Aristotle’s (apocryphal) advice to Alexander the Great on Persian elites (2013)

Here is another piece of story that is not in the article.

When Alexander tried to enter Afghanistan he was met with fierce resistance. Didn't matter what he did, he couldn't quench the uprisings and could not conquer the country. After losing a lot of men, he wrote to Aristotle for advise. Aristotle asked Alexander for a sample of Afghan soil to be shipped to him. Upon receipt of the soil samples, Aristotle laid them under the Court carpet and very soon started noticing that men of the court started fighting and killing each other. They became defiant to authority and that led Aristotle to the conclusion, that there is something unique and bizarre w/ the Afghan soil that makes men fight to the end ... and in a way .. remain as an unconquerable nation. He wrote back to Alexander to with draw from Afghanistan, and which he did.

To this day, from Alexander to British to Russia .. Afghanistan has remained pretty defiant to foreign occupation. We will see how long the US will stay there.

[note: The above story was passed onto us Afghans for generations and other than referencing my grandpa who is no longer w/ us, I unfortunately can't provide any references. So take it w/ a grain of salt.]

I must be reading something incorrectly. Certainly I didn't hear about these exchanges before. But is it correct that most of the exchanges can be boiled down to "be nice to people"? I always thought politics was based on keeping control of import political powers like media, military, law, food, and money while replacing people in high positions who don't work for you with people that you improved to these positions so that they will follow your rule. In some regard that's nice, at least to the people you improved, but in another regard it's also a selfish business. Can one go to another country, declare oneself as their leader and then just lead by being nice?

I just finished a Biography on Alexander the Great (Titled: Alexander the Great, The Hunt for a New Past. by Paul Cartledge), which I found to be very good because the author delves into the various sources of information on Alexander, which I found to be surprisingly scant as much has been lost and much has been handed down to us second hand in summarized form (such as through Plutarch). Alexander had his own personal biographer (who accompanied him on his campaign), Callisthenes put to death.

A great quote from the book: "The situation we are faced with can be summed up roughly as followes. Inspired by the example of Theopompus and his pioneering Philippica (a history of Greece written around the career of Philip II of Macedon, Alexander's father), more than twenty contemporaries wrote histories or other kinds of work on Alexander. Not one of these histories survives in the original. Of the many letters ascribed to Alexander, just one extract of one of them has a better than average claim to being genuine. The earliest surviving connected narrative account of Alexander's campaigns was composed in the first century BCE, some three hundred years after the events it relates; it is, besides, only incompletely preserved. Thus the sole connected narrative to have survived complete is a third century CE epitome, or abrigment, of a first-century BCE work in Latin by a Romanized Gaul. Finally, what is generally today accounted the best of the more or less completely surviving histories of Alexander was written by a Greek philosopher-statesman in the second century CE, probably during the reigh of the philhellinic emperor Hadrian. In short, 'it is as if the history of Tudor England could only be recovered from Macaulay's essays and the histories of Hume the philospher' (Robin Lane Fox)."

I'll admit, being an American I don't quite grasp the full context of that quote but you can get the gist. Basically, I wouldn't take this letter for actually being true (which the title rightly states as being apocryphal) and rather read take it in its own context of someone, probably a much later Arabic (edit: or Persian) writer using the story of Alexander as a means of conveying their thoughts.

I'd hardly call it propaganda, it's merely a folk tale that reflects the cultural context within which it was developed. Sort of like the founding of Rome.

Yup. It feels strange to completely dismiss the one link between Antiquity and the Renaissance: the Roman Empire, or Byzantium as we now know it.