Profiles in History: Alexander the Great

Well guys, it's been a relaxing, blog free two weeks, but it's that time again. Time to break out the old internet and pray you can think of a topic or two and write a few paragraphs before the week is out. I don't know about anyone else, but due to the lack of comments with suggestions/corrections, I am going to go ahead and assume that I am doing things right. So, down to business.

Alexander the Great was a Macedonian King that went on to conquer everything to the east of Greece until his own men grew tired of war and turned back at the Indus River. He brought Greek thinking to empires thousands of miles away, to millions of people in Asia. His conquests began the process of globalization, bringing many isolated cities, kingdoms, and empires into contact through the trail of destruction and victory behind him.

Alexander was born in 356 BCE, the son of Philip, the Macedonian King who had developed the country of Macedon, controlled an efficient, and after the pacification of Greece, experienced military. Alexander studied under one of the greatest minds of his time, Aristotle, a philosopher who taught Alexander about science and philosophy. At the age of sixteen, Alexander got his first taste of kingship, when he ruled Macedonia as a regent while his father conquered Greece. This is pretty impressive, considering how when I was sixteen, I was still learning to drive. At the age of twenty in 336 BCE, his father was assassinated and Alexander rose to the throne and began a rule that would soon extend across much of Asia.

Even at the beginning, Alexander the Great's rule was a bit rough. Many of the states that his father worked hard to bring under Macedonian rule did not feel that they owed this boy any allegiance. Alexander had to go back and reconquer many cities and crush numerous rebellions and by 335 BCE, having secured his borders, he marched out to destroy the Persian Empire for trying to do the same thing to Greece years ago.
Alexander's army began at 42,000 men and went on into the heart of Persia with amazing speed. Alexander conquered several Persian treasuries, coastal cities to deny the Persians Naval superiority, and to top it all off, routed the Persian army, led by Darius the Third, the Persian King. During the retreat, Alexander the Great captured Darius's personal treasury and his family. Alexander went on to capture almost every Persian city and fortress, leaving death and new cities behind him. He was not a very forgiving man, there's actually a pretty brutal story about one of Alexander's battles. After the siege of Tyre, Alexander had all men of military age crucified and had everyone else sold into slavery. Again, not exactly a good Samaritan. At the Battle of Aguala, Darius was routed again, but this time, Darius could not get away. One of Darius's regional chieftans captured and killed the Persian King in hopes of getting on Alexander's good side. Instead, Alexander got angry and executed him. With no more Persia to conquer, he felt it was time to go on. He believed in his destiny to rule and pushed on into Egypt, Assyria, Syria and Babylon.

At the banks of the Indus River, Alexander's own men refused to advance any further. After a decade of war, they could not stomach another battle. Without an army, Alexander realized his dream of World domination was over. On the way home, Alexander put many of the conquered regions in order and executed those who did not govern properly.

In 323 BCE, Alexander the Great became extremely ill in Babylon. As he lay on his deathbed, his soldiers demanded to see him and they did. They walked slowly by his bed and he could only wave with his hand, as it hurt him to speak. This is a great example of the loyalty his men felt towards Alexander. As he lay dying, his generals asked him who would inherit his Kingdom. It is reported that Alexander told them, "The strongest." By June, 323 BCE, Alexander died and the massive Empire he built in twelve years splintered into rival factions, all because of Alexander's last words.

Political China

Although many a joke is made of Confucius and his wisdom, there is no doubt that his principles paid a chief role in developing Chinese political thought and culture into what it is today. However, prior to the implementation of Confucian principles two other ideologies affected the governing body and it's populace. These ideologies seem at times to be polar opposites and it can b difficult to see how they all could come from the same people within a thousand year period. However, these three views combine to form the basics of Chinese thought and therefore must be explored.

Confucius, the father of Confucianism, was born in 551 B.C.E. in an age where China was desperately searching for order and stability. Confucius looked at the role of superiors to solve the political crisis. His system called for a hierarchy of the people to be put into place, the upper class or the Junzi, would be respected and obeyed simply for the significance that they were of higher class. But in order to receive this power, these men must have Benevolence, Propriety, and Piety to show that they were worthy.

The relationship between the Junzi and lower classes were intended to be modeled after the relationship of father and son. Just as the son must respect his father, the father should respect his superior, and the superior and so on. The Emperor would respect the Heavens and would dote upon his subjects as if they were all his children. So through these principles everything would naturally flow smoothly...so as natural human beings the ideology was rejected for a time.

Legalism sought a new way to control the populace, through control itself. Harsh and often remembered for creating a resenting populace, Legalism sought to control the people through strict enforcement of specific punishments. According to Han Fenzi, a prominent Legalist philosopher, "If rewards are high, then what the ruler wants will be quickly effected; if punishments are heavy, what he does not want will be swiftly prevented"(http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/newcatalog.aspx?isbn=031245287X). With enough power, fear, and control, the Chinese world. Not drawing a connection to the Star Wars Emperor would be difficult with Legalism.

Daoism would be another Chinese philosophy concerned with the nature of things. Literally. Daoist believed that nature should be allowed to take its course without human intervention and that through this pacifistic view, a great Empire could be created. The Chinese elite would see past the conflict of Daoism and Confucianism and see the two as complements of one whole, yin and yang if you will. Confucianism promoted the education of the populace where Daoism pushed for a return to a natural state. All in all they contributed to creating a state where Confucian politics ruled and Daoistic thought could be respected by those often in touch with nature, as well as a reminder not to abandon their human aspects.

All in all, these three concepts strove to create peace and stability in the face of anarchy and unrest. Confucianism in relationships, Daoism through natural occurrences, and Legalism in the realm of sheer power. Although separately little can be said as to which is better than the other(alright Legalism creates Death Stars) a little portion of each of these theories not only represents Chinese political mindset, but can be noted as parts of all political bodies.

Battle of Cannae: Great Victory or Defeat?

The Battle of Cannae was one of the most decisive victories in military history. In the battle the outnumbered Carthaginian Army under Hannibal, surrounded and decimated the Roman Army. However, this battle led to Hannibal's defeat and the defeat of Carthage.

The Battle of Cannae took place in 216 BCE during the second Punic War. Carthage, having lost the First Punic war, was determined to take revenge and maintain its power.When the war broke out in 218 BCE Hannibal march to Italy from Spain. His plan was to defeat Rome's armies causing her allies to defect to him.

After winning two decisive victories against the Romans at The Trebbia River and Lake Trasimene, Hannibal looked invincible. In 216 BCE a third Roman army was sent to destroy Hannibal. At Cannae the Romans, who again outnumbered Hannibal, hoped to use the open plain to their advantage. When the infantry met, Hannibal's center fell back creating a crescent shape, which the Roman infantry pushed into. Meanwhile the Carthaginian cavalry defeated the Roman cavalry, and attacked the Roman rear. This encirclement caused the Romans to panic, and a slaughter ensued.

The victory at Cannae was exactly what Hannibal wanted, to destroy Romes armies and have her allies defect. Unfortunately, Romes allies did not defect. Rome also changed its tactics. Instead of destroying Hannibal in a battle, they would contain him in southern Italy and harass his army. This continued until 202 BCE when Hannibal escaped Italy and returned to North Africa to defend Carthage against the Roman general Scipio, who landed there in 204 BCE. They met at the battle of Zama in which Hannibal was defeated. The defeat at Zama led to the surrender of Carthage and the loss of her empire.

Why did Hannibal lose? Hannibal lost because he failed to break Romes alliances. Also, I believe he lost because the Romans changed their tactics. Before the defeat at Cannae, Rome attempted to destroy Hannibal's army by force. However, only after the disastrous defeat at Cannae did they try a new tactic. If Hannibal would have won Cannae but not decisively or withdrew for a draw, would Rome have changed its tactics? I believe they would not of. If Cannae was a small Roman defeat or a draw, Rome would have continued to pursue Hannibal and destroy him in battle. Therefore, Hannibal should have withdrew from southern Italy. By staying there he allowed Rome to rebuild its army, and pursue Carthage on other fronts. Therefore, this great victory led to the defeat of Hannibal and Carthage.

For more information about all three Punic wars visit http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/punicwar/

Beginnings of Democracy

Democracy, the cornerstone of American pride, is an institution that depends solely on the participation and pride of it's constituents. Without participation democracy is meaningless and without pride in one's chosen government little can be accomplished. For when the general populace puts their will, their collective wisdom together the impossible becomes possible and the greatness of democracy surpasses all others. Athens is the picture perfect example of such a democracy, indeed the very first to ever be founded in this world and thus there is no better example of a citizen lead government to be had.

The first question that must be asked is why a democracy how a democracy was put into place. What actions and events must have transpired to form a government that was run by the people? The answer lies with the Greek rulers, starting with Solon. After creating the hierarchy that allows for the distinguishing between the classes, Solon's system allowed for easy determination of who was allowed to participate in the political process, simply the ability to afford armor. Thus Solon created a system that forced the citizenry to seek military status in order to gain a political voice.

After Solon's system was in place it would still take adjustments to create a democracy representative of those that we know today. After a time, Cleisthenes would come to power and then the true brilliance of a democratic reformation would begin. Cleisthenes would divide the traditional four tribes of Athens into ten new tribes, intermixing the old family alliances and tribal loyalties as to eliminate the old ruling classes. He increased the Council membership from 400 to 500, and he divided each new tribe up into an area that consisted of one urban/suburban, one coastal, and one inland region. This division of tribes and equal geographic disbursal was meant to ensure that each area would be equal in thought and representation in the Assembly.

After all former ties to family and clan were dissolved, there would be no confusion as to who each citizen was loyal to. Pride developed naturally in each district in their own ways of life and their national democracy. Citizens strove to rise higher in the hierarchy to achieve the right to vote and in doing so made the Athens all the greater. Democracy was born.

Crossing the Alps

In his article, "Over the Alps to Rome's Gates," Daniel A. Fournie wrote about Hannibal's famous march over the Alps, in which he attempted to attack Rome from the north with war elephants in tow. The article pretty well summarizes the hardships of Hannibal and his men, and Fournie details some of the Roman reaction to his endeavor. The article also describes the trouble of transporting the elephants such a great distance over unfamiliar terrain.

GETTING THEIR ELEPHANTS ACROSS the Rhône posed special problems for the Carthaginians. The animals refused to board boats or small rafts for the crossing. Hannibal directed his pioneers to construct a number of large rafts, 25 feet square. These were lashed together in pairs, and eight pairs were attached to the bank, forming a pier 50 feet wide and extending 200 feet into the river. Two additional rafts were attached to this pier and connected with towlines to boats. The rest of the elephants had refused to venture onto boats in the river, so the pier was disguised as dry land, covered with dirt. The elephants were led by two compliant females across the pier and onto the raft. Then the rafts were cut free and towed across the river. The elephants panicked at first but eventually crowded toward the center of the raft and made the crossing safely. The process was repeated a number of times, and though a few of the frightened elephants fell into the water, even they managed to swim across.

Fournie also discussed the issue of where Hannibal and his army crossed the Alps, a debate fought over five possible passes. I find it interesting that given so much study of this event, there is still uncertainty over something as seemingly simple as a path.

Along with the scholars, generals and emperors have advanced their own pet theories. Five Alpine passes have been considered most often. From north to south these are the Little Saint Bernard (elevation 2,188 meters), the Mount Cenis (2,083), the Col du Clapier (2,482), the Mom Genevre (1,850) and the Col de la Traversette (2,914). A recent survey of 24 modern historians yielded the following results: Four chose the Little Saint Bernard, six selected the Mont Cenis, five designated the Col du Clapier and three named the Traversette. Napoleon Bonaparte declared the Mont Cenis as Hannibal's mute. Perhaps only the discovery of archeological remains may someday settle the issue. Until then, each succeeding generation of historians will be free to champion its claim regarding the one true pass.

While knowledge of an exact path may be inconsequential, validation of the actual route may lead to a greater knowledge of this great historical feat.

Great Battles in History: The Battle of Issos

The Battle of Issos was the second major battle between Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, and The Persian Empire. However, it was the first between Alexander and the Persian King Darius III. The battle took place in November 333 B.C.E., on the narrow coastal plain in modern day southern Turkey.

Alexander crossed into Anatolia in Spring 334 B.C.E., and after defeating local Persian forces at the Granicus River, he conquered Anatolia with relative ease. In 333 B.C.E. Darius III was eager to defeat this upstart and take back Anatolia. Darius III set out with his army numbering anywhere between 100,000 and 600,000 men. This large difference is because many ancient historians exaggerated their number. Anyway it is certain that Alexander was greatly out numbered.

Alexander moved his army into the narrow coastal plain. This was ideal landscape for Alexander because it took away the Persian advantage of numbers. Also, this terrain allowed him to be resupplied therefore, he could wait for Darius. Darius was not stupid, he did not want to fight Alexander there. His plan was to fight Alexander in the open Amik plains in modern day Syria. However, Alexander did not leave the coastal plains. Darius with a large army could not be supplied there indefinitely therefore, he had to go to Alexander.

Darius crossed Amanus Mountains to the north of Issos, which surprised Alexander, and cut off his supply lines. Battle was immanent. The armies met at the Pinarus River, Alexander set up his forces south of the river with Darius to the north. Alexander placed his infantry phalanx in the center, with Thessalian cavalry on his left, and himself with the rest of the cavalry on his right. Darius focused his infantry in the center with a good number on his flanks with the cavalry. Darius himself was in the center of the formation, protected by his bodyguard. Alexander started the battle by charging his right flank into the Persian left, causing the line to brake. In the center the infantry were in a stalemate, and on the Persian right the cavalry attacked the Thessalian cavalry, pushing them back. However, when the Persian left broke, Alexander turned the cavalry and flanked the Persian infantry in the center, causing them to flee. At this time the Persian cavalry retreated on the right flank. With the whole Persian line in flee and panic, Alexander charged Darius, cutting through his bodyguard. Darius, with the battle lost fled before Alexander got to him.

The Macedonians won a decisive victory. The casualty rates for the Persians were in the tens of thousands, while the Macedonians were in the hundreds. Two factors attribute to this. One, history is written by the victor, leading to exaggeration. Second, since the Persians were being routed, more of them were cut down. This battle left Alexander free to conquer the rest of the coastal plain and down into Egypt. Darius survived to fight another day, which came on October 1, 331 B.C.E. at the Battle of Gaugamela. There Darius was defeated again leaving Persepolis, the Persian capital, open to Alexander.

Alexander The Ambiguity of Greatness, Guy MacLean Rogers. Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2004.

The Terracotta Army, a Chinese National Treasure

So I guess I'm in for round two already. Might as well get another post out of the way for this week. This post will be one of the site link ones, so you can read up on more information about these interesting sculptures.

The Terracotta Army was unearthed in 1974 by archaeologists in Xian, Shaanxi Province. The archaeologists were summoned by several peasants who discovered ancient pottery when digging a well. During the years, three different pits have been excavated, containing thousands of the clay warriors, each one around actual size.

The earthen figures came in all sorts of different styles. They all have a variety of facial features, giving each sculpture a unique look when compared to his neighbors. It is believed that the ancient sculptors worked in an assembly line style to maximize output and achieve the individual features. Each part of the sculptures were sculpted separately and assembled at the end of the process. Scientists have discovered eight basic face shapes that utilize a plethora of different molds for facial features such as noses and lips. This mixing and matching allowed them to achieve all of the different faces of the soldiers. Along with facial differences, the soldiers were also arranged in combat formations and by rank. Their heights were used to show ranks in the army, with generals being the tallest sculptures. Also mixed in amongst the soldiers were musicians, government officials, horses, and chariots, allowing scientists to see a cross section of what made up a Chinese army at that time.

What kind of army would be complete without weapons and armor? The Qin era figures are wielding authentic weaponry from swords to crossbows and wearing armor modeled after the actual armor worn by their living counterparts. The armor of each soldier also comes in different styles based on his rank and job in the army. The foot soldiers all shared the same basic armor type, but officers and generals all had unique garb that signified their higher positions. Cavalrymen and archers also had their own types of armor that set them apart from the pack. Every soldier also came with Bronze age weapons fit for the battlefield. Many of the excavated weapons are still sharp and shiny, which shows that if the Chinese were willing to arm sculptures with such excellent weapons, then the weapons they gave to their living soldiers must be formidable indeed.

So what would be the point of this Terracotta Army? Why would anyone spend so much time and money into making the world's most useless army? The answer is that the first emperor of China, Shihuangdi, created them as part of his elaborate tomb. Around 221 BCE, Emperor Shihuangdi began construction of his tomb, which would not be finished until 210 BCE, right around the time that the Terracotta Army was being created. It is believed that Shihuangdi created the soldiers to either guard him in the afterlife, or help him establish a new kingdom in the next world.

Sadly enough, unfortunate events have led to the current state of decay of the Terracotta Army. Several years after Shihuangdi was buried, a Chinese general burned and looted the funeral complex, severely damaging almost all of the figures. Today, the clay soldiers are under assault from mold, pollution, and earthquakes. Scientists have begun to rebury some of the soldiers in order to preserve them for future generations.

For more information, visit
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/attraction/shaanxi/xian/terra_cotta_army/

As a side note, did anyone notice that one of the professors they interviewed in that video today never blinked? The one with the beard and the blue eyes in front of the statue of Athena. it made my eyes water just watching him talk. Feel free to comment or whatever.