Alexander always planned
ahead, far ahead even. He was a true genius juggling many problems, projects,
and strategies (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life).
His most
significant projects, or at least their outlines, were put on paper, as we may
conclude from the to-do list the king left upon his death, as mentioned by Diodorus.
We have no reason to believe Alexander’s ambition was a utopian
dream. After all, conquering the then-known world in less than ten years is a
superhuman achievement. Nobody before or after Alexander
succeeded. Nothing could stop Alexander – except his own death.
It has been
generally accepted that Alexander aimed to conquer the
western Mediterranean, and the idea is
consistent with his character. However, Diodorus’
text may be a list of ideas rather than real plans, as we all would imagine.
Besides his plan
to build colossal temples and a mausoleum for his father, there was the project
to build a thousand warships, larger than triremes, in Phoenicia, Syria,
Cilicia, and Cyprus.
This construction had already started while Alexander was
in Babylon
and alive. He planned to conquer Carthage.
On the way, along the coast of Libya,
he would create a string of safe havens and shipyards.
Eventually, this strategy would lead him to Iberia
and Magna Graecia, including Sicily, where many Greek
colonists had established themselves centuries earlier.
In the end, the
Romans attacked the Carthaginians in Sicily
in the First Punic War, 60 years after Alexander’s
death. A second war shifted their terrain to Iberia,
which was largely occupied by the Carthaginians (see: Carthage Antique, des origines jusqu’à
l’invasion Vandale). We can only guess how Alexander
would have handled the confrontation, especially since the power of Carthage was different in his days.
On his way to Carthage,
Alexander would need to secure the hinterland to protect his newly
built harbors along the North African coast. To this effect, he conceived the
construction of a road as far as the Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar). The project materialized 2,500 years later
when Mussolini built a 2,000 km-long highway, the Litoranea,
running from Tunisia all the way to the Egyptian border (see: Cyrene, founded by the Greeks). We may wonder whether this was Alexander’s
megalomania or far-sightedness.
Greek immigrants
searching for fertile lands and a better life had already colonized a significant
part of the western Mediterranean. Around 600
BC, the Phocaeans (from modern Foça),
who fled Asia Minor after a siege by the Persians, established themselves in
southern France, where they
founded the city of Massalia,
modern Marseille. By 575 BC, these settlers founded
regional colonies in Agde
(Agathe Tyche), Antibes,
Nice (Niké), and Monaco.
With time, these
colonists went further inland and spread all over Provence. The city of Arelate,
modern Arles,
occupied a strategic position where goods traveled up and down the River Rhone
after they had been transhipped from Massalia.
Most of those settlements are best known by their Roman names: Orange, Vaison-la-Romaine,
and Glanum, although their origin
was much older.
A photographer
friend of mine, Andrew Squires, explored Provence.
His vision was to create images of the region, including Glanum,
that translate the remains into what it once was. He published a splendid work of
art as an iBook (with Apple) under the name Provence Mysterious.
The Phoceans
from Massalia, about the same time as they expanded
in Provence, created circa 550 BC the trading
post of Emporion, modern Ampurias,
and Rhoda, modern Rossas
in Spain.
Both cities, connected by a long sandy beach, served as stopover ports in the
Greek expansion in the western Mediterranean.
Geographically speaking, Emporion occupies the southwestern
end of the Gulf de Lion, opposite Massalia.
The first
colonization of Magna Graecia happened earlier
than elsewhere in that part of the Mediterranean.
It started in Cumae,
founded around 740 BC by emigrants from Chalcis
and Kyme. Spartans emigrated to Taras,
later named Tarentum. It was soon followed by new colonies
established by the Achaeans in Metapontum,
Sybaris,
and Croton. In 733 BC, Greek settlers from Corinth arrived on the small island Ortygia and founded Syracuse.
In the 6th
century BC, Athenian settlers founded Thurii.
Around 580 BC, colonists from Gela
(Sicily), Crete, and Rhodes founded Akragas
(Agrigento).
Many of these
initially Greek colonies became influential cities in their own right, creating
their own towns. A good example is Sicily,
where the new colonies fought the Carthaginians, the Romans, and each other seeking their own ideals (see: Syracuse rivaled Athens to be the most powerful city).
In 535 BC,
Phocaean refugees established the colony of Elea,
home of the Eleatic
School created by the
philosopher Parmenides (see: Magna
Graecia, the forgotten
Greek legacy). In 433
BC, the colony of Tarentum founded Herakleia,
and the Achaeans Poseidonia, Roman Paestum.
These relentless
fluxes of Greek emigrants were no secret to Alexander
and his contemporaries, meaning he was well aware and informed about the
western Mediterranean – something we tend to
forget!
An excellent
example of the high skills and wealth in the western Mediterranean is the
so-called Riace bronzes retrieved off the coast of Calabria
( see: More about Magna Graecia: a testimony from Calabria). Archaeologists
disagree on whether they represent warriors, athletes, or gods. Consequently,
they are called “Riace A,” created between 460 and 450 BC, and “Riace B,”
between 430 and 420 BC. Let’s keep in mind that these statues are the kind of
artwork that existed a century before Alexander.
Although
extensive, the above-mentioned list of Greek colonists in the western Mediterranean is far from complete but long enough to
prove their impressive presence. They often were caught in the expansionist
attacks of the Carthaginians and, alternatively, of the Romans. Alexander would have to face both sooner
or later. With his seasoned Macedonians, he would have created a
Greek/Hellenistic world instead of the Latin one Rome imposed on Western Europe. How different
our world would have been!
Alexander was defeated in India.
ReplyDeleteHis horse was killed and Alexander fell down from his horse.
Alexander died from wounds suffered in India.
Please watch movie Alexander and you will see the truth.
Despite my immense admiration for Oliver Stone’s story telling in his Alexander movie (see my earlier blogs), he was limited in time by Hollywood. As a result he had to cut corners and merged the Battle on the Hydaspes and the Malian attack together. This was done for convenience reason, NOT because it was the truth!
DeleteAlexander WON de Battle on the Hydaspes. He was seriously wounded during his campaign against the Malians. He died in Babylon and not in India.
Please read up on Oliver Stone’s own comments, and open Arrian, Diodorus and Curtius.
"How different our world would have been"! Yes,very different. Maybe without the Romans,the Hellenistic scientists would have had the time to reach results that we saw only in the last 200 years, two millennia before.Arnold Toynbee,the great historian, wrote a
ReplyDeletedivertissement ""If Alexander the Great had Lived On". At the last he imagine a world,about 250 years after Alexander,in which west and east are traversed by locomotives.The most widespread religion is a mix of Buddhism,Pythagoreanism and Epicureanism and in the lonely train station of Nazareth in Galilee the son of a local carpenter preach,with little success, to inattentives travellers in transit.
Toynbee’s conclusions are not so far fetched as one may think at first glance. Alexander was very close to creating one world without distinction of East and West. I like the idea of putting Buddhism, Pythagoreanism and Epicureanism to the foreground. Locomotives may well have circulated much earlier than they actually did, although 250 years after Alexander is very optimistic…
DeleteThank you for your comment.
Yes,a Buddhism-Pythagoreanism-Epicureanism religion implies some interestings consequences: Gods exist and is good honor them in traditional way,but really they are not interested to us,for better or for worse,otherwise they would lose their their blissful serenity (not so minor deities). Law of kharma:what you do in this life has repercussions on the next one.Injustice,evil,bad fortune depend on what that you committed in your previous life,so be pitiful,moderate,not cruel.At the end,live after live inevitably you will ascend and you will merge with the cosmos.Not a bad religious conception.
DeleteNot a bad indeed. Could Alexander have been familiar with the idea through Calanus?
DeleteI do not know. For sure were very promising contacts; Buddhism was highly compatible with Hellenism and the traditional Gods religion (as the Bactrian Kingdom history proves).In the few sources is said that some Greeks scholars were surprised and fascinated from the similarities from "indian doctrines" and Pythagoreanism and many aspects of Epicurean philosophy. Is said also that in III century BC the Emperor Ashoka sent in west some "Buddhist missionaries",but we don't know what they did or who they met. Maybe if Alexander had lived contacts and exchanges and contaminations would have been greater in a Empire not not yet divided.A few years after Alexander's death, the Easternmost fringes of the empire of his general Seleucus were lost in a war with the Mauryan Empire, under the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. The Mauryan Emperor Ashoka would convert to Buddhism and spread the religious philosophy throughout his domain, as recorded in the Edicts of Ashoka. If Alexander had lived would have been more careful not to retreat in Asia.Maybe would have directly challenged Maurya,and in the end maybe he would have reached an agreement.The focus on India would not have been lost and new ideas could have been spread and welcomed more easily under the favor of Alexander.
DeleteIt is indeed a vast unexplored territory with many ifs and hows and whys.
DeleteFrom what I learned, Chandragupta spent time at Alexander’s camp either as a fugitive or as an exile when he was 14 or 15 years old. At Alexander’s death, his successors were not interested in India and Chandragupta decided to throw the Macedonians out to successfully conquer Punjab for himself. (see my blog: Was Chandragupta inspired by Alexander?).
That leads to many more ‘what ifs”. I like to believe that Alexander – had he lived on -would have been quite happy to leave that part of the empire to the capable hands of Chandragupta, He was no fool and must have realized he could control only so much territory. A faithful friend at his borders was precious. Ashoka could have followed suit. This implies that exchanges would have continued and the West would have been more familiar with Buddhism. Whatever the situation could be after Ashoka’s death is locked inside the crystal ball of time.
I’m surprised to hear that already in the 3rd century BC Ashoka sent "Buddhist missionaries” westwards. That’s very early. I thought that the Chinese journey of Xaunzang into India in the 7th century AD was early!
So much speculation! We will never know what Alexander could have accomplished but it is quite remarkable that 2,500 years later we are still talking about him with respect and awe.
I don't remember if I've already sent it to you, but it seems very important to me. https://1lib.sk/book/21157289/60e467/the-forgotten-revolution-how-science-was-born-in-300-bc-and-why-it-had-to-be-reborn.html
DeleteSounds like a very promising title. Thank you!
DeleteAlexander is a highly researched movie and NOT fiction.
ReplyDeleteIf Alexander had won at Hydaspas, why did he run away from India.
Alexander and his army, if he had won, could have taken a long rest and relaxed, before facing Nanada army.
Alexander being extremely cruel towards enemies, would never hand over conquered territory back to Porus at Hydaspas.
Yes, Alexander died in Babylon.
Yes, I do agree that ‘Alexander is a highly researched movie and NOT fiction’. I never said that. However, that does not mean that all the components of the movie are correct. As I mentioned before, Oliver Stone had to comply with Hollywood’s regulations about the length of his movie and that is the reason why he combined the Hydaspes and the Malian attack.
DeleteAlexander did not run way from India! He intended to reach the Outer Ocean. After the Hydaspes, modern Jhelum, he marched further East into the Punjab, crossing the Chenab and the Ravi till he was stopped at the Beas by his own Macedonians who refused to continue. They had had enough after ten years of fighting and demanded to return home. Alexander had to comply.
Alexander was NOT ‘extremely cruel towards enemies’, on the contrary! Please go back to the sources and take the time to read Arrian, Diodorus and/or Curtius to correct your perspective.
Porus defeated Alexander at Hydaspas
DeleteThat is why he turned back
Alexander movie is totally correct
Nanda army was far far stronger than Porus army and Alexander knew this, so he turned back to avoid total annihilation
I am familiar with the ruling belief in India that Porus defeated Alexander. You are entitled to your opinion. I’ll stick to mine. Let’s leave it at that. Thank you.
Delete