Alexander the Great: Part 3 - Into India

Darius is dead, Alexander has control of Peria and her riches, and he's about to be on the move once more. But he still has some unfinished business; Alexander first hunted down and killed Bessus, the man who had Darius murdered. Bessus had killed Darius largely to curry favour with Alexander but it backfired horribly; Alexander did not see himself as a usurper, but more of the rightful ruler (he considered himself god-like, so he could pretty much justify whatever he wished). He did, however, see Bessus as a usurper - and he wouldn't tolerate having a usurper living in his kingdom. That was the end of Bessus, who really just gambled and lost.

The art on Alexander's sarcophagus. Even in death, he's
trampling and conquering Persians. 

At this point Alexander's lands were massive, but he still desired more. They would continue travelling to India, towards the ocean and his final goal. He would take a stone to the neck and an arrow to the leg in getting there, furthering the number of wounds Alexander took on his expedition- but that wouldn't stop him. There were plenty more lands to conquer, but for the first time he was beginning to run out of steam. Cavalry could no longer be brought along with the same numbers as they were taking up too much food, and were pretty well replaced with Asian soldiers. This upset his original Macedonian army, as they saw him as becoming too lenient towards Persian ways; his army had a very, very large Asian contingent, he began to dress in a more Persian manner, and he began dropping hints that his men should get with some of the Persian women - making him somewhat of a conquering Cupid. The men were not interested in such an arrangement, however, and the "new and improved" soldiers were not welcomed with open arms by Alexander's old guard. 

On one particularly hot night, with tempers flaring and alcohol not in short supply, he got in an argument with one of his Macedonian generals, Cleitus (not Cletus, of Simpsons fame). Alexander had been boasting about his accomplishments, perhaps without giving enough credit to his incredibly loyal Macedonian army who have really put up with a lot at this point. This enraged Cleitus who called him on it, starting a yelling match between himself and the king. Alexander took one of the swords of his guards and stabbed Cleitus, killing him during his drunken rage - an action that would both lead to a great deal of regret for Alexander, as well as furthering the rift that was already growing between his old soldiers and himself. Those soldiers, however, realized that if they were to desert, they didn't really have anywhere to go. Unfortunately for them, they were stuck there, remaining with their leader not entirely out of loyalty anymore, but also out of necessity. 

The death of Cleitus. It was the first
cause of overacting in an artist's depiction
of a historical event. 

In spite of the difficulties, Alexander continued to march to India with 15,000 Macedonian soldiers still with him, but a vast army of Asians with him as well - their numbers are terribly uncertain, but can be as low as 20,000 to as high as 120,000, depending on your source. Realistically, it's probably somewhere in between, but it's important to know that the Macedonians are definitely in the minority, although they still have the highest positions in the military. 

His first contact with an Indian army was with a warlord named Porus, with a large supply of elephants and a larger supply of men. Elephants were difficult to fight as horses would be terrified of them and thus wouldn't charge towards them, preventing them from being used as a shock tactic. Even though Alexander's supply of cavalry were dwindling, they were still a critical part of his army, and the battles against Porus proved difficult. They still, however, emerged on top - but with a number of casualties including the death of his beloved horse. During the battle Alexander personally killed Porus' son - which makes the next part exceptionally strange. After the battle had finished and the Indian army was mostly defeated, Porus and Alexander spoke and discussed terms. Porus, a large and imposing man refused to be treated like anything else but a ruler in spite of his defeat, which impressed Alexander, prompting them to create somewhat of an alliance. This happened shortly after Alexander killed his kid and ravaged his army. It was a different time back then, I guess. 

Continuing through India finally (finally!) pushed the Greeks over the edge. By now they have been starved twice (!),  killed an estimated 750,000 people (!!!), and travelled 11,250 miles over their campaign (!!!!!), but it was the weather that finished them (?). Three months of rain mixed with massive snakes and scorpions slowing their advances proved to be the straw that broke the admittedly patient camel's back. Alexander tried to rouse them to continue, but they would finally be hearing none of it, and they finally began their return trip home. Unbeknownst to Alexander, they were just 600 miles short of the ocean, their goal. So that old quotation you hear about Alexander weeping for there were no lands left to conquer? Yeah, that's bogus. Ultimately he went home unhappy as he had not yet seen the end of the world. 

Porus was huge and fought beside elephants.
I'm terribly confused how he lost this fight.

The return trip home - in which the Macedonians went to their true home and Alexander to Babylon, which in itself is telling of Alexander's turn towards Persian culture as time wore on - was just as fraught with peril as the conquest itself. They still had to fight through Indian warriors slowing their retreat, but the Greeks were so tired and weary they almost refused to fight. One battle found Alexander charging in with just a few soldiers to shame his men into following him. The charge almost cost him his life as he was separated from the group, taking an arrow in the chest shortly after that almost killed him. 

It wasn't just soldiers that were killing the army, though - drought, floods, snakes, poisons... everything in existence was felling them in some regard. In their return, they had 85,000 people (including non-combatants) which slimmed down to a meager 25,000 in the sixty days they took crossing the desert - but they did make it home, but only to a vengeful, angry and paranoid Alexander. He began to purge a number of his commanders whom he did not believe to be loyal, stretching the rift between him and his men further. The strongest blow to Alexander's psyche came at the death of his beloved Hephaestion, causing him to go on a rampage and slaughter a massive number of Cosseans - a warrior tribe independant of Persia - as a sacrifice to his spirit. In the wake of his grief, he drank more than ever before (which is saying something) which led to his death, likely caused by a mix of malaria made worse by the excess of alcohol. That, or poison. That was a possibility too. 

Alexander the Great died at the age of 33. He left successors, but no heredity. Soon his lands were split apart and his empire fell just ten years after his death. But that isn't to say he didn't leave a legacy - he sent back an incredible pile of riches, became one of the most powerful men to have ever lived, and from what it sounds like, drank more in his 33 years than ten men would in their lifetime.

_______________________________________

The information for this blog was taken from "Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth" by Norman F. Cantor. 

Alexander the Great: Part 2 - Against the King of Kings

We left with Alexander taking the crown after the rather fortunate death of his father. He had his sights on setting out east until the ends of the earth, but he couldn't leave until he was ensured Greece was entirely settled.

Alexander decided it would be too difficult to completely control the likes of Athens and Sparta, and decided to rule from the backseat. They were all part of his empire, but he allowed them the autonomy of controlling their government, resources, etc., but he asked for their military might to support him in his travels. As well, he demanded tribute to be regularly paid to Macedon. He couldn't continue on until he had his home secured, as if he left with his army they could very well have revolted in his absence and likely have won, forcing him to return and fight what could have been part of his own fighting force. What was slowing down the consolidation of forces was Darius of Persia sending along bribes to the non-

Macedonian people of Greece to oppose the new rule. Athens and Sparta in particular were resistant - the smaller cities either didn't hold as strong of opposition, or were simply less important.

The plan for one of twenty cities Alexander founded
about twenty cities named after himself in what showed
a tremendous degree of egotism as well as a lack of creativity.

Thebes, farther south, was particularly frustrating to Alexander, and were more outwardly rebellious. Deciding to make an example of them, Alexander moved on Thebes and demanded the city send out the leaders of the rebellion in exchange for amnesty for the rest of their citizens - which you would think probably made those rebellion leaders pretty nervous. Either way, they did not comply, and after a siege of the city Alexander was victorious. The problem for Thebes was Alexander was not fond of those that resisted his rule, and he responded in the way he knows best: extreme brutality. He not only destroyed the city, but slaughtered every citizen save for those that took the safety of their temple, which Alexander spared. The rest of the Greek cities got word of this, presumedly pulled at their collars, cleared their throats, and decided that perhaps upsetting Alexander was not in their best interest if they wanted to keep their city intact and their heads attached to their torsos. Thebes probably should have rolled with Alexander, but hey, you know what they say about hindsight.

The powers of Greece now supporting him, and with an army at his back - somewhere close to 32,000 infantry composed predominantly of Macedonians, but also harbouring allies from other Greek cities and groups of mercenary fighters, in addition to 5,100 cavalry - he set forth to destroy Darius and take the vast riches of his treasury. The infantry was the prize of his military, well trained, well fed, and well paid. They would be the terror of the battlefield, but their might could only amount for so much in the face of extreme numbers on the other side. Darius had 150,000 at his disposal, but his leadership was weak. He rarely brought out more than 75,000 to battle Alexander, and with his inferior leadership and tactics, those numbers simply didn't hold up.

Alexander riding his horse, fighting Darius on his chariot.
As with all ancient depictions of battle, they fit as many
people into the picture as humanly possible.

Alexander began moving across the countryside, but mostly found small Persian towns which had no interest in dying in vain against the Macedonian horde. He would replace taken cities and towns' rulers with Macedonians, but would leave their customs intact, simply demanding tribute. Darius knew he was taking over his lands, and had to decide how to approach the problem; the recommendations coming to him from his generals were to burn the land and resources in the direction in which Alexander was moving, starving out his army as they went, forcing their retreat without any bloodshed. Darius declined, and instead sent his first major force of about 75,000 to meet Alexander on the battlefield. Tactically outmatched (although Darius wasn't present at this particular battle) Alexander won the battle, but was dealt one of what would be many injuries where a sabre cut through his helmet, right to the scalp. He wouldn't shy away from the battles, but instead charge right in there with his men. He was no coward, and it cost him plenty of blood.

After his victory, Alexander set his sights on Egyptian Gaza, where the Persians held oppressive control. After defeating the city (and taking an arrow in the shoulder, one of an impressive number of wounds he took), he was named a liberator and crowned the Pharaoh, putting him in the Egyptian's minds as a god. Finally he found some people that felt the same way he did. It's testament to his successes that he conquered so much land that taking enough of Egypt to be crowned the Pharaoh has to be reduced to a few short sentences.

Alexander covering the corpse of Darius with his cloak:
it seems like kind of a waste of a perfectly good cloak.

Darius finally met Alexander shortly after in the battle of Guagamela, Alexander atop his famed horse and Darius in his chariot. Darius appeared to have been wounded and retreated, and his soldiers thought he was dead - and having no one to fight for, many broke rank and fled, turning it from a fight into a rout. It left Alexander to take Babylon and Susa, and the absolutely incredible riches that were left behind there. Much like the other territories he took, he left their society intact, just demanding tribute and a Macedonian in power, leaving them at least relatively content. Suddenly, Alexander was the richest man in the world (and all he had to do was lead a massive army and conquer a vast amount of territory!). Darius, however, did not have such a fate. He was usurped by a man named Bessus, who deserted him bleeding in a desert where one of Alexander's men found him. Having respect for his adversary, he buried Darius with his royal cloak, and gave him the sendoff of a proper king.

Alexander had crushed his greatest adversary, created a massive empire, and had more money than one could possibly know what to do with. What more could he want?

Alexander the Great: Part 1 - A Champion is Born

This is Philip II. Apparently. All these
old face statues look identical to me.

Alexander the Great was one of the greatest conquerors who has ever lived. Beginning in Greece, his empire stretched south through Egypt, back up north towards Afghanistan, Iran, and a number of middle eastern countries you hear about on the news but can't quite match on a map, and finally so far east as to reach India to quarrel with elephants. Alexander was the original rock star - well, minus the music. He became rich beyond reason, had as many women (and men) as he pleased, fought in the front lines of his army despite being their ruler, and drank to the point of such wild excess that he died barely into his thirties. As any man, he also had a number of faults - excluding the whores and drink, which at the time was seemingly as taboo as sneezing is today. Violent, angry, cruel, and ambitious at the cost of countless lives of others, Alexander wasn't necessarily "great" in the traditional sense. He was great in scope and size; great in the way that the sky and ocean are great. He was larger than life, so much so that he was quite convinced he was a god. In fact, there were quite a few that would readily agree with him.

Of course all of this didn't happen in a day. Alexander was born in 356 B.C. into a position of royalty, son of Philip II and the heir to the throne of Macedon, a land in northern Greece. Philip was in the process of moving south to consolidate his power across all of Greece, and by the time Alexander was twenty years old (when I was twenty I was playing World of Warcraft - also, still today) and ready to take the thrown, he would have all of Greece under his rule - somewhat. Sparta and Athens, historically the strongest Greek cities, resisted the takeover but not so strongly as to openly revolt. They were mostly in a "fine, rule here, but don't try to boss us around" situation. He left it to Alexander to deal with that problem.

In spite of his status as royalty, Alexander wasn't given a free ride, far from a spoiled child with everything handed to him. He was made strong by a denial of luxury, and to some degree necessities. It made him strong, resistant to pain and familiar with starvation and thirst, characteristics that would play strongly into the roles later in his life. (Come to think of it, it probably didn't help with his streak of cruelty.) That isn't to say he wasn't given advantages, however; from the age of five he was trained to be a warrior, but also taught in math and sciences. He was taught by none other than Aristotle, thought to be one of the greatest minds of all time - right up there with Alex Trebek (rumour has it no one tells him the answers, he just knows if they're right or wrong). All of this created a powerful man; trained to fight by what we can assume are the best Macedon had to offer, and taught by one of the Greeks' finest. He embodied the core of ancient Greek culture; full of logic and reason, but ultimately violent and cruel.

Alexander on the left and Hephaestion on the right. How could
Alexander ever resist those luscious curls?

He also had a few, shall we say, interesting parts of his personal life that may disrupt the manly-man 300 (or 300: Rise of an Empire!) archetype we would naturally assume he was. What might surprise you is he was quite bisexual - leaning towards the male persuasion if anything. He was particularly enamoured with Hephaestion, a man whom he deemly loved and followed him on all of his adventures until his death. This wasn't really an issue back then. There wasn't a stigma around homosexuality until around 400 A.D. when the Christians came and told them that they just weren't doing it right. Many men - particularly military men - saw their wives as breeders, a means to further their family name and not much else. Now, some of you may be thinking "wow, this is surprisingly socially progressive! This is awesome! Why can't we just be more like the ancient Greeks, and be that accepting?".  Well. They didn't just like men. They were quite fond of... well, young men. So uh... lets just forget about that. He did have multiple wives and countless whores too, by the way.

As for his non-sexual partners...

Aristotle tutoring Alexander. This is proof
that school has been boring students
for millennia. 

Alexander and his father were vastly different. Philip had the ability to withhold his anger, and prefered subtlety and tricks to gain power over his adversaries. Alexander held no such control; he preferred brute force and decisive action. While they both drank heavily, it would set the younger in a violent rage directed at his friends (you'll hear more about this later), but the father at his enemies. In a sense, it worked for the two of them; you would likely not want to be about brute force when your empire is still at least relatively small, but Alexander could afford that risk when he already has a large enemy at his beck and call. I would guess that Philip's style helped him to consolidate his power in Greece, while Alexander's ambition and force helped to take that and further an empire. What a team, right?

Well, not quite. Their relationship was rocky. His father married Cleopatra (not that Cleopatra) which upset him as he became worried about his rights to succession. There was already the typical stress of impatience, as Alexander felt he was ready for the main role but the boss didn't feel like stepping down. Making the problem worse, Cleopatra went and popped out a second kid that was a male. What followed was a large Maury-esque family feud, in which Philip may have implied Alexander wasn't up for succession anymore. It caused quite the rift. Philip then went east to Asia minor to begin a conquerin', where he was assassinated - which is either an incredible coincidence or Alexander had a hand in it. In all fairness a scorned lover of Philip stabbed him, so it might have actually been a coincidence, but it's also likely Alexander may have paid him to do what he already had reason to do regardless. 

Either way. Philip is dead, and in comes Alexander. Taking the reins at the tender age of twenty, he stood poised to strike into Asia against the long-running enemy of the Greeks - Persia. Awaiting him were vast deserts, countless battles, and an army led by Darius, the King of Kings.

Uh oh.

Modern Chinese Communism: Part 2 - Economy and Corruption

We've established the Communist Party of China is powerful. Really powerful. They've got the military to back them up, they control the government, and the whole of the country is doing their bidding. They're also super rich, but in all fairness that pretty well goes hand in hand.

The Economy:

Mao and his third wife. How cute. They're wearing
matching coats.

Prior to the 1970s (keep in mind before that decade was Mao's time at the top of the heap) China was communist to the bone. They invaded private lives, made everything centrally planned, controlled businesses, and had their red hands in everything. It had a bureaucracy that was even more controlling than communist Russia, who wanted to control everything but the individual local areas, whereas China was down for micromanaging those as well. When you're more communist than communist Russia, you're really communist. They then went through a cultural revolution in the '70s, and the economic and political landscape changed drastically and quickly. New leadership saw the loosening of the reigns on central planning, freeing up private business and taking themselves out of the private lives of already well-controlled citizens. This was a massive change from the time of Mao, and resulted in an absolutely massive increase in wealth. Unfortunately, it that money stayed pretty well near the top. You've heard of the 1% here? You should see China. "A recent survey by Peking University showed that 1% of China’s richest families owned more than 30% of the nation’ s total wealth in 2012, while the poorest 25% only possessed just 1%."

A propaganda poster about eliminating
the old world (there's a Buddha statue
and a crucifix in the pile). It was described as
"kind of a downer, even for '70s
communist China."

During this revolution the Party would take a look at free-market reforms, but at the same time tightening their grip on their political authority. Keep in mind, what's of utmost importance to the Party is maintaining control. If the private enterprises got too large and powerful, it might rival the Party's influence. The solution to this was for the Party to start taking subtle control of both state assets and private enterprises. Now when I say subtly, this is where it gets a little confusing, so bear with me. In regards to state controlled businesses (and remember the Party and the state are separate but closely linked, with the Party lording over them by and large) the Party maintained the ability to hire and fire and appoint their leaders. In regards to private business, they would demand a say in trade deals (especially deals with foreign countries) and the larger the business the more they would want to have a man in the upper levels. Essentially they would let them thrive to spur on a successful economy, but if they grew too large, they wanted a piece of the pie. A number of deals collapsed because the Party wanted a position high up in the company, but the foreign company in which they're dealing with wasn't on board with the idea. 

Where they stand presently is, somehow, even less clear.The private sector is an unknown and difficult to gauge size. Major Chinese businesses are technically private, but at the same time registered as collectives. The line between private and Party-owned is so blurred it's difficult to establish what's what. 

So in short, the Party is everywhere. They're also not really there at all. They're super rich, but can't really show it. They're immensely powerful, but rarely directly in charge. They don't own the businesses, but... they own the businesses. Oh boy.

Lastly, while China's economy has been absolutely booming in the last few decades, it might be in for a massive collapse. This is because it's a bubble economy. I don't really know what that means. I have read about it a number of times. I still don't get it. Sorry. But it's bad, and frightening, and has world-wide consequences, so watch out for it... whatever it might be.

Corruption:

China is almost comically corrupt. Bribes are so widespread that it's impossible to lock down; it's just a casual part of doing business. While there is a specific group dedicated to nailing corrupted officials in the Party and otherwise, they are darn near powerless; if they accuse a high ranking official of corruption, it goes to his supervisor to decide his fate. The supervisor is typically a guy who appointed the people below him and overall does their bidding - therefore one who is unlikely to send his underlings off to jail. The highest level ones are - inexplicably - supervising themselves, and unless they're severely bipolar or self-destructive, I don't see them being too harsh on their own wheelings and dealings. The highest leaders are essentially above the law.

One man was finally jailed for accepting bribes, but it became somewhat of a joke because of just how small the bribes were for. The general reaction of the populace was how could they send a man off to prison for taking such a paltry sum. The size of the bribes? It totalled to about $1,000,000. Incredible. If you don't utilize bribery in some way, you are either terribly poor (the Party and government jobs aren't particularly lucrative on their own) or not really getting anything done. It's a far too common part of everyday life.

Silencing the Truth:

"I immediately regret this decision."

You've probably heard of Tiananmen Square - not necessarily for what it is, but for one specific event. Adding on to that, probably one specific picture, that of the "Tank Man", an iconic symbol of government resistance. (My father hates the incorrect usage of the word "iconic", but this one surely is.) It's a lone man, standing in front of and blocking the path of a tank moving towards Tiananmen Square. The man's identity and fate have never been discovered, and he's since been known as "Tank Man." The backdrop for why this was happening is this; in 1989, a vast number of students protested against the oppression of the communist regime. The Party's response was to send in their military with not only guns but tanks to clear them out, killing roughly 700-1000 students. How they refer to it in their school's textbooks is the "Tiananmen Incident". An incident is when an elementary student is sent to the office for pushing another student at recess. This was a massacre - but the Party refuses to acknowledge it, as they wish to be seen as a body that can do no wrong.

The same is seen in their reverence for Mao, even now. His Great Leap Forward (the movement towards an industrialized China at the cost of farmland, in a nutshell) caused the starving deaths of thirty million of his citizens. The view for Mao is that he's been mostly a positive force, with a few slip ups.

Man. I'm so glad I live in Canada.

______________

The information for this blog series was taken from the book "The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers" by Richard McGregor.