of the above is open to discussion, of course, and I probably should add that I don't mean for any of my comments to be interpreted as a bad reflection on Alexander's character. Needs must, you know, and it's remarkable that such incidents are relatively uncommon in the story of Alexander.

Best regards,

Do you usually think that lies don't reflect poorly upon the people who tell them? If not, why should Alexander III be judged by a different set of rules?

Alexander III broke agreements, lied to his army and lied – constantly – in his propaganda. Neither of which indicates a great resistance to telling lies. Furthermore, if anyone ever tried to tell him an unpleasant truth, they usually ended up dead (Cleitus, Callisthenes, Coenus). Instead, Alexander III surrounded himself with “flatterers”, who'd never challenge him on anything, and who thus helped push him towards the abyss. All in all, this does not, at least not to me, give the impression that Alexander III was a person with a great deal of love for the truth. And if this doesn't reflect poorly upon his character, then nothing anyone ever does reflect poorly upon their character.

Amyntoros,

That's a good list you've got there. I couldn't help but remember Arrian's philosophy regarding Kings and lies.

Arrian wrote:It seems to me that Ptolemy and Aristobulus are the most trustworthy writers on Alexander's conquests, because the latter shared Alexander's campaigns, and the former -Ptolemy- in addition to this advantage, was himself a king, and it is more disgraceful for a king to tell lies than for anybody else.

If only!

Phoebus wrote:It's not the motivation that I doubt... it's the logic of it. I'm trying to picture it in my mind's eye: Alexander very likely knows that the Nanda lands are not the last before "Ocean". He wants to conquer them, but his men are weary, tired, and ready to go home and waste the titanic sums in pay they have been awaiting for so long. Is, to quote "The Girl Next Door," the juice worth the squeeze? He's already had one plot against his life, the troops aren't exactly happy with his behavior... Is this the time to really try to play off his ignorance?

I see what you mean, Phoebus. However, it seems that Alexander's troops had been weary, tired and ready to go home for quite some time before Beas. This did not seem to factor into his decisions. He had been previously faced with other situations where they had refused to start another conquest. He had managed to coax, threaten or sulk till they were made to reluctantly carry on. As Amyntoros points out, deception was not off the cards either. Whether the great Ocean was mentioned or not, this was another such occasion.

It is clear from historical sources that Indian kings, traders and scholars were aware of their surroundings well before and soon after Alexander's conquests. The suggestion that Alexander may not have acquired such basic information paints him as a poor military planner with fundamental deficiencies. I think we do have enough information to assume this was not the case with him.

Fiona wrote:That was an extraordinary gesture on Alexander's part, quite breath-taking. It was thrown back in his face, when they decided to desert. Alexander lost it, no doubt, and I don't blame him

Hi Fiona,

What is it about Arrian's account regarding this incident that you find more convincing than those of Plutarch or Diodorus?

Paralus,

Paralus wrote:Arrian’s apologia climbs greater heights when he decides to blame the mercenaries for their massacre by claiming that they “were unwilling to take up arms against the other Indians”. Now that would seem a most strange attitude for mercenaries to take. Since they had come from some more distant part of India one supposes that they fought enemies in China? I can only assume that, as they wouldn’t fight against “other Indians”, they didn’t earn much of a living. Imagine Greek mercenaries ever doing such a thing. Plutarch, though, makes it plain that they did fight for other cities - Indian cities.

In a broader context, I think it would make most sense if we view these mercenaries as members of the Indian Kshatriya (warrior) caste. And yes, it would be strange for them to suddenly transfer to a whole different set of morals and abandon the age old profession they were born into.

the_accursed wrote:Furthermore, if anyone ever tried to tell him an unpleasant truth, they usually ended up dead (Cleitus, Callisthenes, Coenus).

The likes of Anaxarchus seem to have fared better.

Semiramis wrote:

the_accursed wrote:Furthermore, if anyone ever tried to tell him an unpleasant truth, they usually ended up dead (Cleitus, Callisthenes, Coenus).

The likes of Anaxarchus seem to have fared better.

Although I don't agree that Alexander killed Coenus, or had him killed, the_accursed has a point. But remind us when Anaxarchus told Alexander "an unpleasant truth" - wasn't he the arch-flatterer who did the complete opposite, and told Alexander exactly what Alexander wanted to hear?

ATB

the_accursed wrote:

amyntoros wrote: All of the above is open to discussion, of course, and I probably should add that I don't mean for any of my comments to be interpreted as a bad reflection on Alexander's character. Needs must, you know, and it's remarkable that such incidents are relatively uncommon in the story of Alexander.

Do you usually think that lies don't reflect poorly upon the people who tell them? If not, why should Alexander III be judged by a different set of rules?

Well, the_accursed, you're asking me to generalize my statement about Alexander, as in "Do you usually think that lies don’t reflect poorly upon the people who tell them?" In a way, that question is also an unintentional means to assess my own character, and the only problem I have with that is that the forum is about Alexander and not about me. Still … I'm going to answer anyway. Everybody lies - even when they believe that they usually do not. Every person who ever tries to hide or exaggerate aspects of their character in order to appear desirable to someone else (such as when dating) is lying. Every person who ever tells an interviewer exactly what they want to hear rather than what is really on their mind is lying. It's a simple fact of life and of human nature - I have done both above at various times in my life, and if I were to go around judging people's character just because they're capable of lying then I would be a hypocrite.

So … back to Alexander and my previous post. I said, "I don't mean for any of my comments to be interpreted as a bad reflection on Alexander's character." I stand by that statement as my list of lies was not presented on Pothos with the intent of pointing a bony finger at Alexander. It was simply a short list of the occasions I recall when he told a lie or practiced deceit, written in response to a remark by Semiramis. Compared to his father who was the master of deception, Alexander's practices were generally more direct. Then again, on many of those occasions when Philip used subterfuge there was little or no bloodshed! For the purposes of debate I would prefer to examine the consequences of individual acts of deception rather than simply call Alexander a "Liar". For example, when Alexander lied convincingly to his men at Hecatompylos they happily continued onwards with him. Well, perhaps not happily - we don't really know for sure - but they did not riot or start a real mutiny. Let's not forget that Alexander was the king and commander, and it was for him to say where the army should or should not go. He achieved his purpose in this instance without any other means except resorting to words. There are people throughout history who have turned to different and more violent means to get what they wanted (as Alexander did at other times, but that's not the subject of my post). These other people may not necessarily have lied, but it doesn't follow that their way was always better. For instance, I'm sure you don't think that decimating a reluctant army is a preferable method.

Best regards,

marcus wrote:

Semiramis wrote:

the_accursed wrote:Furthermore, if anyone ever tried to tell him an unpleasant truth, they usually ended up dead (Cleitus, Callisthenes, Coenus).

The likes of Anaxarchus seem to have fared better.

Although I don't agree that Alexander killed Coenus, or had him killed, the_accursed has a point. But remind us when Anaxarchus told Alexander "an unpleasant truth" - wasn't he the arch-flatterer who did the complete opposite, and told Alexander exactly what Alexander wanted to hear?

ATB

Anaxarchus certainly was an arch flatterer, and for that reason, seems to have fared better with the son of Zeus. Cleitus, in stark contrast, was silly enough to praise his dead comrades and Philip! Enough for the ichor to rush straight to our hero's head. He was right to kill Cleitus of course. The king being justice personified...

Anaxarchus may have been an arch flatterer to Alexander, but I have always wondered about that. In terms of really liking Alexander, perhaps, as opposed to simply being a toady.

He certainly saw the "error of his ways" with Nicocreon. That didn't work out so well, now did it?

Semiramis wrote:

marcus wrote:Although I don't agree that Alexander killed Coenus, or had him killed, the_accursed has a point. But remind us when Anaxarchus told Alexander "an unpleasant truth" - wasn't he the arch-flatterer who did the complete opposite, and told Alexander exactly what Alexander wanted to hear?

Anaxarchus certainly was an arch flatterer, and for that reason, seems to have fared better with the son of Zeus. Cleitus, in stark contrast, was silly enough to praise his dead comrades and Philip! Enough for the ichor to rush straight to our hero's head. He was right to kill Cleitus of course. The king being justice personified...

Fared much better, indeed. Of course, Cleitus wasn't killed for praising his dead comrades and Philip. No, his crime was in claiming that Alexander and the younger Macedonians weren't as fulsome in their praise as he was. Or maybe he was killed because he wasn't fulsome enough in his praise of Alexander. Or maybe he was killed because he didn't want to become satrap of Bactria. Or maybe he was killed because Alexander was fed up with everyone criticising his orientalising, and when Cleitus decided to have a pop he'd had enough and reached for the spear ... Oh dear, all sorts of possible reasons, and any of them could be argued. Still, as you say, he deserved it anyway, and it was a just killing, because Alexander, like Zeus, was justice itself. How nice it is for things to be so clear-cut ...

ATB