Possibly you don't realize the brevity of what Alexander did. You hear he went to India with 40,000 soldiers but it stops there. I'll clear up some misconception and you can confirm what I say with written records.

The army of about 55,000 was green and enthusiastic so the rulers of our country let us, in effect, go prowling. They thought we would go through half of Turkey and stop short of the Babylonian army, camp out for a few months until we got chased out of there by the Babylonian army. They would first warn Greeks to leave. Then they would send home for reinforcements. Then they would come and chase us back to Greece. At that time Greece was the wealthiest of nations. It was kind of like America and everybody thought the Greeks were too soft and degenerated to ever amount to anything in the field. This is the same thing that a lot of people like Persians think today about America and Americans.

Even the Greek rulers thought this and considered the army in essence a boy scout troop with the Macedonians there to toughen them up. Going towards Germany was a favorite. It was standard to find a small tribe far away and defeat them or let them run away or the Greeks would run away and then report a great victory. Being a small tribe far away nothing could be followed up on and suddenly a new mythology was created. If the Greeks attacked some hapless tribe and their men ran away and left their women the Greeks would capture some of the pretty ones. Suddenly Greece had conquered a nation of Amazons.

Thus with their new reputation established the Greeks would go back to Greece taking the women as captives and live a boring life telling their lies to all the children who would listen to them. The government would automatically send most of the captives back home before they learned enough Greek to expose the lies. Then the children would do the same thing when they got older.

These venture kept getting wilder until they were called myths to separate them from lies which hold some elements of truth.

This is precisely what they expected of Alexander and the 40,000 men he took east. Alexander had a different idea like taking over the known world and give it civilization.

I do recall the council definitely said they were not going to support any 'ventures' abroad but they told me this after we left Greece. They knew we would be back at least within a year when our sandal wore out and I wouldn't do anything about them not supporting us because I was a nice guy.

The legacy was that I would burn down cities that I conquered in Greece and it was partially true. Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says of Alexander the Great:

[He succeeded his assassinated father in 336 and promptly took Thessaly and Thrace; he brutally razed Thebes except for its temples and the house of Pindar. Such destruction was to be his standard method, and other Greek states submitted meekly.]

After the death of Philip II, at first nothing was known about what caused it.

Then a very strange thing happened. The representative from Thebes came to me and said the murder of my father was a plot by one the states neighboring his and they were going to avenge my fathers death. They wnated the Macedonian army to help. Every body was suspicious about that. I remember wondering 'what on earth is that about?' Thebes never did anything that didn't make them money.

From then on he dug his hole but it was not just for him but for Thebes. He made a mention of not restraining or something because the price wasn't right yet.

I asked a person what would best be describe as a 'truth teller' or man of wisdom (it may have been Aristotle) in private what he was talking about. He told me then about the markets and the manipulation that went on. How the state government of Thrace was actually highly invested in the local products beyond taxation and how they rented out land to growers. And they hid it all.

This corrupted that governments fair treatment of people. We had been warned by our teacher about showing unfair favoritism towards one person or another and here the entire state would always find land and products more valuable than people. That lack of respect extended to my father. That made us a little more a little angry. It made us ruthlessly angry. Then there was what it would do to other people.

'What, you mean we were to risk death for this product (possibly wine) and for what? So we can pay double for it next year and the year after? The advisor and teacher who was sworn to complete impartiality had a little smile of pride come across his face since he had never even thought of it that way. I had outdone him in logical thought. It had spread half the way across his face when he remembered his oath and froze his thoughts right in the middle of them (which is hard to do) then excused himself and walked away.

The Thebes government was dishonest to the core. The wine merchants wanted to control that trade. The government wanted to control the trade in that entire area and it was a gateway to central Asia which I think tied into the silk route to China.

It turned out the assassin was totally broke and he owed lots of money to Thebes merchants. So they were the cause and they had killed my father by threatening to enslave the assassins family.

Philip was set against Thebes and so they killed him thinking his son could be manipulated. What they got was Aristotle with a machine gun. They didn't think to find out about the enemy and that is always a big mistake.

These men of Thebes had such criminal behavior they could never tell their own sons what they were doing professionally and they assumed that Philip II was the same with his son Alexander. It wasnt the case at all. Since Philip was an honest man he told his son many things. I knew most of the court intrigues.

The states of Thessaly and Thrace had partnerships with Thebes and so had contributed to the assassination.

I wanted mainly to teach those states not to do evil and so you end up with the highly selective burning of everything associated with the root cause of the assassination. The temples were left and that is nice.

Only the homes of about 20% of the rich were burned out. All the stores of merchandise, all the government buildings and all the cartel storage was burned. It was more like the Boston Tea Party where the focus of the destruction was on the product that was the cause of the problem. By burning the product it took away the profit potentials of assassination.

Where does it say Alexander kill thousands? Or raped women or sold the children into slavery?

These city states had cornered markets on a lot of things and formed cartels. They would agree on a very low pay and allow the people to starve until they worked for about the normal wage paid in other states. These wars were based on trade and to burn the others vineyards would assure a good price for your wine for up to 20 years until their vineyards grew back.

They would make the poor so poor that they had to join the army to stay alive. But the army was not just for defense. These assholes had none of their own children in the ranks and would send the poor off to die by the hundreds doing the bidding of their whims. Often Thebes would burn the fields of the competition so the price stayed high on their own products.

When Phoebes was burned the poor lost the eight logs that were their ceilings, if anything. It left the walls. The logs took the better part of a day to replace and they loved what it did those in power. A few people got hurt in fighting but then the poor had lots of work for years and years and it was not at wages either. The poor called the shots for three years. And the rich couldn't even think of building up an army for a long time afterwards.

Gabriel says 'thousands were saved from starvation.' Of course what you got in your history books were the records of the corrupt government.

Apparently in the 1800's there was enough evidence to show that the history was manipulated by those in power. However the political correctness at the time and I do mean England (which I talk about elsewhere) stated that 'no damaging statements would be cast on the rulers of any nation past or present'. It was the British PC circa the 1800's that gave the lie that Alexander was a blood thirsty individual. Aristotle would not have acted as his tutor if that had been at all true.

(Excuse me for jumping back and forth from the first person to the third person. I can chose to view that life from the third person or to recall it from the first. To see facts fairly I view it from the third person, to find out what my feelings were I must remember the feelings and that I can only do from the first person. Hence I sometimes say 'I' and sometimes 'Alexander'.

After this every Greek State wanted us to come burn all the rich people houses and 'submitted' to us but we were nice guys and it wasn't our business. We just taught one group not to f… with Macedonians. As Macedonians we could never conceive of warfare being used selfishly and primarily for capital gain.

 

Previous Page

2003 John Pinil