Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject: Chapter 9 Questions
What does Alexander mean when he offers democracy to cities? Is this an enitcing offer? To whom? Why? What tradition might he be invoking? Why would he utilize that tradition in this part of Persia? Why does Alexander diband the fleet? Does he disband every boat? Why or why not? What are the risks of his decision? The benfits? As a fellow general, would you have felt good about his deicion? Why or why not?
On page 129 Robin Lane Fox quoted someone, saying "he was to 'break up olgarhies everywhere and set up democracies instead: men were to be given their own laws and exempted from the tribute which they paid to the barbarians.'" Democracy has always been associated with some sort of freedom (..."freedom would become identified with democratic rule" [130]...) and Alexander was so desperate to be remembered as something other than a tyrant. In conquering lands, he would grant them democracy, and in theory the freedom that went along with it.
I really enjoyed the passage on page 133 describing Alexander taking 'enemies' into his army, rather than just killing them because "they seemed to him to be noble and true." This really seemed to be an example of his focus on honor and also his tactfulness. Not only was he giving them respect because of their actions in fighting against them, but also it can never hurt to have more soldiers on your own side, right?
Oh, was Alexander like officially adopted by Ada, or was it more of just a political move the same way many marraiges were? Like... would she have had motherly power over him, whatever that meant back then?
Alexander’s offer of democracy was a good one to the Asian Greek cities, because democracy was originally a Greek invention and so this offer not only reminded the cities about their heritage, but it showed them that Alexander was not a barbarian interested in concurring like the Persians, but instead a well educated liberator interested in restoring the old ways. Also this offer came at no risk to Alexander, because he was still in control, even if it was only indirect.
As another general I can see some problems and advantages with disbanding the fleet. First of all we don’t have the forces to keep the boats manned with our troops, and if they don’t have our troops they might go back to Persia. But simply disbanding the fleet is also risky as some of them might just reform.
Steph - I read it as that to the inner-circle, it was a political move, but a popular one because everybody else might have seen it as a joining together of families emotionally, rather than just as a strategic move, which is totally Alexander-esque. I think Ada wanted it to be more than just a good move, but Alexander politely denied her more motherly advances, being more concerned with his appearance to the Carians and keeping up with his liberator image.
hum dee dum.
As for democracy, I think Alexander was playing it all very wisely -- he was picking and choosing smaller and weaker places to conquer, places that weren't united, and easier to convince, with his great troops and loyalty, that his "democracy" would truly liberate them. Then, he would honor and be kind to the people he conquered, and grant reprieves, making them more susceptible to his demands, like how he "abolished the payment tribute by his Greek cities, a most generous privilege which no other master had ever granted them." However, in reality, he wasn't abolishing, he was only renaming the tax to finance his fleet. So he was manipulative, but kind of in a forgivably cute way.
When Alex is offering democracy, he means to show that he's not a tyrant. On the other hand, he also "was staging a careful coup." [pg 129] He's using a method that looks appealing to many, while he's actually setting up for something that will benefit him and establish himself as a powerful ruler. Its an enticing offer to places like Ephesus, who had been controlled and terrorized by pro-Persian juntas, as well as to those who have been exiled, and especially the Greeks, who consider freedom the greatest blessing. [pg 130] It is also especially appealing for those of lesser power, because "by reversing the Persian's support for tyrants and gentlemen, he had released class hatred" [pg 129] By releasing class hatred, he eliminates the major division of Persian society, therefore making it much easier for him to conquer. (So clever!)
On page 133, Alexander’s decision to disband his fleet is brought up. This happens after the victory over the Persian warships at Miletus – a victory that was won without his fleet, but merely by taking the city and blocking the Persians from restocking water from the mainland rivers. This decision is probably why the probably fictious risky comments/opinions of Parmenion came into being – to defend and “preface” Alexander’s dismissal of the fleet.
One of the benefits of his decision was that he was very worried about the monetary aspect, as the allied Greek fleet was very, very expensive, and this lack of income drainage would benefit the finances of Macedonia and his army. In addition, his fleet was smaller and less well-trained and experienced than the vast Persian fleet – thus, using the fleet was a risk at the best of times.
However, the risk of disbanding is obviously that if it comes to needed a fleet, he must reassemble it if he ends up needing it (which does actually happen, seven months later, due to the Persian counterattack). Alexander is now pretty much land-bound, which could cause all sorts of unforeseen problems – especially if the Persian army knows to work that to their advantage.
If I was a general, I think whether I would have felt good about Alexander’s decision it really would have depended on his geographical plan. If the route involved a lot of coastal cities, and it wasn’t quite as easy to block off water access and it seemed to be at Miletus, I would have felt that we were ill-prepared for the area. However, if we were heading deeper into the mainland country (which, according to the map on page 110, Alexander does indeed do), I think that I would have felt quite good about the decision, as it removes a drain on resources and also a drain on organizing power and control.
What's interesting about the disbanding of the fleet is... not all of it was disbanded. "except for 20 Athenian ships who would carry his siege equipment along the coast and serve as hostages for their fellow Athenian citizens' obedience, he disbanded his entire fleet." pg 133 As a general, I wouldn't feel comfortable with Alexander's decision, partially because the Persian fleet is so large and could pose a great risk should they decide to retaliate. Alexander already had a close call; it would be best not to repeat it. However, I would feel slightly more comfortable knowing that there would be some fleet still in use, carrying equipment and hostages. It could help keep the people in line, knowing that the fleet we do have is carrying weapons and captured enemies. By having this fleet, it makes us look slightly less vulnerable than we would appear if all the fleets were disbanded.
I completely agree about Alexanders tactics to not be seen as a tyrant. On page 129 RLF says "Alexander was man of the world enough to realize that one class is always as vindictive as its rival, and he forbade further inquisition and revenge, knowing that innocent lives would be taken in the name of democratic retribution. 'It was by what he did at Ephesus, more than anything else, that Alexander earned a good name at that time.'"
His leadership skills are shown here because he is able to abolish his weakness (being seen as a tyrant), while at the same time instilling democracy as well as conquering places and then helping them become stronger, once again showing his good qualities as a ruler rather than proving himself to be a tyrant. On page 130, it is stated that after he visited Ephesus, Alex wanted Artemis's temple to be renamed after him, but was refused 'because it did not befit one god to do honour to another.' (130). This is more proof that Alex was really starting to clean up his image, as people we beginning to pay him worship as if he were a god. At the same temple, the court artist Apelles paints Alexander holding the lightning bolt of Zeus.
If I were a general, I would be about 90% comfortable with the decision to disband as the demand for limited resources would be gone and organizing troups, which all together would be a lot less to worry about. The other 10% would be concern about the question of persia and, if they decided to attack we would basically be screwed.
Adding onto what Steph said, I think Alexander was both desperate to not be called a tyrant, but also (understandably) for support. He was doing a very risky thing by attacking Persia, as we all know by our debate. He is undoubtedly searching for anything that will give him an advantage in his campaign. For instance, at Granicus he killed all of the mercenary Greek soldiers opposing him "as an example." He was trying to get Greeks allied with Persia to leave, and it worked; "On hearing the news of the Granicus, the hired garrison at Ephesus had fled." [129]. But this surely makes him look like a tyrant, so he tried to reverse that image by installing democracy all along the Ionian coast. "Alexander was exploiting the oldest political current in Greek Asia, and indeed the lasting ambition of most ordinary Greeks wherever they lived....'There is no greater blessing for Greeks, than the blessing of freedom.'" [130]. Obviously he knows this, and he's trying to appease friendly Greeks, after showing what happens to those that oppose him.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
