Friday, July 01, 2011

Arrian: Book Three—Alexander, the great administrator?

Book Three sees several changes in Alexander’s administrative choices and style. To date, most of the officers installed by Alexander as he marched through Ionia and the Levant have been Macedonians friends or trustees. The exceptions in the first two books, such as Queen Ada who had surrendered Alinda and “adopted” Alexander (1.23.7-8), stand out because they are so different from his other appointees. Starting with Egypt, though, we begin to see him implementing a structure that separated duties, oftentimes leaving locals or natives in charge politically while trusted assistants were in charge of the military. Alexander rewarded loyalty, even if the allegiances had been to Darius (such as Phrataphernes 3.23.4) or to his opponents (Andronikos, in charge of Greek mercenaries facing Alexander 3.24.4-5).

One possible reason for the change in appointments is that Alexander moved from areas that had, at least at one time, a favorable history with the Greeks and into more hostile territory. Alexander seems to take a pragmatic approach toward Egypt and Persia. Was he setting an example by leaving much of the administration intact in areas that peacefully surrendered in order to minimize resistance, at that locale in addition to the areas he campaigned next? It’s not as if those surrendering had much choice since Darius had fled, but Alexander’s actions might have helped influence the ease in transition. “You’re welcome to govern yourself, to some extent, as long as you submit to me” seems to be the message.

Such a message would not have been lost on the Greeks back home or in Alexander’s employ in Asia. After Darius’ forces had been defeated at Gaugamela, Alexander effectively dissolved the forces from the League of Corinth. If the Persian campaign was sincere as retribution, the Greek troops would not have been needed beyond the breaking of Darius’ defense except for possibly garrisons or related security. But then the Greeks never seemed to play an important role in Alexander’s invasion from the start. Did Alexander trust the Greeks? Other than the cavalry from Thessaly, I don’t recall seeing troops from the south of Macedonia taking important roles in the invasion. Athens had the capability of contributing a fleet the size Alexander cobbled together (and maybe more) but he didn’t seem to want to rely on the Athenians during the invasion. He clearly didn’t trust Sparta, nor did they trust him. The Theban revolt that Alexander suppressed in 335 BCE (1.1.7-8) may have just been the tip of the iceberg of unsteady relations with the Greek cities. The money sent to Antipatros for a “war with the Spartans” highlights continuing tensions in Greece (3.16.10).

There seems to be another issue in administration that Alexander had to deal with at some point—what to do with the older generation of Macedonian leaders (and their influence) who had been Philip’s chosen men. Unlike the League of Corinth that was needed more for propaganda purposes, Alexander required the full support of Philip’s appointments in order to defeat Darius. When a plot against Alexander allegedly included Parmenion’s son Philotas, most likely for his failure to report it, Alexander used this opportunity to execute his commanding general. The resulting shake-up in command of the Companions adds another layer of checks and balances as spelled out in 3.27.4. The splitting of cavalry command into two leaders follows the dividing trend Alexander started in Egypt: he raises his long-time friend Hephaistion to the level of hipparch at the same level as Kleitos (who saved Alexander’s life at the Granicus River). Arrian attributes the division to not wanting “one man, not even his dearest friend, to have charge of so many horsemen” (also see note 3.27.4b). Since Hephaistion wasn’t qualified for such a position, his sole promotion would not been palatable to his troops. Splitting the command was necessary in a practical sense, and as pointed out in Appendix E §8, Plutarch says there was still resentment over this move. Where previous assignments had split the governance between locals and Macedonians, his moves after Guagamela add a generational layer to this division of power. Parmenion had been a faithful general for both Philip and Alexander, but his sphere of influence (he was more than 40 years older than Alexander) must have been viewed by Alexander as a threat.

What did it take to lose Alexander’s trust? Hapralos, a friend since boyhood, tested this question several times. Harpalos had proved his loyalty when exiled due to his closeness to Alexander—Philip sent several of Alexander’s close friends away after the clash between father and son at Philip’s wedding to Eurydike/Cleopatra. Alexander constantly rewarded his friends, giving Harpalos control of the treasury. Harpalos repays this trust by fleeing to Megara just before the battle of Issus, which Arrian also terms an “exile.” Yet Alexander promised no harm would come to Harpalos if he would return to his employ. Harpalos evidently believed Alexander enough to return so I think Alexander’s hierarchy of trust presents itself in at this point. Loyalty to him was the primary requirement but there couldn’t be a perceived threat from that individual, either. Alexander lack in seeing Harpalos’ potential threat to flee again must have been offset because of their long friendship. The clemency granted Harpalos stands in marked contrast to Alexander replacing his appointed satrap of Syria for failing to prepare for the march inland to his satisfaction.

One question, among many, not addressed here but something I wonder about is why Alexander was adamant in his desire to capture Darius alive, or am I reading Arrian incorrectly on this? Alexander may have wanted the legitimacy of the ruler’s mantle passed from Darius to him. I don’t see Darius growing old in Persia or in exile, though, since Alexander seems to embark on a steady eradication of anyone he believes is or could be a threat. Instead, I imagine the peaceful handing over of the title and Darius meeting an unfortunate end when the opportunity arose. Obviously this is speculation, but I don’t see how Alexander would have left Darius live for very long after formally assuming power. The upside of Darius fleeing and the chase after Bessos resulted in Alexander pacifying and solidifying his control over the eastern part of Persia within a short period of time. This is a campaign he probably would have had to make at some point but Alexander, seizing opportunities presented to him, took advantage of the situation and solidified power in Persia quickly.

All quotes are from The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, translation by Pamela Mensch.
Cross-posted at Reading Odyssey

1 comment:

Dwight said...

This comment was left at Reading Odyssey in reply to some points raised. I still find it amazing that I originate a post with a particular point in mind and how far I end up wandering from that theme as I compose a post. So here's my comment:

Thanks for the comment because it prompted me to think about the underlying questions I think I should have addressed with this post but failed to do so. I’m still not completely sure where I’m going, and I appreciate Reading Odyssey for letting me to think out loud.

Alexander invades Ionia and Persia in the name of freedom. Yet in the parts of Persia he conquered (so far), Alexander leaves many of the same administrators in place and requires a similar tribute to be paid, whether in money or in kind. Even with the same administrators, though, Alexander adds another layer of administration because of military personnel left in these cities. In addition, there are groups that were exempt from tribute and could extort payments from the Persian king, like the Ouxioi, that were now at the mercy of Alexander. For these people, what is the difference between Alexander and Darius?

The Ionian cities were often “relieved” from their tribute payments to Darius but Alexander required similar tributes for religious purposes. Not to mention the “imposition” of democracy in many of these cities (with faithful leaders lined up for succession). How has he freed them? (I realize many of these comments are rhetorical.) Between these questions and the effective dissolution of the League of Corinth after Gaugamela it’s easy to see that many of the claims were simply propaganda to rally troops. Yet many of the cities welcomed Alexander as a liberator, and not always because it was expedient to do so.

For anyone having read Herodotus, I’m sure some of these questions and comments sound familiar. Cyrus engulfed many of the Ionian cities but oftentimes his requirements were no more onerous than what Greece required. The difference in leaders can appear to be in name only since little else can seem to change. Yet the appeal of one leader over another, or one form of government over another, seems to resonate deeply.

Again, I’m not sure where I’m going with this and I hope it opens up some discussion. Arrian writes from the Greek/Macedonian viewpoint which obviously slants the perspective somewhat. And he pulls no punches in evaluating the opposition, whether they weigh the proximity of Alexander versus the distance from Darius or the obligations they hope to achieve or relieve under the Macedonians. Yet so much of the claims of change seem superficial. Is that from a jaded modern view? Is it from the importance of something 2,300 years ago that we don’t understand now? Or something more…less…combined?