Fiona wrote:Very interesting. It honestly hadn't occured to me that anyone, reading "were unwilling to take up arms against the other Indians" or as the translation I have here puts it, " having no desire to fight against other Indians" would see that as anything other than a feeble excuse on the Indians' part for their dishonouring of their agreement with Alexander.
Your logic, if I have understood you, is telling you that, since obviously these mercenaries must have fought Indians, then Arrian's explanation is something he has made up to excuse Alexander. My logic is telling me that since obviously these mercenaries must have fought Indians, their sudden wish not to do so any more was an excuse to get out of the agreement.
We can't both be right - but I contend that my version is just as likely to be the true one, and therefore it can only be fair to say that it may be a construct of Arrian's.
It is difficult to interpret Arrian's words the way you describe above.
Arrian wrote: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.
Arrian states that the mercenaries resolved to "run away". Doesn't that suggest that they did not intend to inform Alexander of their decision to leave? Then why would they need to make any excuses to Alexander? According to Arrian, Alexander only knew of their resolve and apparently genuine motivation for it, due to "intelligence". I am puzzled as to how or when they communicated their false excuse of a "sudden wish" not to fight other Indians any more to Alexander?
Fiona wrote:I agree, Plutarch and Diodorus are clear on this point. According to them, the Indians thought they were safe under a truce. But neither of them mentions the reason for Alexander's reaction, which Arrian makes clear, that they were the ones who broke the agreement. Treachery indeed, but not on Alexander's part. His reaction was over-the-top, no question, and could be called brutal and savage, but he was feeling betrayed. And there is the reason that his admiration of their bravery changed to disgust at their perfidy.
Plutarch wrote: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.
Plutarch mentions very clearly what he believes to be the reason for Alexander's actions. That they were very good fighters. Arrian's long account of the 4 days of the Massagete campaign agrees with him on this point.
Diodorus wrote: 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.2 2 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.
Alexander's words here give no inkling of any feeling of betrayal on his part. If there was a contravention of any treaty involved in the parts of the Indians, would Alexander not have pointed out that it was the mercenaries who had broken their word first? It seems pretty clear that Alexander is the treacherous one in Diodorus' version, so we would need to rule out treachery as Alexander's motivation in this version as well.
Fiona wrote:Hi Semiramis,
thank you for your question - I've kind of answered it in the post I just sent in answer to some points made by Paralus, but I'd just like to add that Plutarch says that " on all other occasions he observed the normal usages of war and behaved like a king" - and that's all other occasions, including presumably Thebes and Tyre. So it seems to me that Plutarch has no problem with savagery in war if there is a reason for it, and that here, because he can see no reason, he calls it a blot on Alexander's career.
Diodorus says Alexander "nursed an implacable hostility towards them" without stopping to wonder what the reason for that might be, when days before he had been so impressed by them that he'd offered them a place in his army.
But Arrian gives us the reason, and that's what makes the difference.
Fiona
From my readings, it seems Plutarch is disturbed at the idea that Alexander agreed to a truce only so his army can butcher the unsuspecting warriors without a fair fight. The writer had unashamedly glorified mass killings, crucifixions, enslavement and terrorizing of populations from Thebes to Tyre to Gaza to Alor. But even he could not help but view this massacre as outside the rules of war. It appears that neither Plutarch nor Diodorus believed that Alexander had offered the mercenaries a place in his army, so the matter of admiration is not an issue in their accounts.
However, we can safely say of Plutarch that his disillusion never reached the level of that of another writer from a different age of empire.
Joseph Conrad wrote:They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force — nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind — as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea — something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . .
