History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedAlexander the great vs Porus?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
athenas owl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Post Options Post Options   Quote athenas owl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Alexander the great vs Porus?
    Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 22:06
Ruffian you cited Diodorus 17:20  for  Persepolis.

Actually 17:20 discusses the Battle on the Granicus and Cleitus saving Alexnader's life.   

The rest, too much work to bother.  I just happened to have Diodorus handy. 
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1044
Post Options Post Options   Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 23:47
Originally posted by ruffian

Penelope,
   In India the defeated were treated with great dignity. We have many examples where the invaders were defeated and they were allowed to return with their armies. So I am not surprised that Alexander's armies' nuclues remained intact. Plutarch clearly mentions: 
"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India."

   Also telling is that Alexander had to find a new route to return home. The provinces he captured were up in arms and would have made return miserable. When he decided to sail down Indus no one from Porus's kingdom helped him to:
a) Navigate Indus
b) Fight against the Malli clan. Fighting them Alxander's lung was pierced.

  Selucid were able to consolidate because selucus was a good general but his reign was short lived as he was defeated by Chandragupta maurya.
 
Yes, and after alexander realized that it would be impossible for him to subjigate all of India, he wanted to at least have a "piece" of India, so chandragupta over ran all of the makedonian satrapies that alexander had left in place there. The defeat of Seleukus I did not destabalize the empire in any way afterwords. It simply kept the Arche de Seleukia from ever invading india again.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 05:35
Originally posted by khshayathiya

Your accusing me of "believing Nazi propaganda that Poland attacked them first in world war 2" just because I have pointed out I could not locate in the Latin text your supposed quote from Curtius (I'm not saying you have invented it shamelessly, merely that I could not locate it) is inelegant.


I drew the analogy because earlier you had said:


The content is indeed, of a sexual nature, but it's the Macedonians who are seduced and mollified, not the Babylonian women.

How about that imagination, heh?


which means that you did not believe the women in babylon were raped by greek soldiers. Now let me further add from the site to clarify it further:


The Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus describes how the Babylonian women were treated; and although he describes their behavior as voluntary, we need not doubt that in fact it was not. Greek and Roman authors nearly always blamed women for being raped.


Key takeaways are:
a) Babylon surrendered by Mazaues and Alexander agrees to a peaceful takeover.

b) Babylonians greet greeks with flower petals.

c) Greeks brutally rape women and children of Babylon.

d) Alexander's inaction makes one believe he condones the entire incident.

e) Alexander marches on to Persepolis where a strong resistance is put up and the city meets the same fate i.e citizens are raped and looted and the city pillaged.

So coming back to the context of our discussion
their is no evidence that Alexander is a benevolent general because:
i) When Babylon surrendered his city was raped and pillaged
ii) When Persepolis fought they still met the same fate.

So key questions are do you still believe

A) Alexander had a stick and carrot policy
B) Why did the same fate not meet Porus's city after apparently loosing it to the greeks?


You quote a source for a supposed behaviour of Greek soldiers. That author simply does not say that. The takeover of Babylon was entirely peaceful, as demonstrated by a Babylonian chronicle (if you follow the link to the previous post you will see it).


I guess it depends on what your defenition of the word "peaceful". If raping women and children and is included in this definition, sure.  But unfortunately such definition of yours cannot be accepted.
That soldiers billeted in cities abuse women is a tragedy, but it has always happened, from the ancient to modern times (see the numerous accusations of rape perpetrated by American soldiers in Japan, long after the war was over). It does not demonstrate Alexander was hypocritical and treated Babylon harshly.

So would you call Americans or Japanese using a stick and carrot policy in Iraq and China respectively? Would you not call USA and Japan hypocritical for preaching human rights to the world when in fact they have committed the worst atrocities on innocent civilians in Iraq and China?

I dont get it how alexander is any different.


Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 06:03
Originally posted by athenas owl

Ruffian you cited Diodorus 17:20  for  Persepolis.

Actually 17:20 discusses the Battle on the Granicus and Cleitus saving Alexnader's life.   

The rest, too much work to bother.  I just happened to have Diodorus handy. 


Athenas,
 I am quoting other sources who have quoted diodorus. It is possible they are wrong or it possible you did not look in the correct section. Can you please recheck?

In January 330, Alexander reached Persepolis, the capital of the Achaemenid empire. Three months later he destroyed the palace, because he was not yet sole ruler of the Persian empire, and it was too dangerous to leave the enormous treasures behind, where his enemies could recapture them.  

The Greek author Diodorus of Sicily, describes the events in sections 17.20-22 of his World history. The translation was made by M.M. Austin.


Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 09:22

Originally posted by ruffian


The Greek author Diodorus of Sicily, describes the events in sections 17.20-22 of his World history. The translation was made by M.M. Austin.

They got it wrong. It's in 17.70-72. Check the site/edition they linked:
Back to Top
athenas owl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Post Options Post Options   Quote athenas owl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 18:43
Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by athenas owl

Ruffian you cited Diodorus 17:20  for  Persepolis.

Actually 17:20 discusses the Battle on the Granicus and Cleitus saving Alexnader's life.   

The rest, too much work to bother.  I just happened to have Diodorus handy. 


Athenas,
 I am quoting other sources who have quoted diodorus. It is possible they are wrong or it possible you did not look in the correct section. Can you please recheck?

In January 330, Alexander reached Persepolis, the capital of the Achaemenid empire. Three months later he destroyed the palace, because he was not yet sole ruler of the Persian empire, and it was too dangerous to leave the enormous treasures behind, where his enemies could recapture them.  

The Greek author Diodorus of Sicily, describes the events in sections 17.20-22 of his World history. The translation was made by M.M. Austin.



I have the actual books...if you wish to use them as sources, I'd recommend you do the same. The less filtered the better.   :)

Chilbudios gave you a link to an excellent online source for Diodorus though, as well as some other ancient sources.   I don't know that Curtius is online.   


 
Back to Top
khshayathiya View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 108
Post Options Post Options   Quote khshayathiya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-May-2009 at 14:42
This is your imagination only. Let us see what curtius says about Mazaeus and his town:

(In Babylon after Mazaeus had surrendered the city to Greeks and Alexander had promised no reprisals on the cityfolk): For an entire night the men broke into homes and dragged the women, and even little girls, from their beds and raped them in the streets. The men attempted to fight off the attackers, but they were cut down as they tried. By  the time it was all over, the city was not only strewn with flowers (which the city folk had showered on alexander as he rode into the town thru the Ishtar gate), but with ravaged women and the bodies of their slain husbands and fathers. (Curtius 5: 2)


This is your post. In it, you say that Curtius described at 5:2 how the Babylonian women were treated. Curtius did NOT write that. I'm not sure if you made this quote up or just took it from the bosom of the overly generous internet without bothering to check the actual source. The point of the matter is this: Curtius does not say the Babylonian women were raped, Curtius says the Babylonian women practiced sacred prostitution.

Now, aware of the blunder, you quote the much more reputable livius.org site:

The Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus describes how the Babylonian women were treated; and although he describes their behavior as voluntary, we need not doubt that in fact it was not. Greek and Roman authors nearly always blamed women for being raped.


Perhaps that is true. It is very likely that Macedonian soldiers did, indeed, rape Babylonian women (as soldiers of all times, ages, creed or race are prone to do). But what exactly does this have to do with Alexander? Nowhere does Curtius say that Alexander instigated the immoral behaviour of his soldiers. Not even the author of the article on livius.org, though highly critical of the Macedonians, can accuse Alexander personally.

That you see fit to judge Alexander according to our modern standards, shaped by the spirit of the Geneva Convention is your own choice. Feel free to accuse Alexander of anything and feel free to think anything about him. But it may be better to bring something more solid than a fake quote from an ancient author as an argument, or else don't be surprised to see people don't agree with you.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 16:19
Originally posted by khshayathiya

This is your imagination only. Let us see what curtius says about Mazaeus and his town:

(In Babylon after Mazaeus had surrendered the city to Greeks and Alexander had promised no reprisals on the cityfolk): For an entire night the men broke into homes and dragged the women, and even little girls, from their beds and raped them in the streets. The men attempted to fight off the attackers, but they were cut down as they tried. By  the time it was all over, the city was not only strewn with flowers (which the city folk had showered on alexander as he rode into the town thru the Ishtar gate), but with ravaged women and the bodies of their slain husbands and fathers. (Curtius 5: 2)


This is your post. In it, you say that Curtius described at 5:2 how the Babylonian women were treated. Curtius did NOT write that. I'm not sure if you made this quote up or just took it from the bosom of the overly generous internet without bothering to check the actual source. The point of the matter is this: Curtius does not say the Babylonian women were raped, Curtius says the Babylonian women practiced sacred prostitution.

Now, aware of the blunder, you quote the much more reputable livius.org site:

The Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus describes how the Babylonian women were treated; and although he describes their behavior as voluntary, we need not doubt that in fact it was not. Greek and Roman authors nearly always blamed women for being raped.


Perhaps that is true. It is very likely that Macedonian soldiers did, indeed, rape Babylonian women (as soldiers of all times, ages, creed or race are prone to do). But what exactly does this have to do with Alexander?


Thanks. That is precisely the point. Takeover of Babylon was not peaceful as you had been insisting. The reason this point is important as I have asked previously that why similar events not take place in Porus's town. We are not here judging alexander's character or that of that of his army just his war with Porus. As collateral what is also emerging that Alexander has been romanticised to such a level that all his misdeeds have been shoved under the rug.


Nowhere does Curtius say that Alexander instigated the immoral behaviour of his soldiers. Not even the author of the article on livius.org, though highly critical of the Macedonians, can accuse Alexander personally.

Agree Curtius is courteous towards alexander. Well why dont we move to Persepolis where Alexander infact did instigate to wreck the city?


That you see fit to judge Alexander according to our modern standards, shaped by the spirit of the Geneva Convention is your own choice. Feel free to accuse Alexander of anything and feel free to think anything about him. But it may be better to bring something more solid than a fake quote from an ancient author as an argument, or else don't be surprised to see people don't agree with you.

I dont get it. You agree that Babylon and Persepolis were raped and pillaged. BTW it might have been the norm in Europe to treat the defeated the way alexander's army did in India it was never the case. In fact thru the centuries  we have many instance where Indian general caught the harem of the opposing mughal general but the women were never molested instead were treated with dignity and sent back. To paint the entire world with one brush is wrong.


Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 16:21
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by ruffian


The Greek author Diodorus of Sicily, describes the events in sections 17.20-22 of his World history. The translation was made by M.M. Austin.

They got it wrong. It's in 17.70-72. Check the site/edition they linked:

Thanks. Will take a look.
Back to Top
khshayathiya View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 108
Post Options Post Options   Quote khshayathiya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 17:13
The takeover of Babylon was peaceful. Isolated acts of violence committed by soldiers against the civilians among whom they are stationed do not imply anything about the manner in which the community received the garrison.

Let me make this more clear with an example:

Peripoltas the seer, who conducted King Opheltas with his subjects from Thessaly into Boeotia, left a posterity there which was in high repute for many generations. The greater part of them settled in Chaeroneia, which was the first city they won from the Barbarians. Now the most of this posterity were naturally men of war and courage, and so were consumed away in the Persian invasions and the contests with the Gauls, because they did not spare themselves. 2 There remained, however, an orphan boy, Damon by name, Peripoltas by surname, who far surpassed his fellows in beauty of body and in vigour of spirit, though otherwise he was untrained and of a harsh disposition.

With this Damon, just passed out of boy's estate, the Roman commander of a cohort that was wintering in Chaeroneia fell enamoured, and since he could not win him over by solicitations and presents, he was plainly bent on violence, seeing that our native city was at that time in sorry plight, and neglected because of her smallness and poverty. 3 Violence was just what Damon feared, and since the solicitation itself had enraged him, he plotted against the man, and enlisted against him sundry companions, — a few only, that they might escape notice. There were p407sixteen of them in all, who smeared their faces with soot one night, heated themselves with wine, and at daybreak fell upon the Roman while he was sacrificing in the market-place, slew him, together with many of his followers, and departed the city.
Plutarch, Life of Kimon, 1-2


Judging by your standards, if one sees the story of a Roman soldier assaulting or threatening to assault an ephebe, one should naturally conclude that the Romans had pillaged the city when they had taken it over. Well, that's just not true, and the story of how the Romans did get possession of the city is recounted again by Plutarch, this time in his "Life of Sulla", in the episode relating the Roman dictator's battle with the Pontic general Archelaos by the walls of this city. It was an entirely peaceful business, with the Chaeroneans gladly receiving the Roman troops (indeed inviting them) and subsequently giving them substantial aid. More on the interactions and tensions between guards and civillians may be found in A. Chaniotis & P. Ducrey (eds.) - Army and Power, in particular J. Ma's article "Oversexed, overpaid and over here".

To sum things up, your theory about Alexander's alleged hypocrisy based on something an ancient source does not say, ut we moderns believe it should actually say simply does not hold water.

At Persepolis things are entirely different. Persepolis was one of the major residences of the Achaemenids, so in burning it down Alexander may have wanted to signal his Greek allies that he had completed the mission entrusted to him by the Corinthian League, namely exacting revenge on the Persians for the damage inflicted by them on Greece during the Medic Wars. By burning Persepolis, Alexander may have "exacted revenge" on the Persians for the burning of Athens. It is also important to mention that the burning of Persepolis is in some sources instigated not by Alexander, but by a Greek prostitute.

That there were Indian generals who captured the harems of enemies and treated them generously does not surprise me one bit. It is the very thing any half-wit politician would do. And, to your dismay, that is precisely what Alexander did as well, when he captured the women of Dareios III. Or you have just found a source which says otherwise?
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2009 at 05:44
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by ruffian


The Greek author Diodorus of Sicily, describes the events in sections 17.20-22 of his World history. The translation was made by M.M. Austin.

They got it wrong. It's in 17.70-72. Check the site/edition they linked:


Thanks again. Here is what it says:

70 Persepolis was the capital of the Persian kingdom. Alexander described it to the Macedonians as the most hateful of the cities of Asia,35 and gave it over to his soldiers to plunder, all but the palaces. 2 It was the richest city under the sun and the private houses had been furnished with every sort of wealth over the years. The Macedonians raced into it slaughtering all the men whom they met and plundering the residences; many of the houses belonged to the common people and were abundantly supplied with furniture and wearing apparel of every kind. 3 Here much silver was carried off and no little gold, and many rich dresses gay with sea purple or with gold embroidery became the prize of the victors. The enormous palaces, famed throughout the whole civilized world, fell victim to insult and utter destruction.

4 The Macedonians gave themselves up to this orgy of plunder for a whole day and still could not satisfy their boundless greed for more. 5 Such was their exceeding lust for loot withal that they fought with each other and killed many of their fellows who had appropriated a greater portion of it. The richest of the p321finds some cut through with their swords so that each might have his own part. Some cut off the hands of those who were grasping at disputed property, being driven mad by their passions. 6 They dragged off women, clothes and all, converting their captivity into slavery.36

As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery.37



To bring the context of discussion:
Persepolis was defended by Persian soldiers and it fell after a hard fight with Alexander's army. City was plundered and pillaged on orders from Alexander.

Similarly alexander fought a hard battle with Porus. But Porus' city could not be plundered. What some here are arguing is Alexander had a change of heart, inexplicably, and ordered that Porus' city not be destroyed.

This seems to be a faulty conclusion. Applying occam's razor simplest explanation is Porus' city could not be plundered because Alexander's defeated army was in no position to plunder it.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2009 at 05:48
Originally posted by khshayathiya

It is also important to mention that the burning of Persepolis is in some sources instigated not by Alexander, but by a Greek prostitute.

If you read Nazi literature do you know what they say about the start of World War 2?


That there were Indian generals who captured the harems of enemies and treated them generously does not surprise me one bit. It is the very thing any half-wit politician would do.

What do you mean?


And, to your dismay, that is precisely what Alexander did as well, when he captured the women of Dareios III. Or you have just found a source which says otherwise?

Well what I have found out is Darius's wife was raped by Alexander's soldiers and died in child birth.


Edited by ruffian - 20-May-2009 at 14:26
Back to Top
khshayathiya View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 108
Post Options Post Options   Quote khshayathiya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2009 at 22:56
Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by khshayathiya

It is also important to mention that the burning of Persepolis is in some sources instigated not by Alexander, but by a Greek prostitute.

If you read Nazi literature do you know what they say about the start of World War 2?


No, I don't. Presumably you are an avid reader of such literature, so please enlighten me.

Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by khshayathiya


That there were Indian generals who captured the harems of enemies and treated them generously does not surprise me one bit. It is the very thing any half-wit politician would do.

What do you mean?


I mean that in the Middle-Easten tradition taking over the wife of the former king was a claim for legitimacy. With such a gesture Cyrus the Great was famed to have fundamented his claim for kingship.

Alexander had a relation with Stateira, Dareios III's wife, thus sending the message far and wide that Dareios was crushed and effectively removed from office and that he was the legitimate Achaemenid king. This was, of course, his message to the subjects of the Achaemenid empire, who could be expected to serve the Achaemenid king loyally - whoever the Achaemenid king was, Dareios or Alexander.

In the Shahname - this bit I got from wikipedia, so I cannot personally vouch for its accuracy - Alexander is said to have been the son of a Persian king, so his propaganda really did work.

Other historical examples of generals treating kindly family members of their enemies include a successor of Alexander, the Seleukid king Antiochos III, who captured the son of Scipio, but did the young man no harm, but rather returned him to his father.

Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by khshayathiya


And, to your dismay, that is precisely what Alexander did as well, when he captured the women of Dareios III. Or you have just found a source which says otherwise?

Well what I have found out is Darius's daughter was raped by Alexander's soldiers and died in child birth.


This version I've never come across. See above for what I did come across - Alexander had an affair with Stateira, the wife of Dareios III. Stateira is said to have died in child-birth, but the child was Alexander's. Alexander then married Barsine, daughter of Dareios and Stateira and Parysatis, daughter of Artaxerxes III (the Achaemenid king who preceded Dareios III). They thus became second and third wife, respectively, after Rhoxane.
Back to Top
athenas owl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Post Options Post Options   Quote athenas owl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2009 at 04:43
There are conflicting versions of what happened to Stratira the wife of Darius, not his daughter.

She dies in childbirth, or she simply died.  She died before Gaugamela, within a year of Issos, or she died shortly before Guagamela, very shortly before.   She may have had a relationship of some kind with Alexander or she may not have.   The sources conflict.  Plutarch (30.1) and Justin (11.12.6) are the only ones who says she died in childbirth.  Even Curtius, who never met a salacious story about Alexander he didn't love, says she died of illness.  Women, especially the Persian women, weren't really of interest to the Greek and Roman writers, except as conveninet props to further a storyline.  Afterthoughts in a man's world.

But in NONE of them show the daughter of Darius raped by Alexander and dying in childbirth.  In fact both daughters were married to Alexander and Hephaistion.   Sadly they wouldn't long outlive Alexander because, so say the sources, Roxane (his Sogdian wife) had them murdered, with the help of Perdiccas.

Again, this may be true, or it may not...easy to blame Roxane, later a victim herself and Perdiccas because neither had much say in what was told in the histories and the propaganda wars, Perdiccas being dead within a few years of Alexander, and Roxane and her sad, sad son rendered moot as well, then murdered.   Though, in real politik, it does make sense for the Achaemenid wives to be done in by her, or at least on her behalf.

Ruffian, seriously, a suggestion.  If you are going to use the Greek and Roman sources, you need to read them yourself.   You are getting some very faulty information from somewhere.    




Edited by athenas owl - 19-May-2009 at 04:46
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 14:40
Originally posted by khshayathiya

Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by khshayathiya

It is also important to mention that the burning of Persepolis is in some sources instigated not by Alexander, but by a Greek prostitute.

If you read Nazi literature do you know what they say about the start of World War 2?


No, I don't. Presumably you are an avid reader of such literature, so please enlighten me.


Well the nazis said they were attacked by Poles and thus had to invade Poland in self defence! Obviously we cannot believe them can we?


Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by khshayathiya


That there were Indian generals who captured the harems of enemies and treated them generously does not surprise me one bit. It is the very thing any half-wit politician would do.

What do you mean?


I mean that in the Middle-Easten tradition taking over the wife of the former king was a claim for legitimacy. With such a gesture Cyrus the Great was famed to have fundamented his claim for kingship.

Alexander had a relation with Stateira, Dareios III's wife, thus sending the message far and wide that Dareios was crushed and effectively removed from office and that he was the legitimate Achaemenid king. This was, of course, his message to the subjects of the Achaemenid empire, who could be expected to serve the Achaemenid king loyally - whoever the Achaemenid king was, Dareios or Alexander.


Hmmm:

Alexander's biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea tells us that Alexander, "esteeming it more kingly to govern himself than to conquer his enemies" (Alexander, 21.7), sought no intimacy with Darius' wife. This is not true: Statira was captured in November 333 and died in childbirth in September 331. Darius can not have been the father of the baby.


Statira was taken against her will, and greeks, to portray Alexander as benevolent have showed it otherwise. But the fact she died in childbirth shows Darius was not the father. What is your reference for saying Statira was married because Plutarch explcitily denies it. (Also my previous post had a typo. I have corrected it.)



Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by khshayathiya


And, to your dismay, that is precisely what Alexander did as well, when he captured the women of Dareios III. Or you have just found a source which says otherwise?

Well what I have found out is Darius's daughter was raped by Alexander's soldiers and died in child birth.


This version I've never come across. See above for what I did come across - Alexander had an affair with Stateira, the wife of Dareios III. Stateira is said to have died in child-birth, but the child was Alexander's. Alexander then married Barsine, daughter of Dareios and Stateira and Parysatis, daughter of Artaxerxes III (the Achaemenid king who preceded Dareios III). They thus became second and third wife, respectively, after Rhoxane.


Nope. See above.



Edited by ruffian - 20-May-2009 at 14:41
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 17:06
Originally posted by athenas owl

There are conflicting versions of what happened to Stratira the wife of Darius, not his daughter.


It was a typo. I meant to say Darius's wife.



She dies in childbirth, or she simply died.  She died before Gaugamela, within a year of Issos, or she died shortly before Guagamela, very shortly before.   She may have had a relationship of some kind with Alexander or she may not have.   The sources conflict.  Plutarch (30.1) and Justin (11.12.6) are the only ones who says she died in childbirth.


Well she did die in childbirth and that is why some people think that Barsine, her daughter with Darius, had a motive to knock off ALexander.


  Even Curtius, who never met a salacious story about Alexander he didn't love, says she died of illness.  Women, especially the Persian women, weren't really of interest to the Greek and Roman writers, except as conveninet props to further a storyline.  Afterthoughts in a man's world.

But in NONE of them show the daughter of Darius raped by Alexander and dying in childbirth.  In fact both daughters were married to Alexander and Hephaistion.   Sadly they wouldn't long outlive Alexander because, so say the sources, Roxane (his Sogdian wife) had them murdered, with the help of Perdiccas.


Please see above. It was not the daughter but the wife of Darius that I wanted to say who died in childbirth.


Again, this may be true, or it may not...easy to blame Roxane, later a victim herself and Perdiccas because neither had much say in what was told in the histories and the propaganda wars, Perdiccas being dead within a few years of Alexander, and Roxane and her sad, sad son rendered moot as well, then murdered.   Though, in real politik, it does make sense for the Achaemenid wives to be done in by her, or at least on her behalf.


Well Cassander had Roxane and the young son knocked off as also olympias. I guess thessalionke survived somehow.


Ruffian, seriously, a suggestion.  If you are going to use the Greek and Roman sources, you need to read them yourself.   You are getting some very faulty information from somewhere.    


No not faulty info just a typo on my part. Apologies for that.

Back to Top
khshayathiya View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 108
Post Options Post Options   Quote khshayathiya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 19:25
Yes, we don't know that Stateira was officially Alexander's wife. But it seems their relationship was widely known at the time. That was enough for official propaganda.

You state that "Statira was taken against her will". Perhaps. But you imply that she had married Dareios III with her full consent, which is by no means certain. Besides, Alexander was a young man, and a handsome one by all accounts. Who can tell if she was or was not genuinely attracted to him?

Anyway, a political marriage hardly equates with being "raped by Alexander's soldiers" as you had posted with supreme confidence earlier. This is the sort of faulty info athenas owl warned you against.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 06:28
Originally posted by khshayathiya

Yes, we don't know that Stateira was officially Alexander's wife. But it seems their relationship was widely known at the time. That was enough for official propaganda.

What official propaganda? Please point a source.


You state that "Statira was taken against her will". Perhaps. But you imply that she had married Dareios III with her full consent, which is by no means certain.

Are you suggesting she was a spoil of war and Darius had gotten her the same way? Can you please point a source?

Even if this is true what does it have to do with the context of this discussion?


Besides, Alexander was a young man, and a handsome one by all accounts. Who can tell if she was or was not genuinely attracted to him?


Her cities plundered, her people pillaged and raped, her husband hounded and she fell for him? Is this your opinion or are you quoting a historian here?


Anyway, a political marriage hardly equates with being "raped by Alexander's soldiers" as you had posted with supreme confidence earlier. This is the sort of faulty info athenas owl warned you against.


Please point out a source for this political marriage.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.