Neither the place nor the time for a proclamation of a new policy was chosen at random. Eventually, it was extended to all Iranian peoples. Alexander’s new concept was proclaimed in eastern Iran shortly after Darius III’s death and first applied to Iranians in that region, later to embrace the Bactrians and Sogdians. In building his empire, Alexander followed the Achaemenid model, Iranian traditions, and an elite composed not only of Macedonians but also Iranians. That said, such traditions had no bearing on the imperial sphere. In respective lands Alexander fell back on local traditions as was the case in Lydia, Egypt and Babylonia. Alexander’s Asian policies should be seen as two distinct areas: local and imperial. From 330 he was busy creating his own imperial concept that was neither strictly Achaemenid or solely Macedonian: it was an amalgam of Iranian, including Achaemenid, elements with Macedonian notions. Instead, he titled himself as ‘king of Asia’. He did not rise to the throne of Cyrus, did not use the title ‘king of kings’ (so explicitly Plut., Demosthenes 25.3), did not take a dynastic name, and never announced himself successor of Darius III. Nor was his political program limited simply to succeeding the Achaemenids. While it is true that he was mainly a leader and conqueror, in many situations – chiefly from 330 – he attempted coalition-based solutions that he attained through diplomatic means.
A biased picture of Alexander as a limited, brutal invader is contradicted by sources. Neither position addresses the heart of the matter. To some he remains a ruthless conqueror with little understanding for the traditions of the peoples he conquered, whereas others see him as a conscious successor of the Achaemenids. This is the thrilling tale of Alexander's successive triumphs in the face of dire adversity.Īn assessment of Alexander’s policies toward Iranians and generally Asians run a full gamut. He nearly abandoned the siege of Tyre and he almost died when he was lost in the Libyan desert. Greatly outnumbered at Issus, he was also outflanked and encircled at Gaugamela.
It was to this that Christopher Marlowe alluded when he asked, 'Is it not passing brave to be a king and ride in triumph through Persepolis?' Yet often in Cleitarchus' account Alexander had to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
This was when the earth began to shake at Alexander's tread and everything began to seem possible. This volume covers Alexander's conquest of the Persians, from the Battle of Issus in 333BC to the death of Darius in July 330BC. Now the work is revived in a riveting reconstruction based upon ancient works that it inspired. But every copy was destroyed in antiquity and only derivatives survive. The most influential account of the career of Alexander the Great was penned by Cleitarchus decades after Alexander's death.
0 kommentar(er)
