PDA

View Full Version : Massaga


Lyssius
11-11-2007, 05:22 AM
from my recent study of Alexander, with an unusual slant (I was trying to prove him clinicaly insane. If you want to see the whole thing, just for kicks, PM me)

In the last battle I shall examine, we see the most notorious blot on Alexander’s record. This is the scene which allows, for example, one R.D. Milns to say "Alexander, like Hitler in 1945, could make himself believe the lies he was disseminating ".
The battle of Massaga came in 327 BC, partway through Alexander’s Indian campaign. After defeating the Indians from the Kunar Valley, Alexander made his way against the Asasakenoi, as they are known in classical literature. Massaga was the first fortress he came against. He began by trying to coerce them out of their fortress by feigning retreat, only to be caught against the walls with arrows falling down onto his Phalanx. One of these arrows managed to pierce Alexander, injuring him. The next three days had Alexander pounding on the walls with his Ballista and war engines, twice almost gaining entrance but being pushed back by a huge number of arrows. On the fifth day (at least according to Arrian) the Asasakenoi chieftain was killed by a bolt from a Macedonian ballista. The command was taken over by Cleophis, who brought all the women of the tribe against Alexander. This battle raged on for many more days until Alexander offered (According to everyone except Arrian) a peace with the Indians. The only clear and agreed part of this treaty was the evacuation of the tribesmen. However, when the Indians had gathered on a hill, Alexander, suddenly and without warning, attacked them. In a blatantly barbarous, bloody act of butchery, he massacred them. Every last man, woman and child there was murdered. All of the extant primary sources except Arrian utterly condemn this act and say it was unprovoked. Diodorus states that “Hardly could knavery know higher limits”. Plutarch; “this rests as foul blot on his martial fame”. Only Arrian tries to make Alexander sound good, saying that he only killed the mercenaries, and that they where going to betray him. However, scholars like Dr W. W. Tarn, Dr Buddha Prakash, the unquestioned authorities on the subject, after thorough investigation and analysis of classical accounts, conclude that Arrian has cleverly thrown a veil over the losses suffered by Alexander and has deliberately presented the Macedonian causality figures in much reduced numbers. Arrian has also cast a veil over how the brave Ashvakayanas had conducted themselves when faced with sudden treacherous onslaught from Alexander at Massaga, but Diodorus, his predecessor, gives a very vivid account of the train of events leading to the graphic carnage at Massaga, thus further spotlighting on Arrian's unreliability. Arrian has also tried to window-dress the despicable act of abject treachery and inexcusable perjury by Alexander's blatant violations of the peace treaty with the Ashvakayanas, thereby slaughtering the entire garrison of tribesmen as well as the innocent population of Massaga and razing the Massaga city to rubbles. And last but not the least, Arrian also tells lies when he asserts that the initiative for peace talks at Massaga came from the Ashvakayanas, but the statement of his predecessor, Plutarch, unequivocally proves that the peace initiative, rather, came from Alexander himself. The above facts are amply confirmed when Arrian's accounts are critically analyzed in the light of statements of his predecessors like Plutarch, Diodorus and Curtius.

What this all brings to question, if he truly attacked them without reason, then, is why would he suddenly engage in such a bloodthirsty act of barbary?
----------------


What do you think?

Victor
11-12-2007, 02:12 AM
What do you think?
THat you should learn to use paragraphs!!!:dry:

Lyssius
11-12-2007, 03:07 AM
I did, for some reason the forum deleted them

pankration
11-12-2007, 04:16 AM
The historian Mary Renault interestingly enough says this was "an act of calculated revenge" and that Diodorus' account is considered "propagandist". Sir Robert Warburton, an English explorer and adventurer in the 1800's spoke of the natives (apparently an unbroken line since ancient times) as distrusting and hostile to outsiders. In his opinion, Alexander could never have trusted them, regardless of any agreements. Interesting how different historians see things.
PS Mary Renault, "The Nature of Alexander" page 191

pankration
11-12-2007, 04:25 AM
Another one. Savill states in his book, Alexander the Great and his Time, that the historian Droysen doubts Diodorus' version. Droysen believes that Alexander's excellent intelligence gatherers found evidence of the Massagan mercenaries' plans to sneak away. Alexander ordered an action and "in the darkness the army was beyond normal control". If soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fight in chaos even with night scopes and infared devices, imagine what Alexander's troops had to go through. Droysen also believes that Alexander would not have reneged on a deal he personally made with fighters he admired. I'm sure we could find more varied accounts of Massaga.

Lyssius
11-12-2007, 11:23 PM
Well, considering Plutarch and Curtius both back Diodorus up, and Arrian is the -only- primary source who says that the indians where up to no good... it seems unlikely.

pankration
11-13-2007, 12:53 AM
Aaah....my learned friend. Both Plutarch and Curtius discounted Ptolemy's account and how much more of a primary source can you get than that. Regardless, if 2000 years of historians can't agree I don't feel bad about our discussion. Hell, it's nice to have to crack a book for a change considering the Slavic idiots we deal with on this forum.

Lyssius
11-13-2007, 04:47 AM
Ah, but Ptolemy was notoriously a kolax, a flatterer. The reason he is usually good when quoted by later historians is that he realisticly reported army sizes and casualties.