What do you think?
Rate this book
Arrian: Anabasis of Alexander, Books 5-7. Indica. (Loeb Classical Library No. 269) by Arrian
Indica is the name of an ancient book about India written by Arrian, one of the main ancient historians of Alexander the Great. The book mainly tells the story of Alexander's officer Nearchus’ voyage from India to the Persian Gulf after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Indus Valley. However, much of the importance of the work comes from Arrian’s in depth asides describing the history, geography, and culture of the ancient Indian subcontinent. Indica is also the name of a similar book by Megasthenes that also describes the history of India and was a major source from which Arrian drew. After Alexander the Great conquered the Indus valley, he planned to return to the center of his empire in Babylon. Alexander planned to return himself over land but wanted to learn about the mouth of the Indus (which he himself did not reach) and the sea between India and Babylon. Therefore, he sent one of his officers, Nearchus, to perform such a voyage and report what he saw. Indica mostly describes what Nearchus saw on that voyage. Indica is useful as a historical source in establishing the influence of Alexander the Great’s campaign. For the first time, a large body of knowledge about the Near East, Central Asia, and India were reaching Greece. Information was exchanged in all the whole of Alexander’s empire experienced somewhat of a cultural shift in one way or another. As knowledge from and about the East moved west, knowledge from and about the West moved east.
Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - after 146), known in English as Arrian (Ἀρριανός), and Arrian of Nicomedia, was a Roman historian (of Greek ethnicity), a public servant, a military commander and a philosopher of the Roman period. As with other authors of the Second Sophistic, Arrian wrote primarily in Attic. His works preserve the philosophy of Epictetus, and include the Anabasis of Alexander, an important account of Alexander the Great, as well as the Indica a description of Nearchus' voyage from India following Alexander's conquest, and other short works. He is not to be confused with the Athenian military leader and author, Xenophon from the 4th century BC, whose best-known work was also titled Anabasis. Arrian is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander as well as one of the founders of a primarily military-based focus on history. -Wikipedia
Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - after 146), known in English as Arrian (Ἀρριανός), and Arrian of Nicomedia, was a Roman historian (of Greek ethnicity), a public servant, a military commander and a philosopher of the Roman period. As with other authors of the Second Sophistic, Arrian wrote primarily in Attic. His works preserve the philosophy of Epictetus, and include the Anabasis of Alexander, an important account of Alexander the Great, as well as the Indica a description of Nearchus' voyage from India following Alexander's conquest, and other short works. He is not to be confused with the Athenian military leader and author, Xenophon from the 4th century BC, whose best-known work was also titled Anabasis. Arrian is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander as well as one of the founders of a primarily military-based focus on history. -Wikipedia
Hardcover
First published January 1, 175
4 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
About the author
Arrian
292 books90 followersArrian of Nicomedia (Latin: Lucius Flavius Arrianus Xenophon; Greek: Ἀρριανός c. AD c. 86 – c. 160) was a Greek historian, public servant, military commander and philosopher of the 2nd-century Roman period. As with other authors of the Second Sophistic, Arrian wrote primarily in Attic (Indica is in Herodotus' Ionic dialect, his philosophical works in Koine Greek).
The Anabasis of Alexander is perhaps his best-known work, and is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander the Great. (It is not to be confused with Anabasis, the best-known work of the Athenian military leader and author Xenophon from the 5th-4th century BC.) Arrian is also considered as one of the founders of a primarily military-based focus on history. His other works include Discourses of Epictetus and Indica.
Other language versions:
Arriano
The Anabasis of Alexander is perhaps his best-known work, and is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander the Great. (It is not to be confused with Anabasis, the best-known work of the Athenian military leader and author Xenophon from the 5th-4th century BC.) Arrian is also considered as one of the founders of a primarily military-based focus on history. His other works include Discourses of Epictetus and Indica.
Other language versions:
Arriano
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 30, 2017
The historical classics aren't really my thing but all in all it was okay.
Read
November 13, 2023i deserve 2 finish my reading challenge for this hell even if i skim read
November 13, 2017
Have you ever had that strange feeling when you drive past the site of a recently demolished building in your neighbourhood and you can't remember what was there? That makes it even more amazing to me that we still know so much about the life of Alexander the Great. The fact that we do so is due to the survivial of this work of Arrian, amongst others.
The Loeb Classics two volume edition, which also includes the Indica is a fine edition on many levels. For the properly educated, one can compare the Ancient Greek to the English translation, and for us lesser mortals, the copious notes, appendices and informative introduction ensure we know what to make of the text, and where controviersies arise in comparing this work to other surviving sources. There is also a useful index.
All of us know, or think we know, the story of Alexander's conquest of most of the known world, so it's fascinating to go back to authors such as Arrian and Curtius and see what they wrote. Arrian saw himself as writing the definitive history of Alexander, combining all sources available to him and choosing the most reliable, sometimes putting down all he'd found out when he couldn't decide where the truth lay. What is interesting is that he obviously didn't know of Curtius' history, even though the scholars think it was written a hundred years earlier than Arrian's work.
The image of Alexander's army rampaging through the Near East is in fact only partly true - much (most?) of his conquests were peaceful, in the sense that cities and kingdoms surrendered without a fight, rather that risk defeat under arms. The reason so many took this option was that Alexander was often magniminous to those who surrendered, and could (and did) destroy utterly those who bore arms against him.
Things that stand out for me on reading Arrian is how few actual Macedonian troops Alexander had for much of his conquests: as he moved further away from home he relied more and more on local levies of troops and on arrogating to himself troops that once fought for Persia. The other point that I feel I hadn't adequately considered before reading this was just how Alexander ran the lands he conquered. He appointed trusted generals as satraps and on occasion even local rulers got to continue their rule, after paying obesiance and tribute to Alexander. It is interesting how often Arrian (who on the whole is a supporter of Alexander) describes how recently conquered territories had risen in revolt against Alexander, and needed to be repressed. The idea of Alexander rolling across the Near East and crushing all resistance is in some ways a false one.
The sense of Alexander one is left with after reading Arrian is of a man who was perhaps not interested in the art of governing. He was interested in conquering and winning battles, and as long as someone was keeping the rear in check and getting enough money for him to keep his army on the go, he was happy with that. Certainly after his death the empire quickly crumbled, as each kingdom quickly reverted to local rule, apart from some exceptions (Ptolemy in Egypt, for example).
One gets a whiff from Arrian (something which is more emphasised in Curtius), that Alexander's conquests eventually debauched his character: he moves from being a great and noble commander into an "Oriental tyrant". Whatever the thoughts about his character, none can detract from his deeds - a hero to some, a monster to others.
The Loeb edition also includes Arrian's Indica, which is a narrative of Nearchus' voyage from India to Persia. This perhaps is more interesting as a historical document, and would have been even more so when Arrian wrote it, as much of that part of the world was a mystery to most Greeks.
I've enjoyed reading Arrian, perhaps more than I expected.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
The Loeb Classics two volume edition, which also includes the Indica is a fine edition on many levels. For the properly educated, one can compare the Ancient Greek to the English translation, and for us lesser mortals, the copious notes, appendices and informative introduction ensure we know what to make of the text, and where controviersies arise in comparing this work to other surviving sources. There is also a useful index.
All of us know, or think we know, the story of Alexander's conquest of most of the known world, so it's fascinating to go back to authors such as Arrian and Curtius and see what they wrote. Arrian saw himself as writing the definitive history of Alexander, combining all sources available to him and choosing the most reliable, sometimes putting down all he'd found out when he couldn't decide where the truth lay. What is interesting is that he obviously didn't know of Curtius' history, even though the scholars think it was written a hundred years earlier than Arrian's work.
The image of Alexander's army rampaging through the Near East is in fact only partly true - much (most?) of his conquests were peaceful, in the sense that cities and kingdoms surrendered without a fight, rather that risk defeat under arms. The reason so many took this option was that Alexander was often magniminous to those who surrendered, and could (and did) destroy utterly those who bore arms against him.
Things that stand out for me on reading Arrian is how few actual Macedonian troops Alexander had for much of his conquests: as he moved further away from home he relied more and more on local levies of troops and on arrogating to himself troops that once fought for Persia. The other point that I feel I hadn't adequately considered before reading this was just how Alexander ran the lands he conquered. He appointed trusted generals as satraps and on occasion even local rulers got to continue their rule, after paying obesiance and tribute to Alexander. It is interesting how often Arrian (who on the whole is a supporter of Alexander) describes how recently conquered territories had risen in revolt against Alexander, and needed to be repressed. The idea of Alexander rolling across the Near East and crushing all resistance is in some ways a false one.
The sense of Alexander one is left with after reading Arrian is of a man who was perhaps not interested in the art of governing. He was interested in conquering and winning battles, and as long as someone was keeping the rear in check and getting enough money for him to keep his army on the go, he was happy with that. Certainly after his death the empire quickly crumbled, as each kingdom quickly reverted to local rule, apart from some exceptions (Ptolemy in Egypt, for example).
One gets a whiff from Arrian (something which is more emphasised in Curtius), that Alexander's conquests eventually debauched his character: he moves from being a great and noble commander into an "Oriental tyrant". Whatever the thoughts about his character, none can detract from his deeds - a hero to some, a monster to others.
The Loeb edition also includes Arrian's Indica, which is a narrative of Nearchus' voyage from India to Persia. This perhaps is more interesting as a historical document, and would have been even more so when Arrian wrote it, as much of that part of the world was a mystery to most Greeks.
I've enjoyed reading Arrian, perhaps more than I expected.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews