02-06-2008, 02:03 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What Should One Think of Alexander the Great?
Arvind Sharma, 3 Feb. 2008
Perhaps the clue to what we should think of Alexander the Great is provided by the dual etymology of the word itself: (1) the ruler of men and (2) the repeller of men. It is understandable why the first etymology should have appealed to the British, virtually to the point that they identified themselves with the Greeks. Vincent Smith devoted almost a ninth of his book On the Early History of India, to recounting his exploits, and E.R. Bevan, in his chapter "India on Early Greek and Latin Literature", in the first volume of The Cambridge History of India, edited by E.J. Rapson under the title Ancient India (1922) starts using the word Europeans to refer to the Greeks, which suggests a degree of identification with the subject which would otherwise remain only a matter of speculation. Indeed, the British could find a precursor to their own imperialism, and even its justification, in harking back to Greek imperialism although they were more prone to invoke the Roman. As Plutarch notes:
Those whom Alexander subdued would never have become civilized unless they had been brought under submission. Egypt would not have had Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia Seleukeia, nor the Sogdians Prophthasia, nor India Boukephalia nor Caucasus Hellenic cities in its neighbourhood, by the influence of which barbarism was crushed and a better morality superceded a worse. [1]
If, however, Alexander is viewed without the distorting spectacles of Western imperial historiography, a somewhat different picture begins to emerge. Attention may be drawn to the three devices of imperialism which one might have difficulty calling noble or even dignified. First is the use and abuse of Indian mercenaries. A good example of this is provided by what was done to them at Massaga. Accounts differ as to motive, but not as to the gruesome outcome: "Arrian justifies the massacre of the Indian mercenaries at Massaga on the ground that they had treacherous intentions, but, according to Diodorus, Alexander treacherously attacked the mercenaries, being actuated by an implacable enmity against them."[2] Were the killings in the Indian Mutiny a replay of this on a grand scale? The second is the proleptic genocidal elimination of groups which might turn hostile, which in this case seem to be the Ká¹£atriyas and the BrÃ�hmaá¹â¡as. Thus, while he was at Taxila, according to Plutarch:
As the Indian mercenary troops, consisting, as they did, of the best soldiers to be found in the country, flocked to the cities which he attacked and defended them with great vigour, he thus incurred serious losses, and accordingly concluded a treaty of peace with them; but afterwards, as they were going away, set upon them while they were on the road, and killed them all. This rests as a foul blot on his martial fame, for on all other occasions he observed the rules of civilized warfare as became a king. The Philosophers gave him no less trouble than the mercenaries, because they reviled the princes who declared for him and encouraged the free states to revolt from his authority. On this account he hanged many of them.[3]
The third is the imperial projection of one's powers. When Alexander withdrew, according to Q. Curtius Rufus, "he orderedââ¬Â¦couches of a size larger than was required for men of ordinary stature to be left, so that my making things appear in magnificent proportions he might astonish posterity by deceptive wonders".[4] So also Plutarch: "he first, however, contrived many unfair devices to exalt his fame among the natives, as for instance, causing arms of men and stalls of bridles to be made much beyond the usual size, and these he left scattered about".[5]
Is Alexander in these respects too the precursor of Western imperialism, inclining one to some partiality towards the second etymology of his name? What the Indian philosopher, whose name in its Hellenized form is given as Mandanis, thought of Alexander may not be irrelevant here as anticipating India's struggle against British imperialism centuries later.
For when Alexander's messengers summoned Mandanis to visit the son of Zeus and promised that he would receive gifts if he obeyed, but punishment if he disobeyed, he replied that in the first place, Alexander was not the son of Zeus, inasmuch as he was not ruler over even a very small part of the earth, and, secondly, that he had no need of gifts from Alexander, of which, there was no satiety and, thirdly, that he had no fear of threats, since India would supply him with sufficient food while he was alive, and when he died he would be released from the flesh wasted by old age and be translated to a better and purer life; and that the result was that Alexander commended him and acquiesced.[6]
[1] R.C. Majumdar, The Classical Accounts of India (Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Ltd., 1981) p. 204.
[2] Ibid., p. xxi.
[3] Ibid., p. 195.
[4] Ibid., p. 135.
[5] Ibid., p. 199. The Arthaà âºÃ�stra also seems to recommend similar measures at some places.
[6] Ibid., p. 280.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arvind Sharma, 3 Feb. 2008
Perhaps the clue to what we should think of Alexander the Great is provided by the dual etymology of the word itself: (1) the ruler of men and (2) the repeller of men. It is understandable why the first etymology should have appealed to the British, virtually to the point that they identified themselves with the Greeks. Vincent Smith devoted almost a ninth of his book On the Early History of India, to recounting his exploits, and E.R. Bevan, in his chapter "India on Early Greek and Latin Literature", in the first volume of The Cambridge History of India, edited by E.J. Rapson under the title Ancient India (1922) starts using the word Europeans to refer to the Greeks, which suggests a degree of identification with the subject which would otherwise remain only a matter of speculation. Indeed, the British could find a precursor to their own imperialism, and even its justification, in harking back to Greek imperialism although they were more prone to invoke the Roman. As Plutarch notes:
Those whom Alexander subdued would never have become civilized unless they had been brought under submission. Egypt would not have had Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia Seleukeia, nor the Sogdians Prophthasia, nor India Boukephalia nor Caucasus Hellenic cities in its neighbourhood, by the influence of which barbarism was crushed and a better morality superceded a worse. [1]
If, however, Alexander is viewed without the distorting spectacles of Western imperial historiography, a somewhat different picture begins to emerge. Attention may be drawn to the three devices of imperialism which one might have difficulty calling noble or even dignified. First is the use and abuse of Indian mercenaries. A good example of this is provided by what was done to them at Massaga. Accounts differ as to motive, but not as to the gruesome outcome: "Arrian justifies the massacre of the Indian mercenaries at Massaga on the ground that they had treacherous intentions, but, according to Diodorus, Alexander treacherously attacked the mercenaries, being actuated by an implacable enmity against them."[2] Were the killings in the Indian Mutiny a replay of this on a grand scale? The second is the proleptic genocidal elimination of groups which might turn hostile, which in this case seem to be the Ká¹£atriyas and the BrÃ�hmaá¹â¡as. Thus, while he was at Taxila, according to Plutarch:
As the Indian mercenary troops, consisting, as they did, of the best soldiers to be found in the country, flocked to the cities which he attacked and defended them with great vigour, he thus incurred serious losses, and accordingly concluded a treaty of peace with them; but afterwards, as they were going away, set upon them while they were on the road, and killed them all. This rests as a foul blot on his martial fame, for on all other occasions he observed the rules of civilized warfare as became a king. The Philosophers gave him no less trouble than the mercenaries, because they reviled the princes who declared for him and encouraged the free states to revolt from his authority. On this account he hanged many of them.[3]
The third is the imperial projection of one's powers. When Alexander withdrew, according to Q. Curtius Rufus, "he orderedââ¬Â¦couches of a size larger than was required for men of ordinary stature to be left, so that my making things appear in magnificent proportions he might astonish posterity by deceptive wonders".[4] So also Plutarch: "he first, however, contrived many unfair devices to exalt his fame among the natives, as for instance, causing arms of men and stalls of bridles to be made much beyond the usual size, and these he left scattered about".[5]
Is Alexander in these respects too the precursor of Western imperialism, inclining one to some partiality towards the second etymology of his name? What the Indian philosopher, whose name in its Hellenized form is given as Mandanis, thought of Alexander may not be irrelevant here as anticipating India's struggle against British imperialism centuries later.
For when Alexander's messengers summoned Mandanis to visit the son of Zeus and promised that he would receive gifts if he obeyed, but punishment if he disobeyed, he replied that in the first place, Alexander was not the son of Zeus, inasmuch as he was not ruler over even a very small part of the earth, and, secondly, that he had no need of gifts from Alexander, of which, there was no satiety and, thirdly, that he had no fear of threats, since India would supply him with sufficient food while he was alive, and when he died he would be released from the flesh wasted by old age and be translated to a better and purer life; and that the result was that Alexander commended him and acquiesced.[6]
[1] R.C. Majumdar, The Classical Accounts of India (Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Ltd., 1981) p. 204.
[2] Ibid., p. xxi.
[3] Ibid., p. 195.
[4] Ibid., p. 135.
[5] Ibid., p. 199. The Arthaà âºÃ�stra also seems to recommend similar measures at some places.
[6] Ibid., p. 280.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->