Alexander the Great in Mythologies all over the world

[Dachs]

Empires like Persia were sometimes a bit hazy on the distinction between what was and was not theirs, and from what I gather tended to see Greece as a tributary that just hadn't sent them tribute in a while, and people living thousands of miles away and centuries after the fact probably were not likely to be familiar enough with the details to quibble on that.

I mean, I would have thought that you'd infer from context I'm talking about narratives, not realities- unless, perhaps, it turns out that Alexander's greatest achievement really was convincing the Persians to feel the wind between their balls...?

The problem is that you're the only person I've ever seen put that forth seriously. It doesn't seem to be a Thing for modern Iranians.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Or anyone else apart from TF

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem is that you're the only person I've ever seen put that forth seriously. It doesn't seem to be a Thing for modern Iranians.

Well, maybe I'm over-stating it with "Persian province" thing (you've previously pointed out that my anti-nationalism has a bad habit of going too far the other way...), but the point is that Greece and Macedon would have been identified by most people in Asia as a peripheral region of the Persian world, rather than as the plainly distinct "civilisation" of European mythology. Although Alexander's conquests were obviously notable, they were not so unique that they couldn't be reconciled with more the more general narrative structure of "periphery overthrows decadent centre". I mean, that's pretty much how the founding-myth of the Persian Empire itself goes, with the heroic Cyrus rising against the corrupt and incompetent Medes, and the proceeding to absorb and revitalise the geriatric empires of Babylon, Lydia and Egypt. When later and distant Asian peoples represented Alexander, they weren't building idols to the Great White Conqueror, they were dealing with a particular iteration of a more general archetype.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, maybe I'm over-stating it with "Persian province" thing (you've previously pointed out that my anti-nationalism has a bad habit of going too far the other way...), but the point is that Greece and Macedon would have been identified by most people in Asia as a peripheral region of the Persian world, rather than as the plainly distinct "civilisation" of European mythology. Although Alexander's conquests were obviously notable, they were not so unique that they couldn't be reconciled with more the more general narrative structure of "periphery overthrows decadent centre". I mean, that's pretty much how the founding-myth of the Persian Empire itself goes, with the heroic Cyrus rising against the corrupt and incompetent Medes, and the proceeding to absorb and revitalise the geriatric empires of Babylon, Lydia and Egypt. When later and distant Asian peoples represented Alexander, they weren't building idols to the Great White Conqueror, they were dealing with a particular iteration of a more general archetype.

You mean in the same way that Romans were worshipping Attila just because he was on their periphery and pretty much ruined the (western) roman empire?

The timeframe you are using is way too late for such a myth-based tradition to be maintained. Medieval arabs and persians would be rather more likely to know the difference between Alexander and one of the emperors of the Persian empire before the hellenistic era.

 

[Traitorfish]

You mean in the same way that Romans were worshipping Attila just because he was on their periphery and pretty much ruined the (western) roman empire?

The central aspect of this narrative is revitalisation, which is for obvious not attributed to Attila, who was mythologised as a purely destructive force. However, even the mythology of Attila does express some points of this narrative, because in his role as a "scourge of God", he reveals the decadence of the centre, and in his tearing down of the old structures appears to clear the way for later revitalising forces. A more typical version of this myth (and the constructive counter-point to Attila) would be Charles Martel and Charlemagne, who have been mythologised as a barbarian or at least quasi-barbarian who came down from the Germanic periphery to the salvation of the Mother Church and consequently the revitalising of "European civilisation".

It's a narrative which is generally less pronounced in European history, because Europeans have this weird obsession with linearity and finality, of history marching towards a cataclysmic end-point, while this sort of narrative tends to be most pronounced in cultures with a more cyclical view of history, like China. But, it still exists, as in the aforementioned Charlemagne mythology. We could even plausibly read the "Third Rome" myth in Russia as a depersonalised variation on the theme.

(Now let's all just sit back and wait for Dachs to come and give me a good empiricist bollocking. )

The timeframe you are using is way too late for such a myth-based tradition to be maintained. Medieval arabs and persians would be rather more likely to know the difference between Alexander and one of the emperors of the Persian empire before the hellenistic era.

What "differences" are significant, though? The European myth of a "European" king conquering "Asia" is just one mythology among many, so there's no reason to assume that Asian chroniclers would reach a point at which they came to believe it. They understood "Europe" and "Asia" in geographical terms, not the civilisational ones developed by later Europeans, so there's no reason to assume that they would find any particular significance in it when writing about Alexander.

Unless you mean that they would have been aware Alexander was Greek rather than Persian, which is true enough, but they were also aware that Cyrus was Persian rather than Babylonian or Egyptian, that Muhammad was Arab rather than Persian or Greek, etc, etc., and that didn't lend any civilisational dimension., That presumes to begin with that Greeks are fundamentally distinct from Persian in a way which Persians are not from Arabs, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc., which presumes a concept of "European civilisation" as set against "Asian civilisation" that, as noted, Asian chroniclers were not likely to have.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's not all that mind-blowing if you step away from the presumption of Hellenocentrism. To us, sure, it's Mighty Whitey bringing reason, justice and well-aired genitals to the bepantalooned Oriental barbarian, and we tend to see Alexander's legacy as an affirmation of that narrative. But to the rest of the world, it's the ruler of a rebellious Persian province staging a coup and installing himself on the imperial throne, which while still self-evidently good material for myth-making, is hardly without precedent. The particular eccentricities of his tribe are for most of them an essentially secondary detail, significant only to those with a particular investment in those eccentricities, which is to say: Europeans.

It resonates not because it's unique, but because its familiar, because it's coherent with stories that people already knew how to tell. The Chinese were so used to the premise that it formed a central aspect of their political philosophy, and you'll find the same basic premise underlying the political mythologies of as distantly-flung peoples as the Scots, Mongols and Zulus. Alexander was not some Tunguska meteor in human form, tearing through history through sheer force of heroism, he was the embodiment of a well-tread archetype, and the breadth of his renown was a matter of the sheer extent to which he embodied it, or could be taken up by mythologisers as embodying it.

I...

Speechless.

 

[caketastydelish]

For the record Persians (especially in that time period) had roughly the same skin complexion or even hair/eye color as Greeks, so the idea that this is 'the white man bringing order to the brown man' is pretty laughable.

Even now I've noticed a lot of Persians that are even more fair skinned than Italians/Spaniards, such as this woman.


Alexander managed to beat Persia easily because of internal problems the Persian empire was having that made them ripe for conquest to begin with, in conjunction with his own military brilliance. Alexander, for all his flaws, was at least not one tenth as bad to us as the Mongols or far more importantly, the Arabs which just flat out replaced our own religion, and ruined our country to this day.

Alexander I see as a Mark Zuckerberg of the ancient world. An exceptional kid who rose to power at a very young age. Brilliant, open minded, but with an attitude problem. I do hold him accountable for burning Persepolis just because he was drunk.

Alexander was not really racist, so much as an arrogant brat that was talented as he was confrontational.

 

[christos200]

I do hold him accountable for burning Persepolis just because he was drunk.

He burned it because of propaganda reasons, not because he was drunk. He wanted to be seen as the destroyer of the Achaemenids, and to show that Darius had no power. After the death of Darius, he changed his propaganda from destroyer of the Achaemenids to that of their successor.

Alexander was not really racist

In fact, Alexander is someone unique in human history. Some conquerors opress the culture of those they conquer. The Arabs, for example, forced their culture and religion on Iran. Others, like the Mongols, did not care about the religion or culture. They allowed everyone to practise their religion and culture.

But Alexander is the only one who wanted to create a universal culture. In his will, he wrote that he wanted to move Persians to Greece and Greeks to Persia. Also, during his life, he adopted Persian customs and had his Generals to marry Persian women, while he was building Greek cities and establishing Greek colonies.

 

[caketastydelish]

He burned it because of propaganda reasons, not because he was drunk. He wanted to be seen as the destroyer of the Achaemenids, and to show that Darius had no power.

In that case what he did was even worse.

Others, like the Mongols, did not care about the religion or culture. They allowed everyone to practise their religion and culture.

My main criticism with the mongols is their ruthless killing. I understand when you invade another country/empire/whatever you want to call it you have to defeat their army, but killing unarmed civilians that don't even want to fight shouldn't happen, and the Mongols did it many, many times both during and after their conquest of Iran. Alexander defeated the Persian armies (as he had to, in order to invade Persia) but to the best of my knowledge there were only very few and far-between instances of him actually killing civilians.

 

[christos200]

The only times he killed civilians in his Persian Campaign were in Tyre and Gaza. In his Indian Campaign, he killed Malian Civilians. But, compared to other ancient or medieval conquerors, like Caesar or Genghis Khan, Alexander killed few civilians.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'd like to add that I'm of the belief that Alexander actually did Persia more good in the long term than bad. The reason Persia was weak enough to be invaded in the first place was because of bad decisions/structures/whatever you want to call it within the Persian bureaucracy, and Alexander wiped it off, giving them a fresh start to make a new system that would work much better. The Parthian empire that replaced the Persian empire was honestly more effective at maintaining an empire (I'm particularly talking about the last days of the Persian empire, when they were going downhill).

The Parthian empire might have even invaded Greece (where as the Persian empire had no real chance), but since it was protected by Rome that was out of the question.

That said, the fact that the Parthian empire could hold its own against Rome (where as Greece, and virtually no one else in the ancient world could) also speaks for itself.

And despite western misconceptions, the Parthians held their own at a 1 to 1 ratio against their Latin speaking opponents. In other words, no, it did not take 10 Iranians to fight one Roman.

 

[Kyriakos]

Seems likely, however weren't the roles pretty much reversed by then? Ie the Persian Empire was probably just as much over-extended when it invaded Greece as Rome was when it tried to conquer Parthia.

By the time of the Sassanid Empire, and the Byzantine one (particularly after Heraclius and the abandonment of Syria), the power balance was quite set and not much could be gained either way.
It seems that Al Mu'tasim was crucial (in the longrun) in changing that balance, by causing the increase in the rate of the shift of Arab and Persian elites in the military structure of the muslim power bordering the Byzantine Empire, to seljuks and other turkic tribes. Shortly before Matzikert, a Persian king died (iirc he fell from his own horse, not during an actual battle) on his way to destroy a very escalated revolt of 50 thousand seljuk merceneries who held a fortress in his land. This instantly led to the collapse of Persia as it was, and the spread of Seljuks up to the Byzantine Empire, which, in turn, led to the first conflict, and pretty soon to Matzikert.

 

[caketastydelish]

First, I want to point out that I'm talking about the Parthian era, not the Sassanid one. The Sassanid era was so far away from Alexander the Great's time, that anything he did would have been almost completely irrelevant by that point. The Parthian era was also after Alexander's time, but not by so much that he couldn't have had an (indirect) influence, because he did.

You can say Rome was 'overextended' (which was pretty much true) but you could say the same of the Parthian empire just as much. It is important to note, though, that one huge advantage that the Parthian empire had was maintaining the tolerance of the former Persian empire while simultaneously ridding itself of its weaknesses (with Alexander being a crucial part of this). An empire such as this, is much easier to keep up with than a poorly structured one. Rome had lots of solid points of course, but I'd say the fact that so many barbarians hated them is at least partially their own fault. In other words, a poorly structured empire is going to over-extend much, much faster than a well structured one nine times out of ten.

In other words, yes, I acknowledge that Rome had more enemies on all sides than Persia, but this in itself is to a large extent, their own fault.

God's Crucible (a very flawed book) actually had some very good points in the first chapter where they discuss Rome and Persia fighting one another. They were more often than not numerically matched, and there were even a handful of occasions were the Parthians were comfortably outnumbered, and still managed to win.

I'm not saying that the Parthian military system was actually better than their Roman counterpart, but where as the late Persian military system was a real joke, the Parthian system was solid enough to be decent.

 

[Traitorfish]

For the record Persians (especially in that time period) had roughly the same skin complexion or even hair/eye color as Greeks, so the idea that this is 'the white man bringing order to the brown man' is pretty laughable.

Yes, that's basically what I've been saying this entire time.

I...

Speechless.

Not speechless enough to keep it to yerself. Care to elaborate?

 

[caketastydelish]

I never knew we were arguing?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, you appear to be debating what I've said...? Unless I'm misinterpreting, and you're just commenting on the general theme, which is possible, because I am a bit paranoid.

Either way, it's worth adding, the particular sort of racial narrative that tends to come into play with Alexander is historicist rather than naturalist, race as "culture" rather than as biology alone. In that framework, what distinguishes Alexander from his opponents isn't physiology, but the fact he participates in vital, dynamic "European civilisation", while the Persians are trapped in a sluggish "Eastern civilisation". Hence, although Alexander was not only physiology but in every meaningful respect much closer to the Persian emperor than he was to a contemporary Northern European, let alone a modern day one, Europeans have felt comfortably claiming him as "theirs", as a sort of collective ancestor-spirit, and as opposed to a nebulous Oriental "them".

 

[Kyriakos]

I never knew we were arguing?

You were saying that both Greeks and Persians=white. Which is true, at any rate. You also noted that the Persians of that time were not yet mixed with arabs and people from the east (like mongols) so they would have been again far closer/the same in skin tone as the Greeks. Again, evidently true
So, indeed, it is ludicrous to place a white man vs non-white man factor in the Greek/Persian wars.

 

[caketastydelish]

You were saying that both Greeks and Persians=white. Which is true, at any rate. You also noted that the Persians of that time were not yet mixed with arabs and people from the east (like mongols) so they would have been again far closer/the same in skin tone as the Greeks. Again, evidently true
So, indeed, it is ludicrous to place a white man vs non-white man factor in the Greek/Persian wars.

I think it's hilarious that nordic and/or (mostly) northwestern European cultures/groups (and Americans of anglo-saxon/Nordic decent) identifying with '300' and the like far more than the actual Greeks.

edit: to traitorfish: Yeah I was commenting on the general theme. I know you explicitly don't agree with the white man versus not white thing in the Persian/Greek wars, but sadly a lot of people do (even people who aren't actually racist) so I just had to throw that out there.

 

[Plotinus]

So, indeed, it is ludicrous to place a white man vs non-white man factor in the Greek/Persian wars.

I think the point was not that there was a racial factor to the wars themselves, but that there has been one to the way they have been portrayed since. And that Alexander's achievements have been exaggerated because they have been (erroneously) portrayed as a matter of a white European bringing civilisation to the decadent easterners. Not that it was a matter of a white European bringing civilisation to the decadent easterners.

 

[Kyriakos]

^We all agree, my own sentence there, in turn, was not against any point focused primarily on during this thread, but echoeing the truth of a point raised against the same sources which potentially would create such a misconception of the Greek/Persian wars in the first place

(i prefer the above latest sentence of mine, though, better form ).