Pragmatic or Idealistic? Interpreting Alexander the Great’s actions

Is the ‘policy of fusion’ a myth? Events and actions of Alexander can be interpreted as pragmatic rather than an intention as racial harmony – this depends on the historian and the time period they are living in Old-fashioned, modern (19th, early 20th century) historians are perhaps optimistic VS Newer, ‘cynical’ historians

‘Great man’ history – historians saw Alexander the Great as THE ‘great man’ changed in WWII – historians thought and wrote in terms of good or tyrant – influenced by WWII (contemporary history) (Droyson) W. Tarn – 1st English-language historian of Alexander - 1930s (no mention of homosexuality in Alexander’s time – why not?) Ernst Badion – post-WWII – puts Alexander as Hitler Now think of him in his own context

German historian Gustav Droysen (1808-1884), who argued in his book (1833) that the Macedonian king wanted to unify mankind. He called it Alexander's Verschmelzungspolitik ('policy of fusion' is a poor translation). One of the most important arguments for this idea is the story about the marriages in Susa, where Macedonians and Persians were forced to marry W.W. Tarn, who assumed that Alexander believed in 'the unity of mankind' and wanted to create one large world empire Tarn's best known publication is Alexander the Great (1948), but his ideas were essentially from before the Second World war. After 1939-1945, the idea that war could be waged for the benefit of mankind, was considered naive. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin had started to influence the study of Alexander.

Another important historian was R Another important historian was R. Andreotti (1933), who argued how much of Alexander's policy could be explained from military needs. Ideology was not necessary as explanation of his behaviour.

Ernst Badian depicted the conqueror as a megalomaniac, paranoid autocrat and a ruthless killer. In his article 'Alexander and the unity of mankind' (in Historia 7, 1958), he destroys the reputation of both Alexander and Tarn. One of his arguments is the 'reign of terror' after the march through the Gedrosian desert: Alexander ordered the arrest and execution of several satraps http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander18.html

Tension in Alexander’s Court Tension over the way Macedonians should engage with the new empire They didn’t like how he was engaging the Persians Is this evidence of fusion of the races? Could be just a dispute over the way in which they ruled over the Persians

Successors (Diadochoi = descendants) Is Alexander attempting to create 30,000 new Macedonians? Soldiers trained in Macedonian style of warfare, Persians in the Companions Children of Macedonian men and Persian women took on Macedonian culture and nationality Is this evidence of fusion or imperial vision?

Divinity & Proskynesis These are linked Alexander deified in Egypt but in Persian he wasn’t a god He used proskynesis instead He must convince the Macedonians he is a god for proskynesis to work

Satraps Persians remained satraps in their area (satrapy) However Macedonians still controlled the money and the military of the satrap Why? Continuity? By his death, only Macedonians were rulers: After India, almost all satraps removed from their governmental posts.

Fusion or Imperialism? New cities were ‘islands’ of Greekness in seas of native population. 1.5% of new city names were non-Greek.

Respect for Persian kings of the past Why? Good protocol but also good for Alexander Wanted to be treated the same way as a Persian king It was the responsibility of the successor to bury the (king) father Alexander acting as Darius’ son by taking revenge over Bessus (and other murderers of Darius) Good propaganda for the Persians

Susa Weddings Seen as prime example of fusion BUT Father determines the nationality of his descendants Results? Children – future rulers of Persia are of Macedonian descent Aristocratic Persian women can’t marry noble Persian men because they can only marry once (men are polygamous)

Selection of quotes