West Wind Blows 12may2024

Cunnamara Community Radio is broadcasting a series of educational programmes for Leaving Certificate students. The programmes cover English, French, Classical Studies, Chemistry, and Physics. The English lectures focus on poets and tips for Paper 1. The series also includes a lecture on themes in Hamlet. The programmes air on Sundays at 5.05pm and are repeated on Mondays at 12.05pm. They can be listened to or downloaded on the Cunnamara FM website. In one of the lectures, Cian Hogan discusses Alexander the Great's campaigns and Plato's Republic. Alexander marched his army towards Thrace, faced opposition from the Thracians, and successfully defeated them. He also engaged the Gaetae forces and defeated them. Alexander then dealt with the revolt in Thebes, destroyed the city, and sold its survivors into slavery. This programme is sponsored by Cunnamara Holiday Lettings, your one-stop shop for all your holiday home rental needs, 095 22669. Attention Leaving Certificate Higher Level English, French, Classical Studies, Chemistry and Physics students. As part of our commitment to education, Cunnamara Community Radio is now broadcasting, within the West Wind Blows, a series of 14 programmes including English, French, Classical Studies, Chemistry and Physics directed towards Leaving Certificate students' higher level course. Leading English lecturers discuss all of the poets on the Leaving Certificate English syllabus and give tips on how to approach Paper 1, the essay paper. The series includes a lecture on themes, topics and characters in the Shakespearean play Hamlet, which is also on the Leaving Certificate syllabus. The series runs each Sunday at 5.05pm and is repeated on Monday at 12.05pm. These programmes are available to listen to or download on a dedicated webpage on www.cunnamarafm.com. Tune in to 87.8 and 106.1 FM or log on to www.cunnamarafm.com. Hello again and welcome to the educational programmes on the West Wind Blows. And today, Cian Hogan will lecture on Classical Studies. Hello students, today we're going to look at some of the campaigns of Alexander and Plato's Republic. So in this brief Classics lecture we're going to look at Alexander the Great, the Northern Campaigns, the siege and destruction of Thebes, the Battle of Varnicus and the very long Siege of Tyre. We're also going to examine Oedipus the King's character, his impulsiveness, his inquisitiveness, his quick temper. We're going to look at the chorus in Sophocles' Oedipus the King and we're going to examine the cardinal virtues of the guardians in Plato's Republic and the simile of the cave. In the spring of 335, Alexander marched his army towards Thrace, where the Triboli and the Illyrians, whose two peoples bordered Macedonia, were attempting to take advantage of what they saw as political instability in the wake of Philip's death. Alexander was advised to pay them off and to consolidate his power base in Macedonia rather than risk an engagement at this early stage in his career. However, he chose to ignore this advice and move his army speedily northwards. He marched to Mount Hamas in just ten days, with the intention of securing his northern borders before embarking on a campaign in Persia. On arrival in Thrace, he was met by a large group of the opposing forces. The Thracians had positioned themselves at the top of a mountain pass where they intended to use carts as a type of defensive palisade, and when the Macedonians arrived, the Thracians sent the carts crashing down on top of them. Realising that his army was in great peril, Alexander ordered the men to break formation and move to either side of the mountain pass. The remaining men were ordered to lie on the ground and to lock shields, and as a result, the carts passed over them, causing no harm. The success of this manoeuvre was evidence of Alexander's strategic thinking, and of course of the discipline of his men. Consequently, the Thracians took fright and threw down their weapons and fled. The surviving Thracians fled to an island on the Danube called the Pine Tree. Next, Alexander learned that a number of Tribulians had managed to escape, and he decided to engage them. He retraced his steps and found the Tribulians encamped. They were caught completely unawares by the onslaught of the Macedonian archers and slingers. And while the Thracians did put up stiff resistance, they were unable to hold off the Macedonian army, who had now killed 1,500 of their men at this stage, and the Macedonian cavalry, which proceeded to ride them down in a series of fierce assaults all over the battlefield. According to Arrian, 3,000 Thracians died in this phase of the campaign. Three days later, Alexander reached the Danube, where reinforcements had joined him from Byzantium. He then set sail to an island where he knew the Thracians had taken refuge. He was, however, unable to put ashore. Deciding this, he decided to abandon his assault and cross the river to engage the Gaetae who lived on the other side. The Gaetae had assembled a very large force of about 4,000 cavalry and 10,000 infantrymen. And although Alexander was heavily outnumbered and possessed a mere 1,500 cavalry and an estimated 4,000 infantry, he decided nevertheless to engage the superior Gaetae forces. By crossing the Danube at night, Alexander had managed to conceal the fact that he had reached the other side. And once again the Gaetae were taken unawares and forced to flee to a nearby town. Alexander surrounded the town and then attacked it, ridding it of all valuables and inhabitants. Following his meetings with local Celtic tribes, Alexander received news that the Illyrians and their chieftain Plitys had reached a fortified town. Owing to the position of the town, Plitys' troops could have attacked the Macedonians on all sides. However, on seeing the Macedonians' approach, the Illyrians abandoned the town without her defences. Alexander planned to take the town the following day, but the arrival of Glaucus with a large contingent of troops forced him to abandon this project. Although Glaucus initially retreated, Alexander was still in a precarious position because the combined Prussian forces occupied the higher ground. Alexander decided to withdraw, and this decision emboldened the troops within the town and Glaucus' contingent who were still watching from the hills. For Alexander, retreat was not practical because to his rear lay very, very difficult terrain. Furthermore, retreat was simply not in Alexander's nature. Consequently, he decided to put on the display of Macedonian discipline. The infantry and the cavalry carried out a series of intricate manoeuvres. These actions frightened the Thracians, and many of them abandoned their positions on the slopes. Realising this that he had the initiative, Alexander ordered his men to clash their spears together against their shields and to issue a very loud war cry. He then ordered the Agriani, the archers, together with the royal guards to cross the river. Seeing them cross, a contingent of Thracians moved down the hill with the intention of attacking the Macedonians. However, Alexander's force proved too strong, and the Thracians were quickly routed. Many days later, Alexander received the news that Clytus and Glaucus' troops were in security camped. Under cover of darkness, he took a contingent of guards, the Agriani, and the troops of Perdacus and Coneus and attacked Glaucus. Very few Thracians were captured, and most were killed. Around this time, Alexander received news that Thebes was in revolt, and something needed to be done. No sooner had Alexander concluded operations in the north than the news reached that Thebes were in revolt. The Thebans were holding the Cadmia, the Macedonian garrison in the city, and were urging resistance to Macedonian rule. Alexander knew he attacked swiftly if his rule in Greece was not to be challenged. He marched at lightning speed under force marches to Polina and Thessaly, and from there on to Angestis, roughly ten kilometres from Thebes. Outside the city, he halted and rested his troops, and he resisted initially the urge to attack. He moved around the gates and finally occupied the area near the Cadmia where his troops were now surrounded. Perdacus moved into an attack position, with his battalion not far from the enemy's palisade. Without Alexander's consent, he got inside the walls. On seeing this, Alexander ordered a general advance to prevent Perdacus from being cut off and placed at the mercy of the Thebans. Perdacus was wounded. His men, joined by Alexander's archers, boxed the Thebans up in the sunken road which runs down by Heraclium. Roughly seventy archers were killed, including their leader, Eurybotes, and the Grecian. Alexander launched an infantry attack at close order and drove the enemy inside the gates. The rout became such a panic that the Thebans fled in a sauve-qui-peu manoeuvre, and they failed to shut the gates behind them. As a consequence, many Macedonians passed in in the general scramble, and for a short time the Theban forces stood firm at the Amphium until attacked by Macedonians from every side, and they failed to offer any organised resistance. In what followed, according to Arrian at least, it wasn't exactly the Macedonians as much as the Phoecians and the Plataeans and the other Phoecian towns who indiscriminately slaughtered the Thebans. They burst into houses and killed their occupants, sparing neither women nor children. The violence and the unexpected nature of the attack, together with the importance of Thebes, shocked the rest of Greece. Many Greeks felt that Thebes had paid dearly the penalty for her betrayal of Greece in the Persian wars. The sight of surviving refugees who streamed into Athens in the hours and days following the devastating fall of the city particularly disturbed the Athenians. Immediately Athens sued for peace and reaffirmed its commitment to Alexander's hegemony over Greece. The Macedonians garrisoned the Cadmea and then razed Thebes to the ground, and any surviving women, men and children were sold into slavery. The other powers hurried to prove their friendship to Alexander. Athens began to prepare to resist the siege, while at the same time assuring its allegiances to the very young king. They did however refuse to surrender the Athenians to Mostenes and Placurgus and several other supporters of the revolt. Alexander had previously declared that they were more responsible for the revolt than the Theban citizens themselves. He then returned north to Macedonia where he offered thanksgiving to Zeus and celebrated the Olympic Games at the Aegean. News reached Alexander that a statue of Orpheus, the son of Ogreus of Thrace, had been sweating profusely. Aristander, the soothsayer, interpreted this as a sign that writers and poets would have a great deal of work in celebrating the young king's exploits and successes into the future. The Battle of Granicus In late May 334 BC, Alexander won a decisive victory over the Persian satraps on the banks of the river Granicus in northwest Asia Minor. Arriving on the field late in the afternoon, he drew the Macedonian army, numbering perhaps 50,000 men, out of line of march into line of battle. This would later become a feature of Alexander's tactics and strategy before a battle. By successive cavalry attacks, he put to flight the Persian army that had held the higher eastern river bank and surrounded and annihilated the Greek mercenary hoplites who were drawn up behind the main Persian line. The victory was nothing less than stunning. Probably the cavalry battle lasted at most a matter of minutes, and within less than an hour the Greek mercenary army forces had been destroyed, either killed or captured, and Alexander now was master of the battlefield. The victory delivered all of Asia Minor to Alexander. The Persian forces were commanded by Arizames, Rheomitres, Patines, and Delphates, who were helped by Spithridates, the satrap of Lydia, and Ionia. Aristes, governor of northern Phrygia, was also present, as was the Greek mercenary general Memnon of Rhodes. Their intelligence reports had confirmed that Alexander had indeed crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor. Memnon of Rhodes, who had a good strategic understanding of the situation, advised against any military engagement of the Macedonian forces. Instead he suggested a scorched-earth policy, and his reasons for doing so were as follows. Alexander was present in person, whereas Darius, the great Asian king, was not. The Macedonian lines of supply were at best shaky, and, as they were relatively isolated in a foreign country, it would have been easy to starve Alexander back across the Hellespont. However, the Persians could simply not countenance the idea of a scorched-earth policy against an army so small as the Macedonians. Aristes, the Phrygian governor, rejected the proposal outright, insisting that not one house belonging to his subjects should be destroyed. The other commanders concurred, and were no doubt mistrustful, in any case of Memnon's Greek nationality. As Alexander advanced in battle order upon the Granicus, he was advised by Parmenion not to force an engagement at this point. Characteristically, Alexander ignored his cautious general's advice, claiming that he would have been ashamed if a trickle of water the size of the Granicus should stop him. Alexander placed Parmenion in overall command of the left wing of his army. The Greek dispositions were as follows. On Alexander's right was Philotas, Parmenion's son, the companion Calvary, the archers, and the agrarians. Attached to Philotas's divisions were those of Enientus, who commanded the Paeonians, the Lancers, and Socrates' squadron. On the left of these divisions were the Guards' battalions, commanded by Parmenion's son, Nicanor, the infantry battalions of Perdacus, and the infantry. The advanced position of the left wing was held by the Thessalian Calvary, under Callas's son Harpalus. These were supported by the allied Calvary, and immediately on their right, the infantry battalions extended to the centre of the army as a whole. The banks of the river Granicus were extremely steep, and the Persians decided to take advantage of this by placing their Calvary on a very broad front with the infantry in their rear. This, in fact, was a serious tactical blunder, as the Calvary were prevented from being able to charge. Furthermore, the Persian infantry, who, according to Arrian, numbered 20,000, was prevented from gaining access to the battle by the mounted troops. In the first onslaught, the Macedonians suffered severely owing to their difficulty in securing a foothold on the other side of the river. Alexander led the attack on the right, but such was the slow pace of advance that Arrian described the battle as being a Calvary engagement with infantry tactics. The tide, though slowly turned in favour of the Macedonians because of their discipline combined with the sheer weight of their attack, and the advantage of the long cordial wood spear over the light lances of the Persians began to teb. During the engagement, Alexander caught sight of Darius's son-in-law, Mitsodates, and he struck him in the face with one of his spears, hurling the Persian to the ground. Rousakis then charged at Alexander and struck him on his head with his scimitar, slicing off part of his helmet. While Alexander was dealing with Rousakis, Mitsodates came up behind him and was just about to kill Alexander when Plautus, a childhood friend of Alexander's, severed Mitsodates's arm from the shoulder, saving Alexander's life. Meanwhile, the Macedonian units were streaming across the river. The likely armed Macedonian troops had managed to force their way in between the Persian Calvary and were now inflicting heavy losses on the Persians. As a result, the Persian centre collapsed and both wings of the Persian Calvary were routed with about a thousand men being killed. Alexander checked his pursuit of the fleeing Persians in order to turn his attention to the remaining units of the foreign mercenaries. Outnumbered and completely shocked by the rapidity of the Persian collapse, these mercenaries had failed to react and, as a result, had maintained their position. Alexander had them surrounded by horse and infantry and ordered that they be butchered. According to Arrian, Macedonian losses numbered a mere 25 of the companion calvary. The consequences of this victory were many. The Persian hierarchy and the leadership in Asia Minor had been destroyed and consequently the western satrapies were left in total disarray, therefore there were very little organised resistance to Alexander for the rest of 334 BCE. As a consequence of the victory, the Ionian Greeks welcomed the Macedonian king now as their liberator and Alexander confirmed the autonomy and freedom of the Greek cities of Asia. Sardes, the satrapal capital and treasury, surrendered immediately. Although the Macedonians would later encounter resistance at Miletus and Halicarnassus naval bases held by Greek mercenaries under the command of Melnor of Rhodes, Alexander marched virtually unopposed now across western Anatolia. Alexander's lines of supply were now secure. The victory solved his logistical and financial problems completely and any notion of resistance to his rule back in Greece was now silenced by the stunning events at Granicus. The Persians were fully aware of just how capable Alexander was and Darius now realised the importance of fielding an army to prevent further advances into Asia. In 334-333 BC the Macedonian army wintered at Gordion, a famous Phrygian capital on the Anatolian plateau, and in spring 333 BC Alexander invested the senior general Antigonus Monophotalmus the One-Eyed with pacifying the eastern side of Asia Minor while the Macedonian army marched south-west-east. The victory at Granicus shocked the Persian court and the great king Darius III dispatched a huge fleet to the Aegean commanded by the veteran mercenary Memon to raise rebellions in Greece. Darius himself summoned a great host and so for the first time the king decided to take the field against the western invader. The Siege of Tyre In 332 Alexander easily persuaded his men to make an attack on Tyre. An omen helped to convince him because that very night during a dream he seemed to be approaching the walls of Tyre and Hercules was stretching out his right hand towards him leading him to the city. Alexander explained that this meant that Tyre would be captured with great effort, just as the labours of Hercules also demanded great effort. Certainly the siege of Tyre was a considerable undertaking. The city was an island and defended on all sides with high walls. At that time the balance of power by sea was in favour of the Tyrians since the Persians were still masters of the Aegean and the Tyrians had a very large fleet of their own ready for use. But nonetheless Alexander persuaded his men to do what he wanted. He decided to build a mole from the mainland to the city. The place he chose was a crossing covered in pools of water which had shallows and patches of mud on the part closest to the mainland but close to the city where the deepest part of the crossing was, it was about 18 feet in depth. But there was a great quantity of stone and wood which they placed on top and it was not difficult matter to fix stakes to the mud and the mud itself bound together the stones so that they stayed in place. The Macedonians were very eager and Alexander was there in the midst of the work directing each step, sometimes inspiring his men with exceptional words of encouragement and at other times encouraging those who worked exceptionally hard with gifts. The city-state itself of Tyre was situated on an island about half a mile or three quarters of a kilometre off the mainland of today's Lebanon. The city was surrounded by walls of 150 feet high and on the landward side and boasted two harbours and a fleet of 80 triremes. Alexander asked if he could sacrifice to Hercules, only the great king could do so he was told and by asking this he was in effect asking for submission and recognition of his authority and the Tyreans refused. They didn't recognise Alexander's authority, they said, and this angered Alexander and the siege preparations began. The siege was part of Alexander's strategy to secure Asia Minor's coast and to halt supplies of the Persian fleet. As work on the mole began to progress they successfully completed the early stages without much difficulty. However when they reached the deeper water and were closer to the city itself they began to face greater difficulties as missiles were thrown at them from the walls which were high. All the more so because they were kitted out for manual labour rather than fighting. The Tyreans sailed up to different parts of the mole in their ships since they still had control of the sea and made further developments of the mole nearly impossible for the Macedonians in many places. The Macedonians erected two towers on top of the mole which now stretched out some distance into the sea and put engines on the towers. They used hides and skins as coverings for the towers to protect themselves from burning missiles hurled from the walls of the city and also to offer some defence against arrows for those who were working underneath. At the same time any Tyreans who sailed up and tried to harm those who were building the mole could be forced to retreat when attacked from the towers. The Tyreans developed tactics to counter these responses. They filled for example a ship usually used for transporting cattle with dry logs and other wood which was easy to burn. They set up two masts in the bow and built up the sides as high as possible so that it could carry as much wood and torches as possible. As well as this they put pitch and sulphur and any other material that would burn fiercely. They also fitted a double yard arm on both masts and attached it to the cauldrons whatever was likely to increase the flames when poured or thrown on them such as oil. And they placed heavy weights on the stern so as to raise the prow as high as possible thereby virtually mounting the towers. They waited for a wind blowing in the direction of the mole and then fastening the boat to some Tyreans they dragged it behind them and when they were approaching the mole and the towers they set fire to the contents and they dragged the ship as violently as they could with the Tyreans and drove it into the edge of the mole. Those who had been on the burning ship had already swum away without any difficulty. In the meantime the great mass of flames fell on the towers and the yard arms broke and poured onto the fire all that had been placed to further feed the burning flames. Those in the Tyreans kept their ships close to the mole and fired arrows at the towers so that it would not be safe for anyone to approach or to put out the fires. And as the towers now became engulfed in flames many of Alexander's men rushed to jump into the water and at the same time Tyreans rushed out of the city and jumped into smaller boats and made for different parts of the mole and tore apart the palisade that had been put in front of it. They then set fire to the war engines which had not been burnt by the initial fires of the ship. Alexander ordered his men to start building a broader, larger mole on the mainland so that it would take more towers and he told his engineers to build replacement engines. While these things were being readied he took some infantry and the agrarians to Sidon as he had collected there all the ships that he had available to him because the siege now seemed to be impossible while the Tyreans controlled the sea. In the meantime Jostratus, king of Ardas and Ineos of Biblius learnt that their cities had been held by Alexander so they left Altrophodates and his ships and came over to Alexander's side with their own contingent and the ships of the Sidonians came as well. This now meant that Alexander was gathering a sizeable fleet, numbers of which were further bolstered by the arrival of eighty Phoenician ships. Around the same time there arrived from Rhodes nine Tyreans and a state guardship from Salae and Malus, another three, together with ten from Licea and a fifty-oar ship from Macedonia captained by Protius, son of Androcteus. And soon after this the kings of Cyprus arrived at Sidon with around a hundred and twenty ships as they had learnt about Darius's defeat at Issus and were very concerned that the whole of Phoenicia was already under Alexander's control. To all of these Alexander granted complete amnesty for what had happened before because he realised that they had provided contingents for the Persian navy more through compulsion than by their own choice. When his fleet had been put in order he stationed on the decks as many of his infantry as seemed sufficient for the tasks ahead, mainly because the sea battle was going to become more like hand-to-hand fighting than skilful sea-manoeuvring. He set out from Sidon and sailed to Tyre with his fleet, all in battle formation. Alexander himself was on the right wing, which was at the seaward side. Together with him were the kings of Cyprus and all the Phoenicians, apart from Pantagoras who with Trituris commanded the left wing of the whole battle line. The Tyreans had earlier decided to accept a naval battle if Alexander sailed against them, but when they saw the great number of ships now on Alexander's side and far beyond their expectations, for they had not yet received news that Alexander controlled all the Cyprian and Phoenician ships, and they saw that Alexander's fleet was drawn up in good battle order, just before they reached the city the ships with Alexander held their positions for a time at sea, in case after all they might draw the Tyreans out for battle, but then, when this didn't happen, they sailed on with a great roar. When the Tyreans saw this they refused the sea battle and used as many triremes available to form a blockade at the harbour entrances, and thereby guard the entrance, making sure the enemy fleet did not gain control of any of their harbours. When the Tyreans did not come out to face him Alexander sailed against the city. He decided not to force his way into the harbour which faced towards Sidon because of the narrowness of its entrance, and at the same time he saw that the channel was blocked by many triremes, their bows facing outwards. The Phoenicians attacked the three triremes moored furthest out and sank them, after striking them head on, those on the ships easily swam away to the friendly shore. Then the ships with Alexander anchored not far from the newly constructed mole along the shore where there appeared to be some protection from the wind. On the next day Alexander ordered the Cyprians with their ships under the command of the admiral Andromachus to blockade the city at the harbour which looked towards Sidon, while the Phoenicians were to do the same at the harbour on the furthest side of the mole facing towards Egypt where Alexander's tent was. Alexander had already collected many engineers from Cyprus, and from the whole of Phoenicia, and many war engines fitted together, some on the mole, others on the horse transports which he had brought with him from Sidon, or on those triremes which were not designed for speed. When everything was in a state of readiness they brought the engines along the mole, and from the ships which were at anchor at different points along the wall, and were putting it to the test. The Tyrians put wooden towers on the part of the wall facing the mole, and wherever else the engines were deployed so that they could fight them, and they defended themselves with missiles and fire-burning arrows at the ships, which made the Macedonians reluctant to approach the wall. The wall opposite the mole was about 150 feet in height, broad in proportion, made of huge blocks of stone held together with mortar, and it wasn't easy for the Macedonian transport ships and triremes which were bringing engines to the wall to approach close to the city because so many stones now were being hurled into the sea, preventing them from making an attack at close quarters. Alexander decided to drag the stones out of the sea, but this task was completed with huge difficulty as they were trying to do it from ships, not solid land, and that was particularly the case because the Tyrians had put protections on some of their ships and attacked the anchors of the triremes, cutting the anchor ropes and making it impossible for the enemy ships to secure a firm foothold in order to remove these boulders. In turn Alexander protected some 30 oared vessels in the same manner and placed them in front of the anchors to repel the attack of the Tyrian ships, but even so underwater divers kept cutting their cables. The Macedonians began to attach chains then, rather than ropes, for the anchors, and lower them down so that the divers were not able to achieve anything further. They fitted ropes around the rocks from the mole and pulled them out of the sea, then lifting them into the engine and put them into the deep water where they no longer posed any threat to the ships. When they managed to make the wall clear of obstructions, the ships easily got in close. The Tyrians were now in great difficulty, in every possible way, and they decided to make an attack on the Cyprian ships which were blockading the harbour which faced towards Sidon. For a long time they covered the mouth of the harbour with sails so that no one could see them manning their triremes. About the middle of the day, when the sailors had scattered to do what they needed to do and Alexander had just left the fleet on the other side of the city for his tent, they manned six smaller ships, seven triremes, with the best trained crews available to them, and with men suitably equipped to fight from the decks, all men who were boldest in naval battles. At first they began to move out quietly in single file, without anyone calling. The stroke, but when they were turning towards the Cyprians and were almost in sight of them, they began to attack with shouting and encouragement, rowing at an even stroke. On this particular day it happened that Alexander went to his tent, but did not spend time where he usually did, and returned to the ships. The Tyrians attacked the ships at anchor unexpectedly and found some completely empty while others were being manned with difficulty by those who chanced to be there in the midst of the shouting and the attack. In the first attack they sank the ship of King Pentagoras together with those captained by Androcules from Amphos and Passocratus of Curzium, and they drove the others to the shore and smashed them. When Alexander noticed that the Tyrians had sailed out, he ordered the majority of his ships to follow him, and as soon as the crews were in place to hold their position at the mouth of the harbour to prevent any other Tyrian ships leaving and joining the battle, he then took two quinquerims and five triremes, which had got their crews on board in great haste, and he began to sail around the city in order to try and find a suitable place to face the Tyrians who had already sailed out. The Tyrians on the wall saw the attack of the enemy and Alexander himself on the ship, and they tried to signal to their men to return to the harbour by shouting, and when this could not be heard because of the din of the battle at sea, they kept trying different types of signal to break them back, and when the men in the ships noticed too late Alexander's attack, they turned about and made for the harbour. A few of the ships managed to get to the harbour before their pursuers, but Alexander's ships rammed the majority, making some of them unsailable, and capturing two of the Tyrian ships at the very mouth of the harbour itself. There was little opportunity for slaughtering the crews, because when they saw that their ships were taken, they easily made it back by swimming into their own harbour. As the Tyrians were no longer able to gain any assistance from their ships, the Macedonians brought their engines right up to the walls, where they were brought along the Mole and achieved nothing worthy of mention because of the strength of the wall, so they brought some of the ships that carried siege engines up to that part of the wall that faced towards Sidon. And when they didn't do any better, Alexander sent them around to the south, and the part of the wall facing towards Egypt, so as to test every aspect of the fortification. It was at this point that the wall was first of all battered to a considerable extent, and then partially destroyed by a breach. At that time, Alexander made a limited attack, just throwing gangways to the wall where it had been damaged. The Tyrians easily drove back the Macedonians. Two days later, however, after waiting for calm weather and encouraging the battalion commanders for the task at hand, Alexander brought up the siege engines to the city on ships. First, he battered down a considerable section of the wall, and then, when the breach seemed sufficiently broad, he ordered the ships carrying the engines to back off, and he himself led in two other ships which were carrying gangways, which he intended to place where the wall had been breached. The company of guards now took one of the ships under the command of Adimantus, and while the squadron of Conius took over the other, Alexander intended to cross the wall with his own guards wherever possible. He ordered some of the triremes to sail round the entrance to both harbours, in case they could force an entry into them while the Tyrians were distracted by this assault on the wall. Other triremes, which either had missiles for hurling from his siege engines or archers on decks, were ordered to sail round the wall in a circle, then land where possible or stay within firing range as long as landing proved impossible, so that the Tyrians, under assault from all sides, would be at a loss in this terrible crisis. When the ships with Alexander approached the city, and the gangways were thrown on to the wall from them, the royal guards went along, then bravely on to the wall itself. Adimantus showed himself a brave man at this time, and Alexander followed him, taking up the energetic part in the action, yet waiting to see if there was any outstanding display of courage by his men in the field. The wall was first captured where Alexander had stationed himself. The Tyrians were easily pushed back into the city, since the Macedonians for this first time were making their assault from a secure foundation, which wasn't excessively steep in every direction. Adimantus was the first on to the wall, as he was ordering his men to follow, he was struck by a spear and died. Alexander followed him, and seized the wall with his companion Kavrik. When he gained control of some towers, and the parts of the wall between them, he went through their fortifications towards the palace, because the descent into the city seemed easiest by that route. As for the men on the ships, the Phoenicians, who happened to be moored in a nearby harbour, which faced towards Egypt, they forced their way in, after destroying the booms, and began wrecking the ships. During this point in the attack, the defeat of the Tyrians was swift, about 8,000 Tyrians died, and Macedonian losses, consisting of course of Adimantus, who was the first to capture the wall, numbered a mere 400. Many Tyrians fled to the sanctuary of Hercules, amongst these were the men of greatest authority, and King Aedimilcus, and some other envoys from Carthage who had come to their mother city to honour Hercules in accordance with an ancient custom. Alexander granted an amnesty to all of these people, however he enslaved the rest of the city, some 30,000 people. Alexander offered sacrifice to Hercules, and held a procession for his army, and all his contingents. His ships also sailed past in honour of Hercules, and Alexander held athletic games, and a torch race near the sanctuary as well. He placed the siege engines by which the wall had been breached in the temple, and he also dedicated the Tyrian sacred ship which he had captured during the attack. This programme is sponsored by Connemara Holiday Lettings, your one-stop shop for all your holiday home rental needs. 095 22669 Plato's Simile of the Cave offers us a powerful commentary on the nature of reality itself, and on the effects of traditional education on the human character, and mind and spirit. The simile asks us to suppose that there is a group of human beings who have lived their entire lives trapped in a subterranean chamber, lit only by a large fire behind them. Chained in place, these cave-dwellers can see nothing but shadows of their own bodies and of other things projected on a flat wall in front of them. Some of these people will be content to do no more than notice the play of light and shadow, while the more clever amongst them will become highly skilled observers of the patterns that most regularly occur. In both cases, however, they cannot truly comprehend what they see, since they are prevented from grasping its true source and nature. Now Plato asks us to suppose that one of these human beings, who has been raised in this subterranean chamber for all of his or her life, manages to break free from his or her chains and climb through the torturous passage to the surface, and thereby escape the cave itself. With eyes accustomed only to the dim light of the former habitation, this individual will at first be blinded by the brightness of the surface world, and able only for brief periods to look upon the shadows and reflections of the real world. But after some time and effort, the former cave-dweller will inevitably become able to appreciate the full variety of the newly discovered world, looking at trees and mountains, and of course eventually the sun itself. Only then Plato asks us to consider what should transpire should the escapee make a return to his former dwelling in the cave. Trying to persuade its inhabitants that there is another better, more real world than the one in which they have so long been content to dwell, Plato suggests this man would have a very difficult time indeed. The people who live in the cave would be unlikely to be impressed by the pleas of this extraordinary individual, especially since their former companion having travelled to the bright surface would now be at a disadvantage, inept, maybe even clumsy in the darkness of the cave. Nevertheless, it would be in the best interests of the people in the cave to entrust their lives to the one enlightened member of their company, whose acquaintance with other things is a unique qualification for genuine knowledge. Plato seriously intends this allegory as a representation of the state of ordinary human existence. We, like the people raised in the cave, are trapped in a world of shadows and partiality, a realm of sensible objects, as he calls it, entranced by the particular and immediate experiences that we see. We are unlikely to appreciate any declaration from a philosopher or one who has truly seen the light, like the escapee, one who has made an effort to achieve real knowledge of permanent forms. But like the cave dwellers, it would serve us best if we were to follow the guidance and teachings of the philosopher. So the qualities required by the guardians. The discussion of the four cardinal virtues occurs in Book IV of the Republic. Socrates and his companions end their discussion concerning the lifestyle of the guardians, thus concluding their initial assessment of the city as a whole. Socrates assumes each person will be happy engaging in the occupation that best suits him or her. If the city as a whole is happy, then individuals are happy. In the physical education and diet of the guardians, the emphasis is on moderation in all things, neither too much nor too little. Without controlling their education, the city cannot control future rulers. The absence of laws makes running the city simpler, but it places all the power in the hands of the guardians. Finally, Socrates defines justice. Tophalus had defined justice as being honest and paying what one is owed. Polymarchus as legal obligations and helping friends and harming foes. Both emphasise giving what is owed as appropriate. For Plato and Socrates, justice is fulfilling one's appropriate role and consequently giving to the city what is owed. Socrates creates an analogy between the just city and the just man. Both are defined by their different parts, each performing its specific function. They thus proceed to search for the four cardinal values, the values of virtue, wisdom, temperance, moderation and, of course, justice. They find wisdom amongst the guardians' rulers, courage amongst the guardian warriors or auxiliaries, temperance amongst all classes of the city in arguing who should rule and who ought to be ruled, and finally justice as the state in which each part of the whole performs only its work, not meddling in the performance of work belonging to other parts. Having conceived a vision of the ideal city, Socrates and Glaucon set out to identify the source and nature of its virtuous character. Socrates points out that if the city had been rightly founded, it would be completely good as it would be in possession of the four cardinal virtues, wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. Glaucon agrees with Socrates that the republic would be wise since its guardian elements would possess the capacity for sound judgment. After all, would they not deliberate on matters that pertain to the city as a whole and strive always to maintain good relations, both internally and with other cities? But how are we to conceive the source and nature of the city's courage? The first thing to note might be the intimate connection between courage and wisdom. The guardians are responsible for the wisdom on the city because they know what to fear and avoid in the way of bad influences and dispositions. Remember the guard dog and how it liked what it knew and avoided what it didn't know. The auxiliaries are responsible for the courage of the city because they always act to preserve its integrity and the integrity of the beliefs of the city against the solicitations for compromise that too often accompany pleasure, pain, desire and fear. Another important point to consider is that courage is always sustained by the force and conviction of genuine, truthful opinion. As Socrates points out, the fine-tuning of the auxiliaries' character is aimed at securing a firm loyalty to the guardian element of the city. Socrates then makes it clear that moderation and temperance is often conceived as a kind of self-mastery, yet the expression self-control is laughable for the controller of self and the self that is weaker and controlled are one and the same person. So people must mean that there is a better part and a worse part in each of us, including the city that is, and that one will exhibit the virtue of moderation whenever the better part is in control of the worst. How then are we to spot moderation in an ideal city? Most of the people of the ideal city would experience a wide range of appetites and pleasures. Only in these individuals who are the best in their nature and also in their education would we expect to find appetites and pleasures that are simple, measured and directed by reasoning, having been brought under the control of intelligence and true opinion. In the ideal city, then, the desires of the inferior many must be brought under the control of the desires and knowledge of the fewer and better, who are by their nature and training much better suited to rule over the interests of the city as a whole. So while the courage and wisdom of the ideal city are found in the particular elements of the population, the virtue of moderation is spread throughout the whole, amongst the weakest and strongest, and is that which makes them all sing, according to Plato, the same tune. In the final analysis, then, moderation exists in the ideal city to the extent that there is an agreement between the inferior and superior elements of that city as to which of the two must rule, both in the city and in each individual. The superior elements will rule, the guardians will be entrusted to make laws, the auxiliaries will be entrusted to defend the city and to enforce those laws, everyone else agrees to operate within the resulting limits. In this way, the city's character is shown to exhibit a harmonic tension between the virtues of wisdom, courage and moderation. What binds together the working elements of this republic? What keeps the masses from striving to take control from the ruling elements? What secures the loyalty of the auxiliaries? What compels the guardians to rule in support and maintenance of the best interests of the entire city? Perhaps the key lies in the fourth virtue. Justice is to perform one's task and not meddle in the tasks of others. Perhaps the presence of justice is key, according to Plato, to the appearance of wisdom, courage and moderation in the city. Justice is defined as each part of the whole performing only its own task, not meddling in the performance of work belonging to other parts. The Chorus in Oedipus the King One of the ways in which the chorus heightens the vividness and urgency of the action in this play is through its description of events. In particular, the chorus refuses to act dispassionately about the threats that Thebes is currently facing, choosing instead to inform us directly of the awfulness of the plague. During the Paratus, the chorus invokes the help of Zeus to put an end to the grief on grief that is now tormenting Thebes. We are informed that they are all dying and in order to save Thebes from certain doom, the fever god must be driven back and rooted from their borders. The involvement of the chorus as a victim of the play adds weight to the vividness of its depictions of the death and suffering that has befallen the city. Furthermore, the choric descriptions of death and destruction caused by disease adds contemporary relevance to the action on stage. The chorus speaks of the flame of pain that has engulfed the city, which is now like a great army dying. This type of lingering death, which would have been all too common between 430 and 427 BC, when soldiers returning from the front brought the plague to Athens, adds greatly to the urgency of Oedipus' mission to save Thebes. During the first stasimon, the chorus plays its next vital role in heightening the vividness and urgency of the action. The chorus's intervention in the argument between Oedipus and Tiresias introduces an element of reason into an otherwise very heated debate. In this manner, the chorus vividly highlights Oedipus' near-paranoid behaviour. When the chorus intervenes and suggests that Tiresias' words were spoken in anger, it reminds us once again of the urgency of the situation, by informing Oedipus that he needs to find a solution to the oracle. In a very real sense, the chorus here mirrors our feelings and emotions, and this makes the experience more vivid and more dramatic for the audience. During the second scene, the chorus intervenes once again to assuage Oedipus' anger following his attack on Creon. But a slur might have been forced out of him, maybe by anger, perhaps, not any firm conviction. Such conciliatory and reasonable behaviour highlights for the audience the degree to which Oedipus has lost his sense of balance. Consider the Greek notion of soffrenta. Consequently, the urgency of finding a solution to the threats of the state is made more vivid. The captain of the ship is not behaving in a reasonable manner, and therefore the country has entered into a time of great peril. In the final moments of the play, the chorus plays a key role during the comus. The lamentation of lyrical metres between actor and chorus serves to heighten our awareness of the terror, the suffering, the madness that is swept over Oedipus. As a result of the chorus's vivid depiction of Oedipus' suffering, we too shudder at the sight of the blood-stained, blind Oedipus. Aristotle praised Oedipus, the king, believing it to be the finest tragedy, as the protagonist's recognition of the truth coincides with his reversal, or perpetea, of fortune. The chorus reminds us that Oedipus' suffering and understanding are inextricably linked, and in a profound statement of dramatic intent, Sophocles has the chorus proclaim that while Oedipus' suffering is pitiful, he now understands so much. The exodus sees the chorus addressing the audience directly in a powerful summation of the catastrophe that was Oedipus' life. The Theban citizens remind us that we should count no man happy till he dies, free of pain at last. As a result, our understanding of the tragic action of the play is heightened, and Oedipus' suffering is placed in a much wider context. The chorus plays an integral part in this drama. From the paradis right through to the exodus, the presence of the chorus and their participation in events heightens the vividness and urgency of the action in this play. Consider the elements of Oedipus' character that are vital to the plot of this play. Sophocles invested in Oedipus all the daring and élan vital of the 5th century Greece, and in doing so, he created a character that is gifted, intelligent and, ultimately, self-destructive. The plot of Oedipus the King is driven forward by the force of the protagonist's personality. Oedipus' hubris, his impetuosity, his intelligence, even his compassion all play a significant role in the plot of this play. One of the most readily recognisable attributes of Oedipus' character is his self-belief. Sophocles uses Oedipus' unwavering belief in himself to further the action of the play, and in the opening segments of this play, Oedipus is proactive in his pursuit of a cure for the plague. He genuinely believes that his actions can affect a cure to the devastating disease that is destroying Thebes. By the beginning of the first episode, following Creon's return from Delphi, Oedipus quickly assigns himself the role of chief investigator, and in the process brings down an awful curse upon his head. The arrival of Tiresias brings with it the first challenge to Oedipus' self-confidence. Having promised the people of Thebes to grant their prayers, Oedipus' genuine belief that he can bring it all to light himself is openly threatened by Tiresias. In the heated exchange that follows, another aspect of Oedipus' character, which is vital to the plot, is revealed. Despite his unquestioned intelligence, Oedipus is quick to anger and prone to choleric outbursts. In the prehistory of the play, Oedipus' hot-tempered anger breeds life into an ancient and dead prophecy. His encounter with Laius at Phokas results in a situation where, by his own admission, he killed all of them, every mother's son. Faced with Tiresias' divulging the truth, Oedipus jumps to the irrational conclusion that the blind prophet is a pious fraud and that he is in league with Creon. Oedipus' anger, once aroused, is not easily contained. He turns on his brother-in-law in a vicious and unwarranted manner, and in fact so unreasonable is Oedipus' behaviour that Creon justifiably reminds him that he has lost his sense of balance. Not content with branding Creon a liar, Oedipus proclaims that he wants him dead. Coupled with his anger, Oedipus is extremely inquisitive. During the exchange with Tiresias, it takes the mere mention of his parents to divert Oedipus' attention away from the plague. From here on in, in a very real sense, Oedipus' investigation concerns itself with the truth surrounding his identity. It is, of course, deeply ironic that a play that began with Oedipus' assertion that the world knows his fame, that they all know who he is, should now concern itself with Oedipus' relentless pursuit of his own origins. The intervention of Jocasta and her scepticism only serve to push Oedipus further into the direction of the secrets of his own past. Moreover, from here on in, the plot of the play concerns itself exclusively with his quest for identity. As a result, Oedipus, through his own inquisitiveness, becomes judge, jury and criminal. At first, the realisation that he may have called down a dreadful curse upon himself and that he simply didn't know terrifies Oedipus, and the further Jocasta tries to reassure him, promising him, as she does, that prophecy is neither here nor there, the more Oedipus becomes obsessed with the research for his own identity. He dismisses Jocasta's reluctance to pursue the messenger further in the question of his birth as mere snobbery. He refuses, in his own words, to give up now, with a clue like this, failed to solve the mystery of my birth not for all the world. The result, of course, for Oedipus is devastating. The return of the shepherd sees the pace quicken as many of Oedipus' character traits now come into play. He is inquisitive, dissident, cruel and quick-tempered. However, as the curtain is about to fall, Oedipus' nobility of character prevents him from fragmenting too quickly. He accepts his fate with nobility, made all the more apparent by his terrible suffering. His self-blinding at the moment of his acceptance of the truth is a recognition on his behalf of just how blind he actually is. And so the story concludes as it began, not with Oedipus as some puppet of the gods, but as a man who has been blinded by his own hands. Oedipus leaves the stage, as he entered it, in control of his own destiny and his own story. Oedipus the king is a complex character, whose arrogance, inquisitiveness, quick temper make his fall at once compelling and terrifying. I'd like to take this opportunity to wish the small number of classic students sitting the exam this summer the best of luck, and remember you always know more than you think. A special thank you to Cian Hogan for a very interesting lecture on classical studies. We've come to the end of our educational programmes for Leading Search students higher level. We'd like to thank the lecturers Dennis Craven, Frank Cleary, Cian Hogan, Nigel Macmillan, Kathy Sweeney and Tara Lyons for giving so generously of their time and expertise. We hope the lectures will be of help to you as you prepare for Leading Search. All of the lectures are freely available on www.colomarafm.com. If you experience any difficulty accessing the lectures, please phone the studio at 09541616. Thank you to our sponsors, Cornemara Holiday Lettings. Thanks to Brydie for producing the programmes. To Gráinne and staff for their continued help and support. Next week we'll return to our regular programmes on the West Wind Blows. Looking forward to your company and from Brydie and Kathleen, bye for now.