pothos.org

I'm working on a project about Alexander, and more specifically his Policy of Fusion. While I've found a bunch of examples of this--his introduction of proskynesis, the batch marriages, the Successors, etc.--but I'm finding it hard to get a grasp on the bigger picture. If anyone can give me some hints or pointers, or point me in the direction of some, it would be most helpful.

That would depend upon how you see it. The Successors pursued any policy of advantage; conviction rarely entered into calculations. I don't necessarilly see Alexander as any different.

Alexander and The Iranians (AB Bosworth) seems a good starting point.

Elber of Torou wrote:I'm working on a project about Alexander, and more specifically his Policy of Fusion. While I've found a bunch of examples of this--his introduction of proskynesis, the batch marriages, the Successors, etc.--but I'm finding it hard to get a grasp on the bigger picture. If anyone can give me some hints or pointers, or point me in the direction of some, it would be most helpful.

Oh boy...

rocktupac wrote:

Elber of Torou wrote:I'm working on a project about Alexander, and more specifically his Policy of Fusion. While I've found a bunch of examples of this--his introduction of proskynesis, the batch marriages, the Successors, etc.--but I'm finding it hard to get a grasp on the bigger picture. If anyone can give me some hints or pointers, or point me in the direction of some, it would be most helpful.

Oh boy...

Elber, take a look at this thread. Another, earlier "Policy of Fusion" topic which had 55 replies. Haven't checked out every post (we do tend to veer off topic now and again) but I think you'll find the majority of responses interesting.

Best regards,

Elber of Torou wrote:I'm working on a project about Alexander, and more specifically his Policy of Fusion. While I've found a bunch of examples of this--his introduction of proskynesis, the batch marriages, the Successors, etc.--but I'm finding it hard to get a grasp on the bigger picture. If anyone can give me some hints or pointers, or point me in the direction of some, it would be most helpful.

Hi Elber,

There is a short speech of Alexander on intermarriage in Section 30 of the Metz Epitome. It chimes with Curtius 8.4.25-26. I have reconstructed this bit of their mutual source, the end of Cleitarchus' ninth book (not yet published), as follows:

Cleitarchus wrote:9.59 Chorienes convened a banquet equipped with outlandish luxury, to which he welcomed Alexander. Whilst this was being conducted with considerable conviviality, the satrap instructed that thirty thoroughbred virgins should be introduced as dancers at the dinner. These included the satrap’s own maiden daughters as well as those of his friends. The most remarkably radiant among them was Roxane and she was also distinguished in her deportment to a degree that is rare among the barbarians. Though she strode among a select band of beauties, yet she garnered the gape of all and most especially engaged the gaze of Alexander, who was no longer so much the master of his lust, having been fawned upon by Fortune, whom mortal men too little distrust.
9.60 Hence he who had beheld with hardly more passion than that of a parent Darius’ queen and her pair of virgin daughters, to whom none except Roxane could compare in comeliness, was then so infatuated with feelings for this little virgin of vulgar roots relative to royalty that he at once asked to know her name and her father. On discovering that she was the daughter of Oxyartes, also a diner at the dinner, the king took up his cup and tipped a libation to the gods, then began to declaim: “Much that befalls many men and women commonly occurs against expectations. Thus countless kings have sired sons on women won in war or dispatched daughters to distant domains to seal an alliance with wedlock. Indeed it is conducive to the durability of my domains that Persians and Macedonians to be matched in matrimony, for only so may the humiliation of the vanquished and the vanity of the victors both be banished. And among my own ancestors, Achilles, of course, coupled with a captive wench.”
9.61 Then the king focused upon the foreigners: “In my view the Macedonians are not a better breed than you and nor do I believe you to be beneath intermarriage with us too, even though you look for an alliance with us as losers. Therefore to forestall all ill-feeling I would like by lawful wedding to take to wife Roxane and I shall ensure that the other Macedonians act accordingly.” He himself having exhorted his Friends with these words, each of them led away a virgin that he wedded at the banquet. Oxyartes and the rest of the foreigners were happy beyond their hopes for this to happen and Alexander, in the heat of his ardent desire, ordered that a loaf of bread be brought in accordance with his country’s customs. This was sliced with a sword and tasted by the two of them, which is the most sacrosanct surety of marriage among the Macedonians.

You should also look at the exchanges of populations between Europe and Asia in the Last Plans (Diodorus 18.4), which are also fairly likely to come from Cleitarchus and which I have argued are perfectly genuine despite the doubts of Tarn. The relevant paragraph from my reconstruction of Book 13 of Cleitarchus (The Death of Alexander the Great by Andrew Chugg) is as follows:

Cleitarchus wrote:13.82 These were the most magnificent and meet of memory among the matters in the memoranda: the construction of a thousand galleys of greater size than triremes in Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia and Cyprus for the purposes of the campaign against the Carthaginians and such others as dwell beside the shores of Libya and Iberia and the contiguous coastal countries all the way around to Sicily; to hew a highway along the Libyan littoral as far as the Pillars of Heracles; to establish six costly shrines, each at an outlay of fifteen hundred talents; to hatch harbours and develop dockyards at suitable spots as entailed by such enormous expeditions; and lastly to found cosmopolitan cities and expatriate populations out of Asia into Europe and contrariwise out of Europe into Asia, so as to lead the largest landmasses into loving kinship and communality through intermarriage and consanguinity.

Hoping this is helpful.

Andrew

The trouble with the Last Plans or Hyponemata (something like that) is that we are told that Perdikkas deliberately exaggerated Alexander's aims with a view to having them set aside; nothing would be guaranteed to scupper them so much as plans for fusion, something that was anathema to the rank and file of the phalanx and probably to most of the nobility as well. Since it is the same source, Diodorus, that preserves both the plans and Perdikkas' perversion thereof it is not possible to discount the distortion without rejecting the plans; the ultimate source for both being the almost reliable Hieronymos.

As I am sure has been said on the other thread, possibly even by me, there are sound reasons for the mass marriages both in Sogdiane, as reported by Diodorus and the Metz Epitome, to end the rising and become free to move on to India, and at Susa to legitimise his rule in the eyes of the Iranian nobility and quash the feelings of rebellion that had flared during his long abscence and were still smouldering.

Racial fusion and the unity of mankind are later philosophical accretions to what were purely political acts, with a nod in the direction of lust perhaps.

agesilaos wrote:The trouble with the Last Plans or Hyponemata (something like that) is that we are told that Perdikkas deliberately exaggerated Alexander's aims with a view to having them set aside; nothing would be guaranteed to scupper them so much as plans for fusion, something that was anathema to the rank and file of the phalanx and probably to most of the nobility as well. Since it is the same source, Diodorus, that preserves both the plans and Perdikkas' perversion thereof it is not possible to discount the distortion without rejecting the plans; the ultimate source for both being the almost reliable Hieronymos.

I do not read Diodorus 18.4 (the only reference on the Hypomnemata) as stating that Perdiccas exaggerated them. Perhaps you could explain why you think it says that?
The trouble with doubting the Last Plans is that virtually everything mentioned in them is confirmed (or at least circumstantially supported) elsewhere in the Alexander sources. (I have argued this in detail in The Death of Alexander the Great: for example, Plutarch, Moralia 343D, quantitatively verifies the expenditure on temples in Greece.) I also reiterate that inventing them would have been a motiveless crime. Why exactly would anyone invent false plans, then conspire to have them set aside?

agesilaos wrote:As I am sure has been said on the other thread, possibly even by me, there are sound reasons for the mass marriages both in Sogdiane, as reported by Diodorus and the Metz Epitome, to end the rising and become free to move on to India, and at Susa to legitimise his rule in the eyes of the Iranian nobility and quash the feelings of rebellion that had flared during his long abscence and were still smouldering. Racial fusion and the unity of mankind are later philosophical accretions to what were purely political acts, with a nod in the direction of lust perhaps.

The division between a regular practice and a policy is non-existent. The two things merge into one another. The material I give above has early source authority (very probably Cleitarchus) and it explicitly puts words that amount to a Policy of Fusion into Alexander’s mouth (or into the words of his personal papers, which is the same thing.) Do you know of any counter-evidence in the ancient source material? I think it is a highly creditable feature of Pothosian arguments that contributors generally insist upon source evidence or archaeological evidence, before taking any opinions seriously. So my challenge to you is that you should offer some ancient source evidence that Alexander did not have a policy (or regular practice) of encouraging fusion between the races and therefore did not say, “Indeed it is conducive to the durability of my domains that Persians and Macedonians to be matched in matrimony, for only so may the humiliation of the vanquished and the vanity of the victors both be banished” (Curtius 8.4.25) and did not write that he planned “to found cosmopolitan cities and expatriate populations out of Asia into Europe and contrariwise out of Europe into Asia, so as to lead the largest landmasses into loving kinship and communality through intermarriage and consanguinity.” (Diodorus 18.4.4). It is not really credible to quote the opinions of modern scholars (be they everso eminent) to try to refute the Policy of Fusion, because direct quotes from ancient source evidence will always trump scholarly opinion in rational arguments.
Best wishes,
Andrew

I would agree with Agesilaos. Diodorus’ text (18.4.1-2) clearly implies that a decision had already been made about these “plans”:

It happened that Craterus, who was one of the most prominent men, had previously been sent away by Alexander to Cilicia with those men who had been discharged from the army, ten thousand in number. At the same time he had received written instructions which the king had given him for execution; nevertheless, after the death of Alexander, it seemed best to the successors not to carry out these plans. For when Perdiccas found in the memoranda of the king orders for the completion of the pyre of Hephaestion, which required a great deal of money, and also for the other designs of Alexander, which were many and great and called for an unprecedented outlay, he decided that it was inexpedient to carry them out.

Which decision was not to carry them out. There is every reason, then, to present them in a fashion guaranteed to achieve a result in agreement with that premeditated decision. Most particulary when your primary concern is to firmly establish your position of primacy amongst the competing marshals. In this regard the transfer of populations has the smell of exaggeration about it. Nothing, indeed, could be better calculated to raise the ire of the rank and file. Alexander had difficulty enough persuading his Macedonians of any notion of "fusion". Philip moving peoples within the expanded Macedonian state (likely bolstering "recruiting districts") is one thing. It strikes one as an altogether different thing to uproot Athenians, Corinthians, Argives or Macedonians and ferry them off to the depths of Asia. All for a concord of man and nations.

The “cities” of Alexander in the east were designed – first and foremost – as garrison towns. The pleasure felt by those left there is indicated by the two uprisings that are recorded – the second of some 20,000 who had clearly had enough of Alexander’s supposed “Hellenising of the east” or “fusion” notions. They well knew what these supposed policies meant. There is absolutely little doubt that mainland Greeks (and Macedonians) will have shared that view and in no way will have been overjoyed at such dislocations.

Actions speak louder than apparent speeches and there is plainly little outside of these weddings that hint at any fusion. As with the various “Alexandrias in the east” the weddings clearly had a political purpose: “Oxyartes and the rest of the foreigners were happy beyond their hopes for this to happen…”. Purpose achieved.

All of these are conveniently discussed in the paper “Alexander and the Iranians”.

Taphoi wrote: It is not really credible to quote the opinions of modern scholars (be they everso eminent) to try to refute the Policy of Fusion, because direct quotes from ancient source evidence will always trump scholarly opinion in rational arguments.

Oh dear, seems I’ve violated the firmly established debating rules for this thread. Apologies. I have the paper should anyone wish a copy. We can discuss the author’s views off forum...

Paralus wrote:… the transfer of populations has the smell of exaggeration about it.

Polybius 10.27.3 wrote: Media is the most notable principality in Asia… On its borders a ring of Greek cities was founded by Alexander to protect it from the neighbouring barbarians.

Pausanias 1.25.5 & 8.52.5 wrote:All the Greeks who had served as mercenaries in the armies of Darius and his satraps Alexander had wished to deport to Persia, but Leosthenes was too quick for him, and brought them by sea to Europe… Leosthenes, in spite of Alexander’s opposition, brought back safe by sea to Greece the force of Greek mercenaries in Persia, about fifty thousand in number, who had descended to the coast.

Paralus wrote:Actions speak louder than apparent speeches and there is plainly little outside of these weddings that hint at any fusion.

Except perhaps the induction of Oxathres into the Friends, the adoption of Persian dress and regalia, the distribution of Greek arms to Persian regiments, the adoption of Persians as palace sentries, the adoption of Persians as court ushers, the induction of Scythians, Sogdians, Bactrians and Indians into the army, the policy of appointing Greek, Persian, Indian etc governors and administrators in the provinces, the adoption of Indian court philosophers, the sacrifice to the Apis Bull in Egypt and the adoption of the Egyptian god, Ammon… and various other things that I don’t have time to mention. But apart from that, what did Alexander ever do for fusion between the races?

Paralus wrote:

Taphoi wrote: It is not really credible to quote the opinions of modern scholars (be they everso eminent) to try to refute the Policy of Fusion, because direct quotes from ancient source evidence will always trump scholarly opinion in rational arguments.

Oh dear, seems I’ve violated the firmly established debating rules for this thread.

If you allow modern opinions more credibility than the ancient evidence, then you licence the invention of history.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote: It is not really credible to quote the opinions of modern scholars (be they everso eminent) to try to refute the Policy of Fusion, because direct quotes from ancient source evidence will always trump scholarly opinion in rational arguments.

I don't know about this Taphoi. Are we talking the same ancient source evidence where Ptolemy claims that talking snakes led Alexander and his party to the Oracle of Siwa? Ptolemy also reported that Alexander's corpse didn't show any sign of decay of after ten days in the Babylonian summer. Don't you feel readers should be skeptical of any source and investigate their biases? They sometimes contradict each other too.

Semiramis wrote:

Taphoi wrote: It is not really credible to quote the opinions of modern scholars (be they everso eminent) to try to refute the Policy of Fusion, because direct quotes from ancient source evidence will always trump scholarly opinion in rational arguments.

I don't know about this Taphoi. Are we talking the same ancient source evidence where Ptolemy claims that talking snakes led Alexander and his party to the Oracle of Siwa? Ptolemy also reported that Alexander's corpse didn't show any sign of decay of after ten days in the Babylonian summer. Don't you feel readers should be skeptical of any source and investigate their biases? They sometimes contradict each other too.

The instances you cite might be argued to be contradicted by science, which is another type of evidence that I'm happy to allow. It is specifically opinions that I would suggest do not have the same value as evidence. Of course, if there are multiple strands of ancient evidence then it is perfectly legitimate to sift them: I am talking about the cases where we are told that opinions should supersede evidence, as in the case of the denial of Alexander's policy of fusion.
(Btw the serpents in Arrian are making noises, but not necessarily speaking, and they are contradicted by other ancient sources, which say crows instead and the imperishable corpse might have been a living body in deep coma.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote: But apart from that, what did Alexander ever do for fusion between the races?

The evidence you adduce plainly can be seen another way; there were obvious real world exigencies and political considerations that also drove such.

Pausanias’ noting of Leosthenes’ transfer of mercenaries from Asia to Greece is a rather lame piece of evidence for Alexander’s “transfer of populations”. Plainly, if one removes the “policy of fusion” coloured glasses, the order to disband mercenaries and Alexander’s plan to settle them in garrison towns (according to Pausanias) had little to do with any policy of fusion and even less with population transfers. It would, though, have had very much to do with Polybius’ note of that protective barrier of garrison towns I mentioned earlier. Further, the last thing Alexander needed was these unemployed mercenaries finding their way to gainful employment in Greece as the Lamian War so aptly demonstrates.

These troops were already in active service in the east (and likely had been for quite some time): there is no transfer of anything here. Such is hardly to be compared to the uprooting Mantineans, Athenians, Eretrians, Phokians or others of the mainland for transport and resettlement in the east.

Taphoi wrote:I am talking about the cases where we are told that opinions should supersede evidence, as in the case of the denial of Alexander's policy of fusion.

Taphoi wrote: If you allow modern opinions more credibility than the ancient evidence, then you licence the invention of history.

That last approaches hyperbole.

Modern views, based on examination and exposition of the source material, inform the history of Alexander. Clearly you, yourself, indulge in this opinion forming from the source material. If such modern opinion be “the invention of history” then perhaps you might kindly list for us any other subjects that are forbidden “modern opinion”.

Thanks in advance.

Taphoi wrote: Except perhaps the induction of Oxathres into the Friends, the adoption of Persian dress and regalia, the distribution of Greek arms to Persian regiments, the adoption of Persians as palace sentries, the adoption of Persians as court ushers, the induction of Scythians, Sogdians, Bactrians and Indians into the army, the policy of appointing Greek, Persian, Indian etc governors and administrators in the provinces, the adoption of Indian court philosophers, the sacrifice to the Apis Bull in Egypt and the adoption of the Egyptian god, Ammon… and various other things that I don’t have time to mention. But apart from that, what did Alexander ever do for fusion between the races?

Yet all of the above can be interpreted as examples of a very smart conqueror appeasing (and possibly even pleasing) the people of his conquered nations so that everything runs smoothly and the risk of disaffection and/or rebellion is significantly reduced. For me to believe in a definitive policy of fusion I would want to see things go the other way also. For instance, no Persian governors were sent to administrate over territories in Greece; no Persians, Scythians, Sogdians, Bactrians or otherwise were sent to serve in Macedonia, and (something we've discussed previously) there's absolutely no record of Persian men being encouraged to take Greek wives. All that we have that could be used to definitively argue "fusion" (IMO) is the statement in Alexander's last plans. The same statement which is being hotly disputed here and in published books and articles galore.

Which brings me to that remark about scholarly opinion. Scholary opinion is valid in any debate on Pothos. Any member is welcome to quote or refer to a scholar, whether they agree or disagree with that which they've read. After all, we actively encourage the reading of all manner of books on Alexander and the period. We have reviews of books on the main site and we have always discussed various books and articles on the forum. It would be a bit much for us to talk about books and articles we think our members would appreciate if it isn't credible to include scholarly opinions in a debate.

Oh, (and back to the subject of fusion) I would personally exclude the sacrifice to the Apis Bull in Egypt and the adoption of the Egyptian god, Ammon as examples of fusion, nor would I use them to support my own views. Yes, the worship of Apis would have pleased the Egyptians, but I think that Alexander would have done it regardless. It's an example of his syncretic approach to religion. Syncretism existed well before Alexander, but his (and Ptolemy's) famous examples seem to have played a significant role in the rapid increase of syncretism in the Hellenistic period. Again though, the majority of the evidence points to Greeks welcoming other gods into their religion rather than the other way round.

Best regards,

Taphoi wrote:The instances you cite might be argued to be contradicted by science, which is another type of evidence that I'm happy to allow. It is specifically opinions that I would suggest do not have the same value as evidence. Of course, if there are multiple strands of ancient evidence then it is perfectly legitimate to sift them: I am talking about the cases where we are told that opinions should supersede evidence, as in the case of the denial of Alexander's policy of fusion.
(Btw the serpents in Arrian are making noises, but not necessarily speaking, and they are contradicted by other ancient sources, which say crows instead and the imperishable corpse might have been a living body in deep coma.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

I see where you're coming from Andrew. I guess what I am suggesting is that if there are clear instances of the sources fibbing, then should we be even more willing to question the evidence they give us and the biases they might have? Whether sources mention guidance by serpents or crows - both are as unlikely as an Australian win in the football world cup.

As for the fragrant and undecayed corpse story, it's important to take into account that some of the most popular stories associated with Alexander commonly associated with kings, heroes or prophets. This is one of them. Taming a horse is another. And of course, my personal favourite - mother having dreams implying the son's future greatness while he is still in the womb. Shouldn't one be at least a little skeptical of these?

It's no secret that Ptolemy was using Alexander's name to try and legitimize his royal claims. Callisthenes was in Alexander's pay and must have been as fair and balanced as Fox news. I wonder how neutral you can be when you're writing about a man who can have you executed if you displease him.

As for the "policy of fusion" debate, while later historians from Plutarch to Berve to Fox have waxed lyrical about Alexander's actions, I don't feel that there is too much evidence from Alexander's lifetime to suggest he had a deliberate policy of fusion. The things you mention - the garrisons, the adoption of Persian protocols, the use of local or previously-stated satraps to rule the provinces, the nod to local customs and religions, levying troops from conquered lands etc. overall seem more practical than philosophical. The Achaemenids before him had done every single one of those things. For example, Cyrus had founded at least one city in Central Asia. Persian royal protocols must have borrowed certain aspects of Median customs. Jewish scriptures state that Jews were allowed their own leaders under Persian rule. As well as being legitimized in Zoroastrian tradition, every Great King was anointed Pharaoh, son of Amon-Ra, blessed of Bel-Marduk by Egyptian or Babylonian priests.

When discussing this topic, I feel that we often ignore the fact that it was an absolute necessity for Alexander to placate at least the majority of the newly-unsettled Persian nobility. So, many of the actions that are held up as examples of the "generous conqueror" or "philosophical king" were really a matter of necessity. I just don't see how Alexander could have held on to or governed the empire without the support of a significant proportion of this powerful class.

Ps. Sorry for repeating some of your points Amyntoros. I had composed this then gone off to lunch without posting.

Semiramis wrote:Persian royal protocols must have borrowed certain aspects of Median customs.

Including aspects of royal clothing. Meyer Reinhold in History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity tells us (Page 18) "If we may trust Xenophon's knowledge of the early institutions of the Persian Empire, it was the 'Median robe' that Cyrus the Great adopted as part of the costume of Persian officialdom".

Ps. Sorry for repeating some of your points Amyntoros. I had composed this then gone off to lunch without posting.

Ah, I do that all the time, composing a response and then letting it sit awhile before posting! No worries - you said it so much better anyway.

Best Regards,