AHIS2210 Essay 1 - Grade: HD PDF

Preview

Summary

For a different Alexander the Great subject, but the content is still relevent...

Description

Rory Armstrong

46414193 Rory Armstrong AHIS2210 Essay 1

Question 3: Was the mutiny at the Hyphasis river inevitable, and how does it affect our evaluation of Alexander as king and general? The mutiny at the Hyphasis river in 326BC can be perceived as inevitable through an expansion on the role and importance of the army in immortalizing Alexander’s quest. The “eastern terminus”1 created by this ‘mutiny’ effected the goals and modern perceptions of Alexander both as a king and a general which ultimately altered the course of the expansion of the Macedonian empire throughout Asia Minor. The inevitability of the Hyphasis mutiny varies between ancient accounts. The most respected accounts from Arrian and Curtius provide the best descriptions for the motivations of Alexander and his army. Curtius accounts for these differing motivations. 2 In supporting Alexander’s quest to the east, his soldiers had suffered greatly. Diodorus describes how the soldiers suffered through 70 days after the siege of Sangala in heavy rain, foreign clothes and weapons with no relief and lessening soldiers. 3 This “discontent had been brewing since Hecatompylus in 330”4 but the soldiers out of loyalty still followed. These demands weren’t going to be met as “Alexander’s ambition prevailed over reason”. 5 This ignorance emphasises the inevitability of the mutiny. It is also important to discuss whether or not the ‘mutiny’ was actually a mutiny. In Curtius’ description of Coenus’ speech in reply to Alexander6 there is no allusion to the soldiers’ actions being mutinous. W. Heckel and L.A Tritle expand this notion saying the soldiers are “men who are begging their king to consider their plight”7. Alexander does acknowledge this plight by reminding the soldiers of their intention of service for his quest. 8 W. Heckel and L.A Tritle also argue that Alexander intended to return home at the Hyphasis river and was merely gauging the interests of the soldiers through a mutiny. 9While it is not the main belief by historians, it adds another layer regarding Alexander’s ability both as a king and as a general.

1 Arrian, 139 2 Quintus Curtius Rufus 9.2.1– 3.20 - “He and his soldiers saw things differently: while his thoughts encompassed worldwide empire and his programme was still in its initial stages, the men were exhausted by the hardships of the campaign and wished only to enjoy what profits from it lay closest to hand” 3 Diodorus Siculus, 391 4 Worthington I. By the spear : Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the rise and fall of the Macedonian empire p251 5 Quintus Curtius Rufus 9.2.1– 3.20, in Heckel, W & Tritle, LA 2009, Alexander the Great: A New History 6 Curt. 9.3.5- “Your men are as willing as ever to go wherever you command, to fight, to face danger, to shed our blood in order to transmit your name to posterity. So, if you are going on, we shall follow or go before you wherever you wish” 7 Heckel, W & Tritle, LA 2009, Alexander the Great: A New History, p179 8 Arrian 5.28.2 - “He would not compel any Macedonian to follow him against his will; for he would have men to follow their king of their own volition; as to those who wanted to return home, it was open for them to do so” 9 Heckel, W & Tritle, LA 2009, Alexander the Great: A New History, p179

Rory Armstrong

46414193

The Hyphasis mutiny provides insight into Alexander’s ability as a king. The main purpose of Alexanders quest through India was the expansion of the empire. Despite this ‘eastern terminus’10 this goal was still achieved as Alexanders forces were able to link back through the southern half of the Achaemenid empire, eliminating all remaining influence of the Persians and Darius III. The mutiny mainly provides insight into Alexander’s ability as a general. The Macedonian army under Alexander was run similarly to Phillip where discipline wasn’t enforced through oaths but through obedience and rewards. With a permanent kingcommander, and an army that was “ready to stand and follow”11, the Macedonian soldiers were willing to follow Alexander across all of his campaign. However, through difficult circumstances previously mentioned, the desire to rest and return home outweighed further rewards. Alexanders actions at the Hyphasis set a new importance within his army through their now-recognized ability to omit change. The “thwarting of the will of Alexander” 12 may have increased the independence and radicalness of the army seen at the Opis mutiny. The Hyphasis mutiny reveals the duality of Alexander as both a “sensitive man of one hand, and that of a pitiless war leader on the other”13, attributes which made him an effective general but also a flawed one. His ability to hear the plight of his soldiers is cut down by the sudden death of Coenus14 soon after the Hyphasis mutiny. This may reveal Alexanders attempt to regain control over his army and his mission, through removing their ‘voice’. Ian Worthington states that Coenus’ death is a coincidence “too striking to ignore”15. While this isn’t a new practice by Alexander, it does shroud the Hyphasis river mutiny in a tragic light as a fated obstruction to Alexander’s campaign. To conclude, the Hyphasis river mutiny in 326BC was inevitable, had Alexander’s powerful ambition allowed him to see the plight of his soldiers sooner. This incident effects our evaluation of Alexander as a king and a general as it shone a light into the way the Macedonian army conducted itself through obedience and reward, opposed to fear and control, and how the future of Alexanders campaign was shaped by the thwarting of his will by his closest advisor. Despite this, Alexander’s ability as a leader in both facets remains unparalleled in the ancient world.

10 Arrian, 139 11 Curtius 3.3.27 in Carney E. Macedonians and Mutiny: Discipline and Indiscipline in the Army of Philip and Alexander 12 Carney E. Macedonians and Mutiny: Discipline and Indiscipline in the Army of Philip and Alexander 13 Poulle-Muckenstrum, C. The Contest of Alexander and Coenus on the Bank of Hyphasis 14 Plutarch (Alexander 66.4-5) in Worthington I. ‘How “Great” was Alexander?’. The Ancient History Bulletin 15 Worthington I. By the spear : Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the rise and fall of the Macedonian empire p253

Rory Armstrong

46414193

Bibliography Sources:

References:...