Hi Paralus (et al):
I thought Green was your favourite historian from reading this by you:
Now, to the Green quote. How dare you use my favourite historian against me?
http://pothos.william-powlett.net/forum ... dae888b40a
I will join you in commending Green for his outside-the-box thinking on the Athenian disaster, and I'm glad you got the re-mark. Perhaps he should stick to strategy, tactics & logistics, and leave the whole emotional field alone.
Might Alexander have genuinely, rather than ostensibly, speared himself, had other Makedonians not stopped him? The other Makedonians seem to have thought so. They were there, so I'll go with their view.
Indolence and lack of initiative are observable behaviours, not emotional motives. Of course we can judge Alexander's tactical expertise from the results of battles, because winning was his clear intent.
But when a man does something his culture considers reprehensible, attempts suicide, withdraws into himself and refuses sustenance, is absolved by those around him who need him, then relents and continues his life, there are at least two basic emotional dynamics possible. Either he's faking the histrionics so as to emotionally blackmail everyone around him into absolving him, as Green would have it; or it is as reprehensible to him as to the rest of his culture, the sadness, the regret and the self-condemnation are genuine, he doesn't really accept the absolution, but relents and continues on because they need him. Gives two very different pictures of a person, doesn't it? One with conscience and one without.
From the same result. Thus, some things you absolutely cannot judge on results, and Green is ingenuous in pretending you can.
There was evidence of involvement in an assassination conspiracy on Kallisthenes' part. (More than there was against Alexander re the assassination of Philip, and Green was quite happy to label Alexander a "probable parricide.") I notice that when Alexander had people killed who had, or might have, conspired against him, he had no regret at all. They were no longer friends or allies. Kleitos, he realized, still had been, and that was the problem.
The case of Abulites is not to be analogized with Kleitos either, since he had contributed to the Gedrosia disaster with its tens of thousands of deaths. Why does Green draw these specious comparisons, if not to just plain pillory Alexander?
This one is as well a perfect example of the false certainty I was talking about. "He
is said to have dispatched Abilutes' son in person..." Slender evidence that this actually happened necessitates the tentative wording of the sentence. But then -- "The ghost of Cleitus, it seems, had ceased to trouble him." -- an editorial comment impugning motive,
as if the preceding evidence were certain and thus leaving an imprint in the reader's mind as if it is. That is, as Amyntoros was saying, reader manipulation, not scholarship.
Ambition is really too broad a term for what I mean that Green imputes to Alexander... greed is closer; perhaps the most exact is power-lust. Ambition can be much more than that; you can aspire to be generous, to give to the world, to leave a benevolent mark; you can desire fame for your war-like deeds or the breadth of your knowledge or the brilliance of your art. So let me re-phrase it like this: Green presents Alexander as truly motivated by no emotion other than anger or power-lust. Other emotions are either faked for effect, or short-lasting and superficial.
Drink is debatable, but let someone say that Alexander was addicted to boys and women, and anyone who values accuracy
should raise a yelp!
Warmly,
Karen