Phoebus wrote:Hi Amyntoros,
"It was certainly not, as some have argued, for the humane purpose of settling and civilizing the nomads."
I think the author illustrates nicely the extreme bookends that I am arguing against: the depressingly banal idea of purely military garrisons and the hopelessly idealistic vision of "beacons of Hellenism".
I'm merely arguing that the cities were founded with the same expectations and concerns behind any colonizing effort in a dangerous frontier. Soldiers and fortifications were needed to secure them, and so they were placed there. At least a significant minority of Greek-speakers would be needed to bring about the change Alexander desired, and thus they were planted there.
Where their happiness is concerned, I can't imagine they were an iota happier than any other forced colonist in the history of mankind. They were serving Alexander's needs. Where their motivation to stay put after Alexander's death is concerned... Why would anyone want to stay in a dangerous frontier of an empire that suddenly had no emperor or even an heir apparent? Maybe they saw the storm coming ahead of time? Was there even a guarantee that the mercenaries would be paid?
Hi Phoebus,
I understand your reasoning as I am usually amongst the first to argue that there are shades of grey in any situation and not just black and white. However, in this instance I'm afraid I must disagree with the suggestion that the city (cities) were built for military purposes is an extreme bookend – or that it is a depressingly banal idea. Not everything Alexander did was visionary or imaginative (sorry- could NOT resist!
) according to our perceptions – far from it. Although it is evident from the histories that he often had an eye for the future, sometimes his concerns were for the immediate military aspects.
Phoebus wrote:Where Isocrates' description of those fellows is concerned, I would posit that Demosthenes described the Macedonian fighting men using (at least somewhat) similarly derogatory terms/themes. I'm not sure that Alexander was particularly worried that these mercenaries could be a menace to his nascent empire (any more than the other elements of his army). Rather, I think his decision was driven by a different sort of necessity: it would be inconceivable for his Macedonian soldiers to be placed on long-term garrison duty before mercenaries were--whether the campaigns in Bactria, Sogdiana, etc. were followed by an Indian expedition or not. It would be a slap to their face.
Once again I view things differently. I don't see Isocrates description as being exceptionally derogatory in terms of words or theme, especially considering Greek history. The mercenary Greek soldiers, the majority of them exiles, were indeed a realistic threat – first of all to Greece, as demonstrated by their proclivity for finding work/pay where they could which meant that many of them took service with the ultimate enemy, Persia. Isocrates was arguing for the defeat of the Persian empire under Philip. If/when this was attained, then consideration had to be given as to what should be done with the many, many thousands of mercenaries. Only a portion of the mercenaries took service with Alexander, and Diodorus tells us what happened with another large group whom Alexander evidently thought would be a threat to his empire's stability if they remained in service with Persian satraps. (And it think it is relevant to my argument that Alexander chose not to take this vast and proven military force into his own army.)
Diodorus 17.111.1-3 During this period Greece was the scene of disturbances and revolutionary movements from which arose the war called Lamian.The reason was this. The king had ordered all his satraps to dissolve their armies of mercenaries, and as they obeyed his instructions, all Asia was overrun with soldiers released from service and supporting themselves by plunder. Presently they began assembling from all directions at Taenarum in Laconia, [2] whither came also such of the Persian satraps and generals as had survived, bringing their funds and their soldiers, so that they constituted a joint force. [3] Ultimately they chose as supreme commander the Athenian Leosthenes, who was a man of unusually brilliant mind, and thoroughtly opposed to the cause of Alexander. He conferred secretly with the council at Athens and was granted fifty talents to pay the troops and a stock of weapons sufficient to meet pressing needs. He sent off an embassy to the Aetolians who were unfriendly to the king, looking to the establishment of an alliance with them, and otherwise made every preparation for war.
Having learned of this, Alexander then took other steps to solve the new problem:
Diodorus 18.8.2-5 A short time before his death, Alexander decided to restore all the exiles in the Greek cities, partly for the sake of gaining fame, and partly wishing to secure many devoted personal followers in each city to counter the revolutionary movements and seditions of the Greeks. [3] The Olympic games being at hand, he therefore sent Nicanor of Stagira to Greece, giving him a decree about the restoration, which he ordered him to have proclaimed by the victorious herald to the crowds at the festival. [4] Nicanor carried out his instructions, and the herald received and read the following message : " King Alexander to the exiles from the Greek cities. We have not been the cause of your exile, but, save for those of you who are under a curse, we shall be the cause of your return to your own native cities. We have written to Antipater about this to the end that if any cities are not willing to restore you, he may constrain them." [5] When the herald had announced this, the crowd showed its approval with loud applause ; for those at the festival welcomed the favour of the king with cries of joy, and repaid his good deed with praises. All the exiles had come together at the festival, being more than twenty thousand in number.
The Athenians, in particular, were very unhappy with this decree and according to Diordorus
they remained quiet for the time being, waiting for a favorable opportunity, which Fortune quickly gave them. The 'favourable opportunity' was, of course, the death of Alexander – the same opportunity seized by the Greek settlers in Alexander's cities in the east. Which brings me back to your statement, above wherein you said
Why would anyone want to stay in a dangerous frontier of an empire that suddenly had no emperor or even an heir apparent? Maybe they saw the storm coming ahead of time? Was there even a guarantee that the mercenaries would be paid? Why indeed? I’m with you on this one. However, it seems to me that their actions – and their evident dissatisfaction with their lot – do not lend support to the idea that the cities
were founded with the same expectations and concerns behind any colonizing effort in a dangerous frontier. I’m not saying that their actions disprove your theory, by the way. Just that they don't lend any particular weight to it.
Going back to Isocrates – my own tendency is to believe that his Letter to Philip had considerably more influence on Alexander and his motivations than is usually credited. Much of it reads as if it is an intimate guide to how Alexander presented himself to the world - or how he wanted the world to think of him. An absolutely fascinating piece of work! I did, by the way, unintentionally miss the last line to my previous quote from Isocrates. (It was on the next page, duh!) He said:
For by doing this, you will not only make them prosperous, but you will put us all on a footing of security. If, however, you do not succeed in these objects, this much you will at any rate easily accomplish,--the liberation of the cities which are on the coast of Asia. Alexander, methinks, was not a person who would ever accept the words "if you do not succeed."
I ought to finish now by saying that I'm not trying to win you over to my viewpoint but am merely trying to explain my own. I don't believe that there is any right or wrong in this debate (or the vast majority that take place on Pothos) – just different ways of seeing things. We are, after all, discussing Alexander's
intent which we can never know for sure. But I do enjoy a good, healthy argument and this is certainly one of them. I'm delighted that you chose to join us on Pothos back in September and look forward to many more discussions.
And no, I'm NOT trying to have the final word on this debate.
Just wanted to say the above while it was on my mind.
Best regards,