https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mixanitouxronou.gr/to-akrivotero-indiko-sirial-echei-thema-ti-sygkroysi-toy-m-alexandroy-me-ton-poro-i-etaireia-paragogis-legetai-svastika/%3famp=1
There's an Indian series on Alexander the Great with Poro. Because we know Bollywood, they tend to be flashy and exaggerated not to be taken seriously in terms of accuracy xd But it seems like a fun watch for those who want to see about one of Alexander's battles (and not be Hollywood)
You know what, this trailer actually sold it to me! I mean yes, I am also not so much into Bollywood style (especially intense long stares - excessive choreography and singing) but this show looks very solid. The article explains the inaccuracies (some just for drama effect, some anachronistic, some for portraying Indians as a whole uniting behind Porus but that’s to be expected since it’s an Indian production) however it also stresses the many things it got right and it looks fun. I also appreciate how they clearly made effort for accurate casting for the Greek roles. The episodes are short so I might give this a try!
Looking rad
Okay be honest Bollywood… you were inspired by Angelina Jolie’s Olympias, weren’t you 😁
By the way for anyone confused, the swastika (the production company’s symbol) is a sacred symbol in India and has nothing to do with Nazism.
26 notes
·
View notes
In a fictional setting, how do you think Alexander would react to defeat? Let's say some guy, who wasn't a warrior, stood up to Alexander and said "You will not defeat us. We will not become slaves!" He's convinced everyone Alexander runs a slave state, and this is a fight against tyranny (not exactly true but it sells). Unlike Darius, he never retreats. In short if Alexander was defeated in battle, would this enrage him, or would he seek to recruit this person? What if the person said no?
Alexander and Resistance/Insurgency
This question is modern in some fundamental ways. That’s not a slam, but is an important point. It poses a situation that speaks to modern ideals rather than ancient conceptualizations.
Thing is, this happened quite a lot. It defines much of the conflict Alexander experienced in India as he moved down the Indus River. Also earlier, in Baktria-Sogdiana.
Alexander inevitably beat the crap out of the rebelling group, butchering anybody he perceived as a rebel. Why he won (however Pyrrhic the victory) is that he refused to give up, perceiving resistance to him as defiance that must be eliminated. It’s not a pretty picture.
So, let’s break down the question.
“Slave state” is a modern concept, and nothing like an abolitionist movement existed then.
Slavery was ubiquitous: so fundamental, ingrained, and assumed that slaves might own slaves, who might own slaves. By the Roman imperial period, slaves could be wealthy, especially skilled slaves. Generally, slavery was regarded as a result of ill fortune, disfavor of the gods, or even inherent inferiority (the beginnings of scientific racism, rooted in geographic determinism).
Did people want to become slaves? Of course not. Did entire populations resist conquest, choosing to die rather than become slaves? Absolutely. Was a fight against “tyranny” not used as a battle cry? It absolutely was.
But in ATG’s day, nobody would frame it as fighting a slave state. Even later slave revolts such as the Third Servile War [e.g., Spartacus’s Revolt] shouldn’t be understood as a philosophic fight against the institution of slavery so much as one slave who’d had enough. No “movement” arose from it. (Forget the 1960s Spartacus.)
The goal was to avoid becoming a slave yourself. It’s important to understand how resistance to conquest was framed. Claiming ATG ran a “slave state” would carry no weight. Everybody was a slave state, even if (by modern definitions*) that’s not technically true.
We know how ATG reacted to defeat: he viewed it as temporary—and made it so. We see this in sieges like Halikarnassos, Tyre. He just keeps pounding you. Not unlike Rome. Beat them and they come back, and beat you the next time. He learned from his defeats. As a battle commander, he was nothing if not agile. The worst defeat the army suffered was the massacre at Marakanda in Baktria (led by Spitamanes). In fact, he was mostly losing in Baktria, until he figured out why the resistance was occurring, then married his way to peace.
Ultimately he succeeded because he figured out how to win, then did whatever it took.
In India, things got even uglier. Lots of resistance as he made his way south down the Indus, especially from the Brahmins. He just mowed them down. But! If people surrendered, he granted clemency and didn’t kill them. That bad cop/good cop routine worked (mostly). But success was temporary. After his death (and perhaps even before), areas of India went back into revolt, with the (curious) exception of Poros, who he defeated at the Battle of the Hydaspes but subsequently befriended due to his bravery on the battlefield. BUT also because he surrendered.
This brings me to the concept of conquest and clemency. Equality was not a thing, even in a democratic state like Athens. It was still all about proving your exceptionalism. Ethnocentrism was universal and “Live and let live” not a concept most ancient cultures would have understood.
Yes, people regularly fought to maintain their freedom and independence, but loss was routinely interpreted as having the gods against you, and/or “natural” weakness. Victory meant “I’m better than you,” either due to divine favor or natural superiority. A sort of schoolyard mentality. Worth was proven by success. Alexander very much subscribed to this. He believed himself the son of Zeus-Ammon in part because he kept winning. Ergo, the gods were on his side.
Therefore, to quote Apollo 13, “Failure is not an option.”
Yet tucked inside all that—the inherent tension—was admiration for courageous resistance. This was also important to Alexander. He wanted to win a fair fight and have that acknowledged, as it meant (again) divine approval. If he felt somebody was cheating, or cowardly, he just got angry. This also defines his reaction to those who surrendered, only to resist later. To him, they’d broken a sacred contract.
And that brings me to Poros, why ATG went from War to Besties with the man. To Alexander, the conflict wasn’t personal, but about conquest, which meant, “We’re here to prove who’s better by right of combat.” When Porus fought bravely, lost, then surrendered: that was the script ATG wanted! Why? It let him be magnanimous in his victory. He returned Poros’s kingdom to him and added another kingdom as well!
But note something here: who’s the giver? Alexander. That’s what clemency was: a grant of grace to somebody below you in the pecking order. This isn’t an alliance, no meeting of equals. Alexander GRANTS favors.
That means he cannot accept defeat. As long as he was on top, he wasn’t a terrible overlord, comparatively—assuming he cared enough to pay attention (his main failing as a ruler). But you may not resist (win). Victory = divine approval. Defeat = loss of divine approval.
Unacceptable!
At least some Indian nations figured this out pretty quickly and used it to their advantage. They discerned he was just sweeping through the region and had no plans to stay, so “surrendered” or claimed some connection to Herakles or Dionysos, flattered him, and he passed them by, maybe even gave them gifts. If the swathe he cut through the Indus Valley was often bloody, it wasn’t entirely bloody. Much depended on how the locals played him. Further, if prior Persian attempts to hold the Indus gave any example, they could “surrender,” pat ATG on the head, send him on his way…and he’d probably never be back to bother them again.
But in short, we have a lot of examples of the situation you outline here, and absolute defiance was always met by ruthless extermination. The further ATG went, the more resources he had to draw upon, so (as with fighting the Assyrian army) it was virtually impossible for smaller groups to stand up to his army. The Hydaspes was ATG’s victory in large part because of a discrepancy in troop numbers. He still fought a brilliant battle (maybe his most clever), but faced a much smaller army than at Gaugamela.
YET had he continued into India to face larger nations, he’d not have been so successful, imnsho. And even the fading glory of the divided Zhou Dynasty in China might have rolled him up and spat him out, with his much-reduced Macedonian core. He didn’t head back west for shits and giggles and a mutiny. He had good scouting, and Poros now on his side…whose fortune it benefitted to convince ATG to go back west. So, he cut his losses and marched south.
But this gives you some context for the question. Alexander both did not accept loss, and also had enough savvy to get himself out of—or avoid facing altogether—situations that he couldn’t win.
__________________________________
* In modern parlance, a “slave state” is one in which slavery is required for economic survival. Otherwise, it’s a state (or nation) that practices slavery. In the ancient world, due to the relatively small number of slaves per household in most places, plus a category of “serfs” (such as mushkênu in Mesopotamia), defining slave states is tough. There are some. Ancient Sparta was a slave state: without the helot system, it collapsed. Rome was a slave state. But most of ancient Greece was not, and certainly not ancient Macedonia. We might consider slavery key to certain professions: mining, prostitution, but it’s hard to argue the entire society would collapse without those slaves.
That said, east to west, south to north, slavery was everywhere. Nobody questioned it, they just wanted to own the slave, not BE the slave.
14 notes
·
View notes