Greek Culture Vs Persian Culture

1209 Words5 Pages
The Policy of Fusion was the idea of combining the Greek/Macedonian culture with the Persian culture, creating one superculture in which Alexander the Great could more efficiently rule over. For example, Persians were entitled to their own religious practices and customs, as opposed to the original idea of hellenisation, which meant they would be forced to adopt the Greek way of life, and Alexander himself, adopted the Persian attire and some Persian customs. Ideally, it would fuse the two cultures by incorporating aspects from each, and therefore the Macedonians and the Persians could live together in harmony. Following Darius III’s defeat, the Persian empire was now under Alexander’s control, causing a change in his view on ruling. The purpose…show more content…
Ultimately, because the Greek states supported Philip in his quest to avenge Greece against the desecration of their temples, they also supported Alexander as he continued his father’s legacy. However, despite this, there were still a few rebellions that took place following Philip’s death, and Alexander’s rise to power. Diodorus tells us that, “At Athens too there was some movement towards resistance, but the Athenians were terrified at Alexander’s first approach and granted him even greater honours than had been granted to Philip”. This shows us that the Athenians were controlled by their fear of Alexander, and perhaps indicates how Alexander, as a leader, ruled -- by using fear to maintain the loyalty of the Greek…show more content…
It is important to note that both of these historians were not present, nor alive, during Alexander’s reign and have based their own writings on the writings of other historians. So ultimately, Arrian’s and Plutarch’s work are mere interpretations of interpretations. However, Arrian and Plutarch appear to be more trustworthy when compared to the other primary sources we have, as they get their information from Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and Aristobulus, Chares and Callisthenes. These are all writers that accompanied Alexander on his expedition, and the majority of them were close to Alexander, so we can trust their accounts more than writers who were not present during this time, e.g Cleitarchus. They also wrote for different purposes. Arrian wished to provide an accurate recount of history, using Ptolemy and Aristobulus whenever ”their histories of Alexander son of Philip are in agreement” and says that “where they differ, I have selected the version that I judge to be the more reliable and the more worth narrating”. Whereas Plutarch tells us he focused on Alexander’s virtues and vices, writing about Alexander’s actions, rather than achievements, that he thought best described what kind of person Alexander was; for he was “writing biography, not history, and a person’s most notable actions do not always illuminate his virtues or his vices”. Because of this, their
Open Document