Of Satraps and Kings

[WotanArgead]

I must disagree here: Aristotle was pretty much a universal genius, and the negative interpretation of his achievements ("a bunch of prejudices of his time") is completely unwarranted. It's a misconception which I find is usually based on an overzealous reading of Betrand Russell's critique of Aristotle. Russel essentially pointed out all the vast flaws in Aristotle's thinking, stating that every advance in thinking for the past few thousand essentially had to start with first dismantling some Aristotelian dogma or other. True, but he then also points out that from that perspective, it's all too easy to forget that those Aristotelian dogmas are so common because the man essentially contributed - on a fundamental level - to every single field of knowledge known in his day.
He was often wrong, which he could hardly not be, in a pre-scientific age, but he was usually far less wrong than his predecessors and contemporaries. What I'm trying to say is: lots of Renaissance thinkers and Enlightenment thinkers were also wrong about a lot. Isaac Newton believed firmly in the mystical truth of alchemy, for instance. Aristotle may have been period-typically terrible about politics and social issues, but the fact remains that he was a "universal genius", who was as well-schooled in every field as anyone in his day, and contributed to all those fields.
If he'd been born in the Renaissance, with access to the knowledge of that time, he'd be the Renaissance man.

I'm not talking about the fact that he was largely wrong (him was not available knowledge of subsequent ages, like all of us). I mean that sometimes he ignored some of his contemporaries.
Firstly was already aware of the fact that Africa is surrounded by sea from the east, through Phoenician mariners. But he is convinced that Alexander is the Nile and the Indus is the same river.
Secondly Eudoxus Cnidus, who lived in Egypt numbered ball on the star Canopus sizes Gaia 330 thousand furlongs in a circle. He, as well as Anaximander of Miletus and Democritus wrote that the distances to the stars incomprehensible great for the human mind that not all stars are visible to people, and that there are many planets like ours. I can also add that even the Babylonians knew about the existence of Uranus. But he confined himself to the seven planets. Generally in the natural philosophers, he looked down, despite the fact that many of them, he was obliged to.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Who is this incredibly intelligent man from Astakos whose philosophies are so... practical?

I appreciate the shout-out.

Minor pedantic correction: you say that one fo the goals of government is pursuit of aponia, but also describe aponia as physical pain. Is aponia the absence of pain?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Interesting, Apollonian Epicurianism seems to be acting in the Argead Empire much the same way Confucianism did in most Chinese empires. I wonder, how much of a conflict is there between Apollonian Epicurianism and Hemarchian Epicurianism? Let alone with Stoicism, Pythagorianism or Platonism. Still, it is interesting to see that Amyntas gave up his throne willingly, which suggests he and Alexander get on, especially as Amyntas as not been locked away but rather given freedom and significant financial resources. The mention of a royal court in Karkhêdon is also interesting, it seems to indicate that, if not officially, Ptolomy is for all intents and purposes independant. The establishment of multiple great libraries and centres of learning is also interesting, and perhaps points to a faster technological progression. On the other hand, of course, it might just come crashing down around everyone's ears in a few generations with little to show for it long term. Regardless, very interesting and I look forward to more of these cultural updates. They really are my favourites.

Indeed. I put in a lot of Easter eggs for the future in there. I really enjoy writing these cultural updates since I learn a lot too-i spent a lot of time the past few days immersing myself in all the vast differences in pre Socratic thought, which was really fascinating.

Wow. That's a bit as if John Locke just showed up two thousand years early. That will certainly have major effects. Not just philosophically, but politically as well. I'm particularly excited to see it in an Epicurean context, which school of thought seems set to to be far more succesful in this TL than in OTL.




Stoicism, on the other hand, comes across as a bit stunted compared to OTL. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but either way, I'd be happy to see a TL where Epicureanism does better, while stoicism fades more to the background.

Not quite John Locke; there's no concept of natural rights yet but definitely a major leap in political and social theory. Stoicism is indeed stunted, one of the things I wanted to explore in this timeline is a more dominant and influential Epicureanism. Though stoicism will still be around, but here its reduced more to the place Epicureanism occupied IOTL.

Who is this incredibly intelligent man from Astakos whose philosophies are so... practical?

I appreciate the shout-out.

Minor pedantic correction: you say that one fo the goals of government is pursuit of aponia, but also describe aponia as physical pain. Is aponia the absence of pain?

It was enjoyable to write.

Whoops, good catch on the error.

 

[WotanArgead]

Do not you think that without the Stoics harder it will be to lay the foundations of humanistic morality?

 

[Practical Lobster]

It's a stunning idea that a revolt against a ruler who fails to promote tranquility is now seemingly justified in political thought. Someone above me compared that to a Mandate of Heaven, but I think it could become far more influential than that.

Also the references to Rome seemed to me to indicate a separate Roman sphere that maybe doesn't come to dominate the Hellenistic world but exists somewhat separately to it. I'm very excited to see the alternate path of Rome - as a non-Romanophile I'm hoping for a continued Etruscan and Samnite civilization, since those guys dont get explored enough in alternate history.

Edit: the top photo in your post is also probably the closest a Greek statue will ever come to looking like my face. Surreal.

 

[Frrf]

Indeed. I put in a lot of Easter eggs for the future in there. I really enjoy writing these cultural updates since I learn a lot too-i spent a lot of time the past few days immersing myself in all the vast differences in pre Socratic thought, which was really fascinating.

Pre Socratic philosophy really is very interesting. I have a particular fondness for Anaximander, and his oddly prescient conception of evolution, crude as it was. It is very sad that we have so little left of the presocratic's works, perhaps in this timeline it might not be so, with so many competing libraries and schools.

 

[WotanArgead]

Pre Socratic philosophy really is very interesting. I have a particular fondness for Anaximander, and his oddly prescient conception of evolution, crude as it was. It is very sad that we have so little left of the presocratic's works, perhaps in this timeline it might not be so, with so many competing libraries and schools.

Alas, these ideas turned out to be premature. There were no conditions for their adoption.

 

[AJNolte]

Two political theory points:
First, there's a rather lively debate in the field as to whether Plato's ideal society described in the republic was something Plato thought should actually be implemented or merely a hypothetical thought experiment designed to get at the question "what is justice"? I tend to think the latter, and I think the laws and the statesman probably more accurately reflect his actual political thought. [In the same way, you can't say the Prince incapsulates Machiaveli's political theory as the discourses are radically different].

Second, I think even conceiving of society as bound together by a social contract is... problematic for Greek thought. There's a lot of implicit state of nature stuff in the contractarians that's just different for Greeks. Also keep in mind that the natural law theories of Cicero, Aquinas and the medieval canonists were a pretty important pre-cursor to contract theory.

You may be able to get to where you want to go with epicureanism, but I don't think you can do it using contractarian ideas that just don't fit into the Greek philosophical frame.

Also, Hellenistic philosophies are answering very different questions than their forebears. The reason epicureans and many stoics avoided political theory was that their philosophies were geared more toward dealing with what we today might call psychological questions such as anxiety than great questions of justice. Now, you could certainly see epicureans following the line of thought that what is good for the individual man is good for society as well [Plato makes a lot of analogies like this].

So what you get looks a lot more like hierarchical, aristocratic, somewhat communitarian [Greeks weren't nearly as individualistic as moderns in a lot of ways] utilitarianism than social contract theory IMHO. Which is certainly different and interesting, but I would say it also has a huge potential for abuse by bad rulers.

 

[Damian0358]

With the slightly stunted nature of Stoicism, I wonder how this will affect Cynicism, as the rise of Stoicism caused a decline in its use.

 

[Practical Lobster]

I took Sly's use of the word contract as mapping an OTL notion onto a rather different greek concept - essentially the polis writ large. The idea of the philosopher king having the obligation to prevent suffering and ensure tranquility doesn't seem outside the range of Greek thought, and seems in some ways like an antidote to the uncertainties that would develop after the civil war era and with the dawn of a new Hellenic era - the polity has a right to be well governed by an enlightened monarch and if that doesn't exist the monarch can be replaced.

We shouldn't try to map the fictional teachings Apollonios onto Locke or Hobbs - as you say the Greeks are rather communitarian. Nor do I think they would invent a state of nature or anything like that. Insomuch as they'd even describe anything as a contract, which they wouldn't, the agreement is between the whole assembly of citizens and the ruler, I'd suggest, not individuals and the state. And it's not a real agreement in any case.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Two political theory points:
First, there's a rather lively debate in the field as to whether Plato's ideal society described in the republic was something Plato thought should actually be implemented or merely a hypothetical thought experiment designed to get at the question "what is justice"? I tend to think the latter, and I think the laws and the statesman probably more accurately reflect his actual political thought. [In the same way, you can't say the Prince incapsulates Machiaveli's political theory as the discourses are radically different].

This is true.

Second, I think even conceiving of society as bound together by a social contract is... problematic for Greek thought. There's a lot of implicit state of nature stuff in the contractarians that's just different for Greeks. Also keep in mind that the natural law theories of Cicero, Aquinas and the medieval canonists were a pretty important pre-cursor to contract theory.

You may be able to get to where you want to go with epicureanism, but I don't think you can do it using contractarian ideas that just don't fit into the Greek philosophical frame.

Also, Hellenistic philosophies are answering very different questions than their forebears. The reason epicureans and many stoics avoided political theory was that their philosophies were geared more toward dealing with what we today might call psychological questions such as anxiety than great questions of justice. Now, you could certainly see epicureans following the line of thought that what is good for the individual man is good for society as well [Plato makes a lot of analogies like this].

So what you get looks a lot more like hierarchical, aristocratic, somewhat communitarian [Greeks weren't nearly as individualistic as moderns in a lot of ways] utilitarianism than social contract theory IMHO. Which is certainly different and interesting, but I would say it also has a huge potential for abuse by bad rulers.

I took Sly's use of the word contract as mapping an OTL notion onto a rather different greek concept - essentially the polis writ large. The idea of the philosopher king having the obligation to prevent suffering and ensure tranquility doesn't seem outside the range of Greek thought, and seems in some ways like an antidote to the uncertainties that would develop after the civil war era and with the dawn of a new Hellenic era - the polity has a right to be well governed by an enlightened monarch and if that doesn't exist the monarch can be replaced.

We shouldn't try to map the fictional teachings Apollonios onto Locke or Hobbs - as you say the Greeks are rather communitarian. Nor do I think they would invent a state of nature or anything like that. Insomuch as they'd even describe anything as a contract, which they wouldn't, the agreement is between the whole assembly of citizens and the ruler, I'd suggest, not individuals and the state. And it's not a real agreement in any case.

Basically, what Practical Lobster said. The social contract as Apollonius describes it is not as enlightenment philosophers would describe it. It is not wrapped in liberal ideals, it is merely an extension of Aristotle's view on the polis as a partnership. He applies this partnership to the entire state as a whole.

 

[AJNolte]

I took Sly's use of the word contract as mapping an OTL notion onto a rather different greek concept - essentially the polis writ large. The idea of the philosopher king having the obligation to prevent suffering and ensure tranquility doesn't seem outside the range of Greek thought, and seems in some ways like an antidote to the uncertainties that would develop after the civil war era and with the dawn of a new Hellenic era - the polity has a right to be well governed by an enlightened monarch and if that doesn't exist the monarch can be replaced.

We shouldn't try to map the fictional teachings Apollonios onto Locke or Hobbs - as you say the Greeks are rather communitarian. Nor do I think they would invent a state of nature or anything like that. Insomuch as they'd even describe anything as a contract, which they wouldn't, the agreement is between the whole assembly of citizens and the ruler, I'd suggest, not individuals and the state. And it's not a real agreement in any case.

Ah, that makes sense. And given the somewhat therapeutic nature of Hellenistic philosophy, the idea of being well-governed as being protected from suffering also could make sense.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Ah, that makes sense. And given the somewhat therapeutic nature of Hellenistic philosophy, the idea of being well-governed as being protected from suffering also could make sense.

Basically a Hellenistic version of the Mandate from Heaven. Sort of, not really.

 

[Russian]

This philosophy was attractive to Alexander IV as a justification for his rule, solidifying his attachment to Epicurean thought. Different versions of it would proliferate, with a particularly unique take being taken in Karkhedon and Rome.

Oh, Rome mentioned again.
That's intriguing what part to play SlyDessertFox reserved for Rome later in his TL...

 

[What if]

Just read through TTL, very good so far I'm interested to see how things develop.

I'm curious what Ptolemy, Alexander the 4th and Rome gets up to and I'm very interested in how Epicureanism and stoicism develop.

 

[Damian0358]

Thinking of this TL, I was reminded of how, beyond Faeelin's, Daeres' and Practical Lobster's interpretations (at least, they are the only ones that come to mind currently), we haven't seen much in the way of a more personalized Buddhism develop in the West, such as a Hellenistic Buddhism that evolved to be as unique as the ones developed in China, Tibet and Southeast Asia.

Since we haven't seen any proper mentions of the teaching in this timeline, and the apparent lack of Ashoka in India, it would be interesting to see how things develop in that regard, especially in a Hellenistic world dominated by Epicurean thought.

 

[Sextus Munatius Piso]

I want more of Ptolmaic Carthage (and how the hell Hannibal survived the butterflies).

PS: latest chapter not yet threadmarked.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Oh, Rome mentioned again.
That's intriguing what part to play SlyDessertFox reserved for Rome later in his TL...

Well their introduction to the timeline is coming soon when Demetrius arrives in Etruria.

Just read through TTL, very good so far I'm interested to see how things develop.

I'm curious what Ptolemy, Alexander the 4th and Rome gets up to and I'm very interested in how Epicureanism and stoicism develop.

Glad you're enjoying it.

I want more of Ptolmaic Carthage (and how the hell Hannibal survived the butterflies).

PS: latest chapter not yet threadmarked.

Ptolemaic Carthage is best Carthage. Also, the chapter is now threadmarked, thanks for pointing that out.


I hope to get an update out soon.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

To make up for the long wait, I have two updates to present to you today, and another on the way soon.

Chapter XXI: Peukestas's Annabasis

​

Despite being repulsed at the gates of Egypt, Peukestas was at the zenith of his power in 304 BCE. With the exception of Egypt, the wealthiest parts of Alexander The Great’s empire were under his control. At its core, Peukestas had successfully pandered to the old Achaemenid elite, who now formed the backbone of his rule. Unique among Alexander The Great’s successors, Peukestas had fully embraced Persian culture, being the only one among Alexander’s inner circle who had bothered to learn the Persian language, and was now reaping the dividends on what turned out to be a shrewd policy. It was a somewhat delicate balancing act; to the Makedonian and Greek soldiery, he was less a Persian monarch and more of the Makedonian kings of old; prostration was not required, though the Persians had already began taking to this even before he officially crowned himself king.

On the surface, Peukestid domination over the empire seemed an insurmountable reality. He many times the wealth of Seleukos and the legitimists in Egypt, and possessed unmatched military superiority. The best cavalrymen and light infantry in the empire were at his disposal, and hardened veterans formed the core of his phalangites. His ambitions had been temporarily halted at Gaza, but the war that had ended there had seen its fair share of successes. Legitimist naval power had been smashed at Salamis, and with Cyprus and much of the Levant under Peukestid control, large swathes prime cedar forests essential for re-building what had been lost were closed off. With Seleukos tied up in Greece and the legitimists licking their wounds in Egypt, there was no force capable of challenging his supremacy in the west.

Yet a closer look would reveal serious cracks in Peukestas’s position, even at this juncture. The most obvious of these cracks was the contradiction of his position. Peukestas was ostensibly still acting under the authority of Alexander IV, who was, if not in actuality, still technically the recognized sovereign over the whole of his father’s empire. The original justification for war had been Perdikkas’s supposed moves towards seizing kingship, a similar charge to which had been laid against Hephaistion in earlier years. Officially, Peukestas was acting in the best interests of the King Alexander, who, now 18, was capable of ruling himself.

Alexander, of course had accompanied Eumenes in his battle against Peukestas in Gaza, which had laid bare the absurdity in the twisted logic that served to justify the independent ambitions of many of the major players in this saga. It was a contradiction that worried Peukestas enough for him to resolve it once and for all. As long as he technically paid lip service to Alexander’s rightful claim to the empire, he risked this being used against him should he ever face the teenage king in battle again. Exhortations to the troops to not fight their legitimate sovereign could cause enough defections to be fatal.

Resolving this dilemma, Peukestas discarded the veneer of one empire under the rule of Alexander IV in the winter of 304, and crowned himself King at Babylon, to much pomp and circumstance. The impetus for this was victory in the war against Eumenes and Perdikkas, never minding that their very presence in Egypt was visible proof of the failure of his war aims.

This may have solved one dilemma, but it also placed further emphasis on the other major pitfall that faced Peukestas. His “empire” was one based almost entirely on his person, and his ability to personally manage the loyalty of his followers. Having come across this empire almost accidentally, with little time spent building an actual state it was incredibly vulnerable to damages to his personal prestige. Only in Persis, his old satrapy granted by Alexander, did he have a firm and secure power base. Elsewhere, there were only ad hoc relationships set up more for expediency than any long term administrative plan. This resembled much the same structure that had characterized Alexander The Great’s own rule over his newly conquered empire. Unlike Alexander, whose stature and renown ensured he would have no rivals, Peukestas was operating in a much more fragmented world, with men with the ability, ambition, and boldness to take advantage of this structural weakness. It was a problem that would plague Peukestas for the remainder of his life.

Nowhere was this quandary more conspicuous than in the Upper Satrapies, which presented a recurring thorn in the side of Peukestid ambitions. This prickly thorn was personified in Peithon, the man of scheming and intrigue who had managed to salvage Makedonian fortunes in India while also causing unending trouble in the bordering satrapies. That Peukestas was never fully able to develop a solution for his eastern problem, and for the machinations of Peithon in particular, is a testament to this weakness that simmered beneath the surface.

The powerful Eumedon, from his entrenched base in Media, had his own ambitions in the region, and though ostensibly aligned with Peukestas, these ambitions did not always align with his own. This caused problems of its own, as Eumedon extended his influence in this region, while working with Peukestas to deal with Peithon. Yet despite his not inconsiderable power, this in and of itself should not have posed a significant problem for Peukestas, whose military resources and diplomatic power dwarfed that of his lesser ally.

Of greater importance was how Peukestas viewed the eastern fringes of his empire relative to his own ambitions. Time and again, it became obvious that the far east was a distraction to Peukestas’s goals, and campaigns here were something that were to be wrapped up more urgent matters that needed his attention in the west. Thus the time and resources necessary to carefully solidify his authority in this region and decisively deal with Peithon were never applied. Instead, Peukestas opted for half measures and patchwork solutions that put out the immediate fire but also ensured the region would inevitably flare up once more after his departure.

Such was the case in 303, when Peukestas departed for the upper satrapies to deal with another attempt by Peithon to wrest control of them for himself. In this he was aided by Peukestas’s crowning of himself King, which was met with resistance in an area populated with satraps already merely lukewarm to his dominion. This opposition manifested itself in the person of Stasanor, the long running satrap of Drangiana and by now also Arachosia, who was nothing if not a survivor.

Frustratingly little is known about this campaign in the east, as our two main sources, Eumenes and Hieronymous of Kardia (who’s account, which does not come down to us, was used as a principle source for later accounts of this period), are focused predominantly on the western theaters, where they personally played a part. Thus our only reference for even this bit of detail is a brief fragment in the geographical work of Patrokles, who mentions Stasanor as the satrap of the region “Who had opposed Peukestas in his last campaign [in the Upper Satrapies].” A detailed account of this campaign is unfortunately impossible, but with this detail allows for the possibility plausible reconstruction of events to be pieced together.

Following Peukestas’s ascent to the kingship in the winter before his planned annabasis eastward, Stasanor, who, as far as we can tell up until this point had been a pliant ally of the diadochus, threw in his lot with the cause of Peithon, then in conflict with Eumedon. Thus we can plausibly assume that Pekestas’s campaign was diverted through the unforgiving lands of Arachosia and Drangiana, where he likely followed the path east taken by Alexander The Great, north through Hyrcania and Parthia, before descending on Stasanor with overwhelming force. Unable to face such an enemy on his own, Stasanor likely fled; his re-appearance later, and his almost certain inability to hinder Peukestas for any length of time indicates he did not linger in his satrapies any longer than was necessary before heading for Peithon’s camp.

From here, it can be inferred that Peukestas followed Alexander’s route north, through Arachosia and into Baktria. A passage in Diodorus mentions a battle between Peukestas and Peithon here, from which Peukestas emerged the victor. The location of the battle has only been speculated at by historians; some favored a site north-east of Baktra, along the Oxus river, while more fanciful suggestions place the battle not in Baktria at all, but in Drangiana. Recently however, archaeological excavations near the ancient city of Drapsaca have revealed evidence of a battle site which some date to this period. Thus something resembling a consensus has emerged of this being the battle, with the most recent histories, including this one, referring to it conclusively as the battle of Drapsaca.

Wherever its location, the battle of Drapsaca was the climax of Peukestas’s eastern campaign, with him expelling Peithon from the lands west of the Hindu Kush. Having learned from the problems caused by his neglect in this region, Peukestas installed 24-year-old nephew, also confusingly named Alexander Neos[1] (Peukestas himself does not appear to have ever had any male sons, though a lone daughter, Agelaeia, is attested to. Thus, Alexander Neos may have also been his heir.), as viceroy in the east, to present a permanent royal presence in this troublesome region.

[1] This nephew is entirely fictional. I would rather not have another character named Alexander in this story, but Peukestas’s own father was named Alexander, so this would make for a likely name for a relative of his. Thus I provided him with a nickname, “Neos”, to better distinguish him from all the other Alexander’s in this story.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Crowning himself is a hell of a bold move. Based on the hints we have of Mssr. Astakos' later career, Peukestas' regime is probably doomed, but I'd say that the mixed system of Greco-Persian kingship he devised will probably long outlive him and his likely ill-fated nephew.