Was Alexander's Empire screwed kinda from the start?

Status
Closed
Aug 2019
571
North
As has been pointed out, the palace was burned, not the city. The Vulgate has the city given over to plundering (not destruction). Claiming the city was destroyed or razed is a nonsense. Peukestas was appointed satrap of Persis in 325/4. The capital of this satrapy is Persepolis. Antigonos is found redistributing the satrapies while in Persepolis in 316 (Diod. 19.46.6). The city was not destroyed no matter how you might want that to play into your narrative. Do you have source evidence to the contrary?
If you want /need to believe these sources, you're welcome. But the thing is we don't have persian sources. Where are they?

There's no such thing as "my narrative", that's just in your head. I'm interested in macedonian history, that's why I'm here.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
571
North
Of course it's a morality tale. That's why Plutarch included it: to show Alexander's mores. It's why he includes tales of a young Alexander and Bucephalus for example.

You're not much on addressing questions. I gather you've no evidence for your assertion.
Still, plutarchus' and arrian's description of alexander's gordian act differ greatly.
 
Nov 2011
1,120
The Bluff
Still, plutarchus' and arrian's description of alexander's gordian act differ greatly.
I'd ask just how "greatly" and in what detail Arrian and Plutarch differ but, as you do not answer questions, better I simply compare the detail of the two.

Arrian's details are:
  1. Whoever undid the knot would be king of Asia
  2. The knot was made of cornel bark
  3. The ends were not visible
  4. "Some say" Alexander struck the knot with a sword and cut it
  5. Aristobulous says he pulled the pin from the knot
Plutarch's details are:
  1. Whoever undid the knot would rule the world
  2. Yoke was bound by a knot of cornel bark
  3. The ends of the knot were concealed
  4. Most say Alexander cut the knot with a sword
  5. Aristoboulos claimed he removed the "hestor" or pin
As can be seen, the details of the story are the same - even unto the disagreeing sources. The only difference is that Plutarch omits the full legend of Gordion and his son Midas (important to Macedonians as Gordion was, to them, a Macedonian - hence the Garden of Midas in Macedonia) because, for him, the cogent part was the fact that anyone who loosed the knot would become king of the world.

Where, then, do Arrian's and Plutarch's descriptions of "Alexander's Gordion act differ greatly"?
 
Nov 2011
1,120
The Bluff
If you want /need to believe these sources, you're welcome. But the thing is we don't have persian sources. Where are they?
Right. The sources disagree with your view so just don't believe them and write your own. Great method. I now understand why it is you continue not to supply evidence for your ambit claims. The Persians were not given to writing narrative history which is a great shame. That does not mean that you are able to simply throw away the sources we have.

There's no such thing as "my narrative", that's just in your head. I'm interested in macedonian history, that's why I'm here.
I've no idea how you're going to go about finding out about that history with your view of the sources. From what you've posted so far, you seem to be here to tell people what your sourceless view of that history is. By the way, what is your reasoning for the following:
  1. He couldn't even hold his generals on a tight leash, let alone run an empire
  2. He was a drunkard for heavens sakes
 
Aug 2019
571
North
I'd ask just how "greatly" and in what detail Arrian and Plutarch differ but, as you do not answer questions, better I simply compare the detail of the two.

Arrian's details are:
  1. Whoever undid the knot would be king of Asia
  2. The knot was made of cornel bark
  3. The ends were not visible
  4. "Some say" Alexander struck the knot with a sword and cut it
  5. Aristobulous says he pulled the pin from the knot
Plutarch's details are:
  1. Whoever undid the knot would rule the world
  2. Yoke was bound by a knot of cornel bark
  3. The ends of the knot were concealed
  4. Most say Alexander cut the knot with a sword
  5. Aristoboulos claimed he removed the "hestor" or pin
As can be seen, the details of the story are the same - even unto the disagreeing sources. The only difference is that Plutarch omits the full legend of Gordion and his son Midas (important to Macedonians as Gordion was, to them, a Macedonian - hence the Garden of Midas in Macedonia) because, for him, the cogent part was the fact that anyone who loosed the knot would become king of the world.

Where, then, do Arrian's and Plutarch's descriptions of "Alexander's Gordion act differ greatly"?
Why are you putting arrian's version of events first? ; Plutarchus precedes arrian. Is it because of the fourth count? "Most say" v "some say"?

Did arrian have access to plutarchus' works? I guess he did. So why write another version of events?

And, it's clear that alexander DID NOT become the ruler of the world i.e. alexander himself didn't believe that he had achieved the most. He went conquering on: he believed that there is more than bactria, cis-indus india and arabia.

Alexander couldn't keep his generals on a tight leash because of the fact that they rebelled, although they were professionals who were to follow their above all successful leader to the very end. Or were they fed up with his bacchanalies?
Their rebelion can be considered as the downfall of the -original - plutarchus' gordian legend.
But wait: did plutarchus know about the rebellion at all?
 
Nov 2011
1,120
The Bluff
Why are you putting arrian's version of events first? ; Plutarchus precedes arrian. Is it because of the fourth count? "Most say" v "some say"?

Did arrian have access to plutarchus' works? I guess he did. So why write another version of events?

And, it's clear that alexander DID NOT become the ruler of the world i.e. alexander himself didn't believe that he had achieved the most. He went conquering on: he believed that there is more than bactria, cis-indus india and arabia.

Alexander couldn't keep his generals on a tight leash because of the fact that they rebelled, although they were professionals who were to follow their above all successful leader to the very end. Or were they fed up with his bacchanalies?
Their rebelion can be considered as the downfall of the -original - plutarchus' gordian legend.
But wait: did plutarchus know about the rebellion at all?
Again, what are the great differences? Some say and many say is not a difference. The details are the same. It's clear you either didn't read both passages or did not comprehend same. I'm not inclined yo go inyo source tradition and criticism with someone who dismisses them other thanbto say that both Arrian and Plutarch had read widely. Arrian names his sources and we can safely conclude both had read Aristoboulos. Arrian references him throughout jis Anabasis (as well as Ptolemy). Nothing demands Arrian follows Plutarch as you so simply suggest.

Becoming king of Asia or the world is a prophecy Alexander was in the process of completing he died. What's difficult to understand about that?

What evidence have you that Alexander couldn't keep his generals on a "tight leash" and that they rebelled? I've lost count of the times I've asked for this. Your fanciful notions remain exactly that without such.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2018
896
UK
One needs the other version of events.
No we don't. Its always better to have more sources, but it is never necessary. If we only studied things about which we had perfect knowledge we wouldn't study anything at all.

You're like a one-eyed man who, unable to see as well as a two-eyed man, decides he must stab his remaining eye. You do see why that is a stupid thing to do right?
 
Aug 2019
571
North
No we don't. Its always better to have more sources, but it is never necessary. If we only studied things about which we had perfect knowledge we wouldn't study anything at all.

You're like a one-eyed man who, unable to see as well as a two-eyed man, decides he must stab his remaining eye. You do see why that is a stupid thing to do right?
I'm not asking for perfect knowledge. Just the persian sources. Had they not have historians?

You've pulled your comparison out of some non sequitur place.
 
Status
Closed