Arrian Books 4 & 5 Conference Call Recording (Andre’s Group)

Arrian Books 4 & 5 Call.mp3

Here’s the audio recording for the Arrian Books 4 & 5 conference call (Andre’s group).  Listen online or download the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.

13. September 2011 by astipanovic
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Reader Call | Comments Off on Arrian Books 4 & 5 Conference Call Recording (Andre’s Group)

Alexander the Great: to boldly go

 I have been meaning to post about this article regarding an intended TV series in 1964, starring William Shatner as Alexander and Adam West as Cleander. The link contains several YouTube clips from the series pilot, which was eventually released as a television movie in 1968. I got a kick of it and I think the group reading Arrian will enjoy it, too.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd4uTDlH0x4]

h

11. September 2011 by dwightgreen
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Commentary | Tags: , | 1 comment

Dean Karnazes: Marathon and the Moderns – Marathon2500 Lecture #5

Dean Karnazes, an internationally recognized endurance athlete and bestselling author, delivered a wonderful lecture, “Marathon and the Moderns”, with Marathon2500 Chairman Professor Paul Cartledge, February 9, 2011 via webinar.

Dean’s most recent accomplishment (as of this lecture) was running 50 marathons, in all 50 US states, in 50 consecutive days, finishing with the NYC Marathon, which he ran in three hours flat. Nobody thought this would be humanly possible prior to Karnazes historic undertaking.

Listen to the podcast here:

MarathonModerns-2-9-2011-DeanKarnazesM2500.mp3

– – –
Dean Karnazes Biography 

TIME magazine named him as one of the “Top 100 Most Influential People in the World.” Men’s Fitness hailed him as the fittest man on the planet. An internationally recognized endurance athlete and bestselling author, Dean Karnazes has pushed his body and mind to inconceivable limits. Among his many accomplishments, he has run 350 continuous miles, foregoing sleep for three nights. He’s run across Death Valley in 120 degree temperatures, and he’s run a marathon to the South Pole in negative 40 degrees. On ten different occasions, he’s run a 200-mile relay race solo, racing alongside teams of twelve. Dean Karnazes has swum the San Francisco Bay, scaled mountains, bike raced for 24-hours straight, and surfed the gigantic waves off the coast of Hawaii and California. His long list of competitive achievements include winning the world’s toughest footrace, the Badwater Ultramarathon, running 135 miles nonstop across Death Valley during the middle of summer.

His most recent endeavor was running 50 marathons, in all 50 US states, in 50 consecutive days, finishing with the NYC Marathon, which he ran in three hours flat. Nobody thought this would be humanly possible prior to Karnazes historic undertaking.

Dean Karnazes and his incredible adventures have been featured on 60 Minutes, The Late Show with David Letterman, CBS News, CNN, ESPN, The Howard Stern Show, NPR’s Morning Edition, the BBC, and many others. He has appeared on the cover of Runner’s World and Outside, and been featured in TIME, Newsweek, People, GQ, The New York Times, USA TODAY, The Washington Post, Men’s Journal, Forbes, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, and the London Telegraph, to mention a few. Dean Karnazes is a monthly columnist for Men’s Health, the largest Men’s publication in the world.

Books

1. Run!: 26.2 Stories of Blisters and Bliss (2011)
2. Ultramarathon Man: Confessions of an All-Night Runner (2005) was a National Bestseller and the #7 selling sports book worldwide.
3. 50/50: Secrets I Learned Running 50 Marathons in 50 Days — and How You Too Can Achieve Super Endurance! (2009)

 

 

11. August 2011 by Phil Terry
Categories: Marathon2500 | Tags: , , , | Comments Off on Dean Karnazes: Marathon and the Moderns – Marathon2500 Lecture #5

Arrian – Books IV & V Discussion Questions

Books IV & V include Alexander’s campaigns in Central Asia and the Indus river valleys in India spanning the years 329-326 B.C.  Book IV begins at the Tanais/Iaxartes river on the western side of the Indian Caucasus mountains and ends with Alexander reaching the Indus River on the wastern side.  Book V involves Alexander’s campaign on the river plains of five rivers that merge into the Indus, a campaign which is his farthest east.

1.  Between the Scythians and Spitamenes [4.3.6-4.6.5, pp. 156-160]
As Alexander continues to subjugate and, to some extent, colonize the northeast corner of the former Persian empire, he finds himself dealing with rebel tribes as well as intervening incursions from the Scythians.  His most pressing moment at the beginning of Book IV comes when “Alexander suddenly faces two new difficulties:  Scythians threatening his northern frontier and an uprising led by Spitamenes against his troops in Marakanda” (p. 156, side note).  Why does Arrian decide to include the anecdote about the omen in connection with the Scythian battle?  How does Alexander manage to rout the Scythian cavalry given that he has a river to cross and that the Scythians on the other side are famous for their mobile cavalry?  How does Alexander manage to chase off Spitamenes and his forces?  What do these two very different encounters have in common when it comes to Alexander’s strategy and planning?

2.  Alexander and the limits of power [4.7.3-4.14, pp. 160-172]
Alexander’s mutilation of Bessos raises some very pressing questions for Arrian and for us.  How does Arrian assess Alexander’s decision making at this point?  Why does Arrian compare the Bessos episode with a later episode that involves Alexander killing his fellow officer and friend Kleitos?  What important issues does the altercation between Alexander and Kleitos raise in terms of Alexander’s overall mission?  or his ability to lead?  How does the episode of Kallisthenes and Alexander’s concern for his image relate to the previous anecdotes?  As Arrian relates the “Pages’ Conspiracy” against Alexander, what does Hermolaos say that resonates deeply among the Macedonian officers?  Is Kallisthenes’ ultimate punishment the result of paranoia or cruelty on Alexander’s part?  or is it rational and practical?

3.  Marriage proposals & new goals [4.15-4.22, pp. 172-184]
After refusing a marriage proposal from the Scythians and an offer by the Khorasmian king to campaign with him against the Colchians, Alexander decides to keep pushing east into India:  “He said that for the time being he was occupied with India, because once he had subdued the Indians he would control all of Asia” (p. 173).  What does the omen of the spring (p. 173) have to do with Alexander’s course into India?  Aside from the battle that Spitamenes initiates against a Macedonian garrison, what leads to Spitamenes’ downfall?  What, if anything, did Alexander have to do with this?  Why does Alexander consider it a challenge to subdue the “Sogdian Rock” instead of bypassing it?  How does Oxyartes manage to surrender to Alexander and still be esteemed by him?  Does Alexander’s decision concerning Oxyartes have anything to do with the princess Rhoxane?  How does Oxyartes prove himself again to be valuable to Alexander?  How does Khorianes’ surrender bring further encouragement for Alexander to push on to India?

4.  The drive into India [4.23-4.30, pp. 184-194]
As Alexander’s army makes its way through the Indian Caucasus, he is wounded along with two other Macedonian generals.  How does this incident emphasize the resistance that Alexander is to encounter from here on?  How does this incident affect Alexander’s determination to press on?  How is Alexander able to win battles against overwhelming numbers at Arigaion and at Massaka?  How does Alexander use his forces and intimidation to neutralize Bazira, Ora, and eventually Aornos Rock?  How does the Aornos Rock battle combine all the different elements that Alexander uses to achieve victory?  How does Alexander handle prisoners at this point?

5.  Legends and Myths [5.1-5.3.4, pp. 197-200]
As Alexander arrives to the bank of the Indus, Book 5 opens with Arrian’s thoughts on the attributions of legend and myth to these far-flung locations on what the Greeks generally considered the edge of the known world.  What does Arrian mean when he says:  “For stories that strike a listener as incredible because they violate our sense of what is probable begin to seem credible when an element of the divine is added” (p. 197).  What does Arrian think about the legend of Dionysos founding Nysa?  How closely related are the Indians beliefs with Greek cultural beliefs about Dionysos or Prometheus?  How does Alexander respond to these similarities between cultures?  Does Alexander’s promotion of the cult of Dionysos or Prometheus have anything to do with some brewing dissatisfaction among his troops?  What light does Eratosthenes’ critique shed on the effect of these myths for the Macedonian troops at this point in the campaign?

Indika, Arrian’s travel guide [5.3.5-5.6, pp. 200-205]
Since many fantastic things had been said about India, Arrian takes the opportunity to try to revise myths with more historical fact in his own book, the Indika.  Here, Arrian mingles geography, ethnography, and to some extent, historiography in setting the stage for events in Book 5 and the limit of Alexander’s conquests.  For more details on Greek and Roman notions of Asia and India, please see appendices J and N.

6.  Battle at the Hydaspes [5.7-5.19.3, pp. 205-221]
After crossing the Indus safely, Alexander has the confidence to attack across the Hydaspes and engage Poros and a sizable Indian force, which includes war elephants.  How are Alexander’s initial plans affected by this elephant force?  Even though he was unfortunately slowed in his crossing, how was Alexander able to avoid being pinned down on the other side of the Hydaspes by Poros?  Was Poros’ disposition of his troops what Alexander planned on?  How was Alexander’s deployment of forces able to gain the upper hand on the battlefield?  In the end, how did the elephants affect the battle?  Could they have been used more effectively by Poros?  Does Alexander consider them useful in military engagement?  How does Poros change from being Alexander’s most threatening Indian enemy to being a trustworthy ally?

7.  Ever Eastward [5.19.4-5.24.7, pp. 221-227]
After winning at the Hydaspes and treating the “good” Poros as a king, Alexander “seized some thirty-seven cities” (p. 222) and crossed the Akesinos and Hydraotes rivers in pursuit of the “bad” Poros.  The action centers around Sangala, where the Macedonians assault defenses and besiege the city.  Given the unique defensive obstacles placed in their way, how does the Macedonian phalanx adapt to attack the Sanga
la defenders?  With Sangala almost completely surrounded, why doesn’t Alexander allow the defenders to escape?  Why does Alexander resolve to take the city by force rather than make any negotiations?  What sort of policy is Alexander using to subjugate these rebel tribes?  While “good” Poros did indeed help Alexander as he pledged, whatever happened to “bad” Poros?

8.  Mutiny at the Hyphasis [5.24.8-5.29, pp. 227-234]
At Hyphasis, the fifth major Indian river, Alexander “saw no end to the war as long as any enemy remained” (p. 227).  There were considerable enemies left to fight and land to seize, but the Macedonian troops seem to lack the “same zeal” to continue.  What does Alexander really think is the cause of his troops (some of them at least) to not want to continue the campaign?  Addressing his officers, Alexander makes his plea to continue.  What does Alexanders’ list of all the conquered territories reveal about his own intentions?  about what he perceives his troops’ refusal to be?  Alexander asks, “What limit should a man of noble nature put to his labors?” (p. 228).  This has been a key question up to now.  What limits have the Macedonian troops met to incline them to halt?  What are Alexander’s limits?  wealth?  power?  knowledge?  fame?  all four?  Is Alexander’s claim that they have surpassed even Herakles’ and Dionysos’ earthly achievements a breach of hubris?  In Koinos’ reply, what sort of limit does he have in mind?  What does Koinos’ suggestion of bringing in new soldiers mean for Alexander’s continuation of the campaign in India?  By whom was Alexander the Great finally conquered?

15. July 2011 by astipanovic
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Study Questions | Comments Off on Arrian – Books IV & V Discussion Questions

Arrian Book 3 Conference Call Recording (Andre’s Group)

Arrian Book 3 call.mp3

Here’s the audio recording for the Arrian Book 3 conference call (Andre’s group).  Listen online or download the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.

12. July 2011 by astipanovic
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Reader Call | Comments Off on Arrian Book 3 Conference Call Recording (Andre’s Group)

Arrian: Alexander and the Greeks, burning down the house

 As I mentioned in an earlier post, the paradoxical figure of Alexander continues to emerge in Book Three. I wanted to look a little at Alexander’s relationship with the Greeks, leading to the dismissal of Greek troops at Ecbatana (3.19.5-8) and the burning of the royal palace of Persepolis (3.18.10-12).

 

The relationship between Alexander and the Greeks proved to be a combination of admiration and distrust, a balancing act aiming for gentle subjugation—Appendix M by James Romm provides a great summary of the relationship over time. Alexander did more to spread Greek culture to the world, yet he was also responsible for the slaughter of a tremendous number of Greek civilians and troops in addition to undermining liberty in many of the city/states. The Theban revolt (1.7-9) laid bare the feelings of some Greek leaders. Footnote 1.7.11b highlights the divergence between the histories of Arrian and Diodorus, although according to Diodorus the Thebans did more than hurl` insults at Alexander: “In response, the Thebans with equal spirit proclaimed from a high tower that anyone who wished to join the Great King and Thebes in freeing the Greeks and destroying the tyrant of Greece should come over to them. (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, translation by C. Bradford Welles, 17.9.5). Such taunts and calls could not and did not end well for Thebes. The attitude that Alexander was the “tyrant of Greece” resonated in other cities, notably Demosthenes of Athens, who provided what support he could to Thebes. The appeal to accept Persian support against Alexander, though, demonstrates how some leaders viewed the relative threat of Alexander.

  Continue Reading →

08. July 2011 by dwightgreen
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Commentary | Tags: , | 1 comment

Arrian: Book Three—Gaugamela

Alexander deserves the glory which he has enjoyed for so many centuries and among all nations; but what if he had been beaten at Arbela [Gaugamela] having the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the deserts in his rear, without any strong places of refuge, nine hundred leagues from Macedonia?”

Napoleon, from The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: From Marathon to Waterloo, Sir Edward Creasy

 

Gaugamela covers a significant part of Book Three in The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander (translation by Pamela Mensch), the battle covering chapters 8 through 16. Alexander continues to emerge as a paradoxical figure on many levels and I wanted to look at a few examples surrounding the battle that highlight contradictions or changes in his behavior. Parmenion proves to be a troubling point in evaluating Alexander—the general responsible for anchoring one wing while Alexander attacked the other side ends up being a victim because of his success. Parmenion’s role in the Persian campaign’s battles could be summed up as having to avoid annihilation while Alexander wins the day. Gaugamela proved to be the one battle where Parmenion almost failed on that assignment.

  Continue Reading →

07. July 2011 by dwightgreen
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Commentary | Tags: , | Comments Off on Arrian: Book Three—Gaugamela

Alexander, the great administrator?

 Book Three sees several changes in Alexander’s administrative choices and style. To date, most of the officers installed by Alexander as he marched through Ionia and the Levant have been Macedonians friends or trustees. The exceptions in the first two books, such as Queen Ada who had surrendered Alinda and “adopted” Alexander (1.23.7-8), stand out because they are so different from his other appointees. Starting with Egypt, though, we begin to see him implementing a structure that separated duties, oftentimes leaving locals or natives in charge politically while trusted assistants were in charge of the military. Alexander rewarded loyalty, even if the allegiances had been to Darius (such as Phrataphernes 3.23.4) or to his opponents (Andronikos, in charge of Greek mercenaries facing Alexander 3.24.4-5).

 

One possible reason for the change in appointments is that Alexander moved from areas that had, at least at one time, a favorable history with the Greeks and into more hostile territory. Alexander seems to take a pragmatic approach toward Egypt and Persia. Was he setting an example by leaving much of the administration intact in areas that peacefully surrendered in order to minimize resistance, at that locale in addition to the areas he campaigned next? It’s not as if those surrendering had much choice since Darius had fled, but Alexander’s actions might have helped influence the ease in transition. “You’re welcome to govern yourself, to some extent, as long as you submit to me” seems to be the message.  

  Continue Reading →

01. July 2011 by dwightgreen
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Commentary | Tags: , | 1 comment

The oracle of Ammon

Chapters 3 and 4 of Book Three cover Alexander’s visit to the shrine of Ammon, but questions raised by this trip linger long after the close of these chapters. Even though Arrian provides detail about the journey, full of marvels and supernatural events, his list of Alexander’s motivations and the uncertainty of the trip’s results elevate its strangeness.

 

A sudden desire now seized Alexander to visit and consult Ammon in Libya, both because the oracle of Ammon was said to be truthful and because Perseus and Herakles had consulted it… . Alexander was engaged in a rivalry with Perseus and Herakles, as both heroes were his kinsmen. Moreover, he sought to trace his own birth to Ammon, just as the myths trace the births of Perseus and Herakles to Neus. In any case, he set out with this in mind and imagined that he would obtain more precise knowledge of his own affairs, or at least would say he had obtained it.

(3.3.1-2), The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, translation by Pamela Mensch, used for all quotes and references to notes.

  Continue Reading →

28. June 2011 by dwightgreen
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Commentary | Tags: , | 1 comment

Arrian – Book III Discussion Questions

1.  The Pilgrimage to the shrine of Ammon [3.3-3.4]
After Alexander enters Egypt, founds Alexandria, and solidifies his control of the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. 3.1-3.2), he decides to take a long detour to visit the shrine of Ammon.  What are his reasons for doing this?  What is Arrian’s commentary on this pilgrimage?  How could this detour be seen as a wise move for Alexander?  How could it be seen as a dangerous move for Alexander?

2.  Preliminary moves at Gaugamela [3.7-3.10]
After Alexander sends his naval forces to help put down insurrection in the Peloponnese and appoints trustworthy administrators in Egypt (3.6), he continues to advance farther into Persia against Darius.  Given the choice of a battleground removed further into Persia’s interior as well as the composition of Darius’ forces, what could Darius’ overall strategy be at this point?  What danger does Alexander’s army face as they approach Darius’ army and advance deeper into enemy territory?  As they close in on Darius, why does Alexander disregard Parmenion’s suggestion that the Macedonians attack at night?

3.  The Battle of Gaugamela – Darius’ opening assault [3.11-3.13]
How does Darius’ position threaten the Macedonian army?  In what ways can it succeed?  Could Darius’ plan have worked?  What advantages did the Persians have at this point in the battle?  How were the Macedonians prepared to deal with Darius’ initial assault?  

4.  The Battle of Gaugamela – Alexander’s counter-attack [3.14-3.15]
How were Alexander’s plans formed in response to Darius’ initial deployment?  What weakness did Alexander exploit in the Persian line?  Was this planned beforehand?  Was Alexander counting on this break?  What was Alexander prepared to risk?  How much luck was involved in Alexander’s plans to face Darius at Gaugamela?

5. Persian capital cities taken [3.16, 3.18.10-12]
Alexander’s spoils at Babylon and Susa are used by him both to honor and to help control the Greeks back home.  How does this fact relate (if at all) to Alexander’s occupation of Persepolis?  Did Alexander intentionally burn Persepolis?  What would the advantages and disadvantages be for taking the credit for such a deed?  How does this relate, for example, to the scandal associated with Alexander’s earlier sack of Thebes in Book I?

6.  Alexander pursues Darius into Media [3.19-3.24]
Even after Alexander captures the Persian King’s palace, he relentlessly chases Darius out of Ecbatana and through Media.  As he gets closer to his goal, Alexander symbolically “advanced to the edge of inhabited territory” (3.20.4).  Likewise, he reaches the end of Darius’ trail and has to make decisions about what to do with the remnants of the Persian army.  How did Alexander hope to finally confront Darius?  How did he actually find Darius?  How does Arrian portray Darius when summarizing his life?  In what ways does Alexander take over Darius’ role as king of Persia?  With Darius finally out of the way, why must Alexander continue his pursuit?  Who still remains as a threat to Alexander?  How must he handle them?

7.  Uprisings and Conspiracies [3.25-3.27]
Far from inheriting a settled Persian empire, Alexander must still deal with disparate and rebellious pockets of resistance both without and within his inner circle.  How does Satibarzanes take advantage of Alexander’s trust in him?  What is Philotas’ crime and does it really merit such punishment?  In the wake of such threats to his power, how does Alexander now view his Persian appointees?  his own Macedonian officer corps?  Who can Alexander still trust to support him?

8.  Bessos and the last holdouts [3.28-3.30]
Just as Book III opened with Alexander founding his eponymous city in Egypt, it ends with another Alexandria being founded in the Indian Caucasus.  Given this landscape, the season of the year, and the vastness of Central Asia, what was Bessos able to count on so that he might not be captured by Alexander?  What are Alexander’s main goals at the point and what is he able to do in order to achieve them?  What does the Macedonian army look like after having traversed across Central Asia?  How has the army changed and why?  In such different conditions from Europe, how is the Macedonian army still able to win against enemy tribes?  What if anything can stand in Alexander’s way at this point?  What part does loyalty and treason play in the latter half of Book III?  What part have these issues played earlier in Books I and II leading up to this point in Arrian’s Anabasis?

16. June 2011 by astipanovic
Categories: Arrian-Alexander, Study Questions | Comments Off on Arrian – Book III Discussion Questions

← Older posts

Newer posts →