Why Was Alexander "great"?

[Aurelianus]

Why is it that the name of Alexander has reverberated down the ages so that today most will know a bit about him?

As far as i can see he did nothing that someone else hasn't done better: He did not create a new and revolutionary fighting force, or better tactics, and yet who of the uneducated many will have heard the name Phillip of Macedon?

Sure, he was an able general, but there have been many better; who has heard of Graham, Mallbourgh (sp?), Julian, or Aurelian?

Was it the shear amount of land conqoured by him? if so why is peoples knowladge of Genghis Khan so sketchy?

He displayed an idiotic amount of insanely brave things showing an almost suicidal need to prove himself on the feild, whilst Achillies is not nearly so well known, but since when is bravery a qualification for greatness?

He had his head pumped full of ethical issues by Aristotle, so could he have been a great govenor/ruler? He never had a chance to rule, he was on campeign too much. I supose there was his attitude of tollerance to other cultures, but on the whole, so did the romans.

 

I suspect that the reason that Alexander is the one singled out is that he was the first european to acheive things on such a scale; he set a high water mark for others to try and surpass. From the outside his achievements do look titanic.

 

I would welcome your thoughts on the area; im sure im misguided in some areas.

[Divi Filius]

Why is it that the name of Alexander has reverberated down the ages so that today most will know a bit about him?

 

Because he was reponsible for sprouting an empire which lived in his shadow centuries after his death. The middle east was never the same after his empire was built. It created a mix of eastern culture with native Greek one which produced some of the greatest cities of the ancient world(Alexandria). The culture established by his empire could not even be extinguished by Romanization. The eastern part of that empire continued to Greek in culture and language and stayed so into the Byzantine times. An effect which was felt until the subsequent Arab conquest.

 

Another is legend. He was revered in the entire Hellenistic world. Something which passed on to us into the Middle Ages and then to the Renaissance and the modern world. Today our view of the man has been largely altered in light of modern politics and WW2.

 

As far as i can see he did nothing that someone else hasn't done better: He did not create a new and revolutionary fighting force, or better tactics, and yet who of the uneducated many will have heard the name Phillip of Macedon?

 

It is just as easy to degrade Alexander's achievements as it is to overexaggerate them. Indeed Alexander had attained his army and tactics from his father Philip, just as he himself adopted the oblique advance from Epaminondas. However nobody had ever done it to such a scale as he. Epaminondas did it with a relatively small army against one just as big. Same with Philip, Alexander had to do it against an enemy over twice his size with an army twice as big as Philips. On top of that the sheer level headedness that he showed in the battlefield, never succumbing to panic. On top of that to start out at such a young age from relatively nothing. Napoleon and Hannibal spent much of their careers learning the art of war. Alexander started at 18 and showed sheer brilliance.

 

On top of all this the man completely revolutionized warfare. Adding artilery outside of sieges and placing them into the battlefield. His sieging skills alone. The mobility of his army(his march on Thebes). His acts against Porus in India(the real test of his generalship I have to say) or the mountain warfare.

 

The warfare he fought would dissappear until the time of Julius Caesar and beyond.

 

Sure, he was an able general, but there have been many better; who has heard of Graham, Mallbourgh (sp?), Julian, or Aurelian?

 

None of the campaigns of the above ever succeeded in greating such vast empires.

 

Was it the shear amount of land conqoured by him? if so why is peoples knowladge of Genghis Khan so sketchy?

 

1. Embarrases the western world

2. None left such as a significant cultural legacy. Alexander is mentioned in the Kuran and was revered in Persian well into the Sassanid Empire

 

He had his head pumped full of ethical issues by Aristotle, so could he have been a great govenor/ruler? He never had a chance to rule, he was on campeign too much. I supose there was his attitude of tollerance to other cultures, but on the whole, so did the romans.

 

Something which Augustus commented on. Alexander was first and foremost a fighter. After his campaigns he planned further ones. Arabia, Italy etc. Whether he woulc have succeeded? Who knows. Yet this is another thing that adds to his fame. The fact that he died so young after having completed so much, he left the world wondering at how far he could go, which lead Livy to take a piece of of his history to discuss the chances of Italy having fallen. We still discuss whether he could have conquered here or there.

We are left to wonder just how he was going to administer the land(though in likelihood he would have changed very little if anything from the Persian system, which was extremely cohesive).

Edited October 1, 2006 by Divi Filius

[DecimusCaesar]

In Michael Wood's 'In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great' he says that Alexander changed the attitude of the western world. He influenced it in such a way that Alexander's world view is our world view too (to an extent). For instance Alexander set down the belief that greatness comes thorugh military exploits. He was the first man to conquer a substantial part of the world setting the path for all other future conquerors from Julius Caesar and Charlmagne to the Generals of the British Empire and even Adolf Hitler. He was responsible for the world's first globalizing culture (the Hellenic civilization that was spread from Europe across the Middle east and to India) and as a result he commands more attention in our modern "Globalized" world.

 

The other reason he is more well known than most other conquerors (especially Genghis Khan) is that in our Eurocentric Western world he is considered more important than any eastern warrior,. True, everyone has heard of Alexander but when I ask friends or family about what he did or who he was there is a lot of confusion - it's like Tutankhamun or Caesar, everyone's heard about them but very little actually know anything about them.

Edited October 2, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Aurelianus]

It is just as easy to degrade Alexander's achievements as it is to overexaggerate them. Indeed Alexander had attained his army and tactics from his father Philip, just as he himself adopted the oblique advance from Epaminondas. However nobody had ever done it to such a scale as he. Epaminondas did it with a relatively small army against one just as big. Same with Philip, Alexander had to do it against an enemy over twice his size with an army twice as big as Philips. On top of that the sheer level headedness that he showed in the battlefield, never succumbing to panic. On top of that to start out at such a young age from relatively nothing. Napoleon and Hannibal spent much of their careers learning the art of war. Alexander started at 18 and showed sheer brilliance.

 

On top of all this the man completely revolutionized warfare. Adding artilery outside of sieges and placing them into the battlefield. His sieging skills alone. The mobility of his army(his march on Thebes). His acts against Porus in India(the real test of his generalship I have to say) or the mountain warfare.

 

The warfare he fought would dissappear until the time of Julius Caesar and beyond.

 

Im not disputing that Alexander was great, just trying to form a better picture of why he was considered the best/greatest.

Yes, Alexander did display amazing self confidance, but i suspect that was just a personality trait, he was also headstrong and arbitrary, going on to paranoia.

Phillip gave him an extensive military education, so he would probably have done all that could be by the age of 18.

Aplying tactics to an army twice the size is no feat. maintaining an army twice the size is, but that was Hepheastions job.

The warfare he fought required an able and charismatic leader; there was not realy anyone between him and Pompey/Ceasar who was as good.

 

Sure, he was an able general, but there have been many better; who has heard of Graham, Mallbourgh (sp?), Julian, or Aurelian?

 

None of the campaigns of the above ever succeeded in creating such vast empires.

 

That wasn't my point; im saying they were better generals. so they could have achieved more in Alexander's place. Indeed, Julian, i have often heard it argued, was on the verge of repeating Alexander's acheivements. If he had done so they would have been all the greater, for the sassanid empire was in no way crumbling. the persian was when Alex took it.

 

Was it the shear amount of land conqoured by him? if so why is peoples knowladge of Genghis Khan so sketchy?

 

1. Embarrases the western world

2. None left such as a significant cultural legacy. Alexander is mentioned in the Kuran and was revered in Persian well into the Sassanid Empire

 

1. Genghis Khan dosn't embarres the west, the mongols never got further than poland; sure they could have done if Ogadi hadnt died, but they still didn't.

2. Charlemagne did as well, or Ceasar or Pompey for that matter. they dont seem to afect us so much, but enevitably the world would be a very diferant place without them.

 

Because he was reponsible for sprouting an empire which lived in his shadow centuries after his death. The middle east was never the same after his empire was built. It created a mix of eastern culture with native Greek one which produced some of the greatest cities of the ancient world(Alexandria). The culture established by his empire could not even be extinguished by Romanization. The eastern part of that empire continued to Greek in culture and language and stayed so into the Byzantine times. An effect which was felt until the subsequent Arab conquest.

 

So your'e saying that it was his legacy that made him great? The stamp he left across the middle east saying ALEXANDER, in monuments, culture and legend, making him imortal in the minds of people all over the world is what makes him great?

[Uros]

But Because no one berfore him try to conquer the world.

I, for example, consider Alexander no better than Hitler.

His politics of unin between "Barbarians" and greeks are in many ways similar to forced germanization inb XIX century, He destroyed many great tresures as the Avesta(impeding Zoroastrism to become a rival of Christianity and Islam, and destroyn century of speritual achivements by persians and iranians).

BUT, he dream to make the world a simgle state, a single Koin

[Favonius Cornelius]

But Because no one berfore him try to conquer the world.

I, for example, consider Alexander no better than Hitler.

His politics of unin between "Barbarians" and greeks are in many ways similar to forced germanization inb XIX century, He destroyed many great tresures as the Avesta(impeding Zoroastrism to become a rival of Christianity and Islam, and destroyn century of speritual achivements by persians and iranians).

BUT, he dream to make the world a simgle state, a single Koin

[phil25]

Alexander aspired higher; achieved more; inspired and led - or at least was perceived to by those who came after - to a greater degree than anyone before had done. It was a form of charisma.

 

Hence Caesar wept before his statue, because Alexander had done so much more before the age that Ceasar had reached.

 

Characters who have the epithet "great" applied to them are usually seen as epoch-making: Peter the Great transformed Russia; Alfred the Great saved England from the Danes; Gregory the Great set a new style for the Papacy etc. The term is hardly ever used now - Victoria or Elizabeth the "Great" never stuck, though people tried with both.

 

But also, in a sense, I suspect Alexander was seen as somehow typifying that trait of personal glory that was so strong in the ancient world. He brought to life again something of the legendary Achilles -his own personal hero.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

Phil

[Leonida]

I disagree, you cannot compare Hitler to Alexander. I probably shouldn't even expound on this but I cannot help myself. There is a big difference between waging a war against an empire which has constantly strove to conquer you, and the genocidal empire construction of the Nazis. Alexander's actions were not exactly the most moral in the world, but it's bad taste to raise the Nazi comparison.

 

Ave, Favonius...

 

I'm going to have to disagree on this point, but with a proviso. It is completely apt to compare Hitler with Alexander (or indeed any other imperialist, such as Julius Caesar). The difference is, of course, one of historical perspective. By modern standards, Hitler's deeds were utterly barbaric - and because it is still in living memory completely abhorrent to us.

 

However, the armies and actions Third Reich was little different to any other highly organised, effective and motivated conquesting force in history. Indeed, Hitler took inspiration from the Ancients and used their template for his success. Roman salute = Nazi Salute. Roman Eagle = Nazi Eagle (indeed, beneath the Eagle banner, the Nazis had their own version of the SPQR). SS = Praetorian Guard. Hitler youth = the Spartan agoge...I could go on, but the parallells are undeniable.

 

Hitler's programme of ethnic cleansing was one of the most evil dictates in modern history, but by ancient standards was on a par with Caesars massacre of the Gauls, Alexander's sack of Thebes, the actions of the Romans in Judea and Carthage. Ethnic cleansing for you, right there - Carthago delando est.

 

It is, however, wrong to put on our modern sensibilties to analyse what Alexander, Caesar, Khan et al did. They were products of their time and acting within the social boundries of their respective eras. The difference is that Hitler was a product of modern times.

 

But on purely historical context, one cannot ignore the parallells as I said above. It's harsh but true - the Glory that was Rome was built on the blood and suffering of countless millions of people, as was any empire. Albeit the Pax Romana was arguably a benefit to all and sundry, the fact remains that indigenous popuations will always resent a militarily and technologically superior power coming along, setting up a government in its homeland and telling it that their new way to live is better than the lifestyle the natives have enjoyed for centuries before hand.

 

That still goes on today, as we are all aware. It would appear that we do not learn the lessons of history!

[Tobias]

The warfare he fought required an able and charismatic leader; there was not realy anyone between him and Pompey/Ceasar who was as good.

 

Slightly off topic i know, but are you suggesting that after Alexander and before Pompey and Caesar there were no able generals? If that's what you're saying, then you're dismissing a multitude of great generals, such as the Scipios Africanus and Aemilianus, Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to name but a few.

[phil25]

My view would be that it is self-evident that there were not.

 

I doubt any serious military historian would put any of those you mention in tjheir list of the top 10 great captains of history. But I reckon Alexander and Caesar would reckon in most lists.

 

But it is not generalship alone, IMHO, that sets Alexander apart - it is the vision and leadership and the scope and scale of his ambition that do that (as they did Caesar).

 

Phil

[Favonius Cornelius]

Hitler's programme of ethnic cleansing was one of the most evil dictates in modern history, but by ancient standards was on a par with Caesars massacre of the Gauls, Alexander's sack of Thebes, the actions of the Romans in Judea and Carthage. Ethnic cleansing for you, right there - Carthago delando est.

 

We've had great big discussions on this in the past here in the forum. My view is that while it is true that the Romans and any other peoples in these times have done things like killed a bunch of people in battle, or sacked a city, it is absolutely no comparison to a systematic extinction of a people. Caesar never wanted that for the Gauls and went to great lengths to try and get them to accept the status quo. In fact Caesar infrequently sacked any Gaul towns. At worst he enslaved them, and the major killings were part of battles. As for Carthage, it was destruction of an enemy, not a race and not systematic. There were no roundups of Carthaginian peoples across the coasts of Africa and in Hispania for the sole intent of extermination. It was about destroying a power bloc, which was a city.

 

So in the end it

[Aurelianus]

The warfare he fought required an able and charismatic leader; there was not realy anyone between him and Pompey/Ceasar who was as good.

 

Slightly off topic i know, but are you suggesting that after Alexander and before Pompey and Caesar there were no able generals? If that's what you're saying, then you're dismissing a multitude of great generals, such as the Scipios Africanus and Aemilianus, Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to name but a few.

 

I was responding to what Divi Filius said "The warfare he fought would dissappear until the time of Julius Caesar and beyond." i think what we both ment was that it was not repeated imediately or for the next "few" years.

 

Hitler's programme of ethnic cleansing was one of the most evil dictates in modern history, but by ancient standards was on a par with Caesars massacre of the Gauls, Alexander's sack of Thebes, the actions of the Romans in Judea and Carthage. Ethnic cleansing for you, right there - Carthago delando est.

 

We've had great big discussions on this in the past here in the forum. My view is that while it is true that the Romans and any other peoples in these times have done things like killed a bunch of people in battle, or sacked a city, it is absolutely no comparison to a systematic extinction of a people. Caesar never wanted that for the Gauls and went to great lengths to try and get them to accept the status quo. In fact Caesar infrequently sacked any Gaul towns. At worst he enslaved them, and the major killings were part of battles. As for Carthage, it was destruction of an enemy, not a race and not systematic. There were no roundups of Carthaginian peoples across the coasts of Africa and in Hispania for the sole intent of extermination. It was about destroying a power bloc, which was a city.

 

So in the end it

[Leonida]

The warfare he fought required an able and charismatic leader; there was not realy anyone between him and Pompey/Ceasar who was as good.

 

Slightly off topic i know, but are you suggesting that after Alexander and before Pompey and Caesar there were no able generals? If that's what you're saying, then you're dismissing a multitude of great generals, such as the Scipios Africanus and Aemilianus, Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to name but a few.

 

I was responding to what Divi Filius said "The warfare he fought would dissappear until the time of Julius Caesar and beyond." i think what we both ment was that it was not repeated imediately or for the next "few" years.

 

Hitler's programme of ethnic cleansing was one of the most evil dictates in modern history, but by ancient standards was on a par with Caesars massacre of the Gauls, Alexander's sack of Thebes, the actions of the Romans in Judea and Carthage. Ethnic cleansing for you, right there - Carthago delando est.

 

We've had great big discussions on this in the past here in the forum. My view is that while it is true that the Romans and any other peoples in these times have done things like killed a bunch of people in battle, or sacked a city, it is absolutely no comparison to a systematic extinction of a people. Caesar never wanted that for the Gauls and went to great lengths to try and get them to accept the status quo. In fact Caesar infrequently sacked any Gaul towns. At worst he enslaved them, and the major killings were part of battles. As for Carthage, it was destruction of an enemy, not a race and not systematic. There were no roundups of Carthaginian peoples across the coasts of Africa and in Hispania for the sole intent of extermination. It was about destroying a power bloc, which was a city.

 

So in the end it

[Primus Pilus]

When the Romans destroyed Carthage, they killed (reportedly) every living thing and then went on to sow the ground with salt so nothing would go there. Please explain how this is not ethnic cleansing.

 

There is no evidence that the salting ever took place and is likely a later period fabrication invented to add emphasis to the defeat of the Carthaginians. The city may have been razed, but it was eventually rebuilt and the Punic people continued to live in Africa and the surrounding area. Septimius Severus, an emperor with African Punic roots who came to prominence some 3 to 3 1/2 centuries later proves as proof of Punic survival. Sure it may have been assimilated into Roman culture, but complete elimination was never the intention. The city of Carthage was a symbol of Roman defeat and was destroyed to prove superiority, not to eliminate a race of people.

 

The difference between Hitler and some of these other historical issues being compared is the intent. Did Caesar intend to wipe the Gauls off the face of the planet? No, he enslaved some for profit and to inspire fear. He massacred the opposition until the greater populace would submit to his authority. It was both cruel and vicious, but once the task of subjugation was completed, the Gauls were not subject to any further "cleansing" by Caesar and they in fact would eventually flourish.

 

The question I suppose we must ask when comparing the actions of Hitler to the examples above is... would a Jew or a Gypsy ever have flourished under the Nazis, as Punic and Gallic people did under the Romans despite the hardships of initial conquest?

 

 

I personally find this one of the most rediculous threads ever. I first thought it was a lame excuse to have people work for you in supplying you information because you had an inkling of curiosity in Alexander of Macedon's life. I was surprised to discover you did know some things about Alexander, yet still could not understand why he is known as The Great and that First Great, as well. I'm not going to go into a huge tangeant about this but I'm gonna say this, If you really did know anything about Alexander you would plainly have realized is insanely obvious he was the greatest tactician on a battlefield who ever lived. Ofcourse you can't look at this from a modern lense. Also, you have to realize nobody had done anything like what alexander did successfully and with such grace and charisma. Alexander is the pinnacle of determination. To never give up, give in, always try to exceed expectations and aspire to greatness. This was his life goal and everything was subservient to it, even his own retinue. If you want to get a fantastic idea of who Alexander really was, I would personally suggest Peter Greene's 'ALexander of Macedon'. He's my favorite author on the subject and he's a riot when they interview him about Alexander.

 

"This Made Alexander the richest and most powerful man in the known world...He could do what he liked."

Peter Greene

 

"The reason why I think he finally went through with the seige of Tyre was because he was damn well not gonna be beaten, because they had really irritated him past beliefe and He was determined sacrifice in that damned temple if he had to kill 10,000 Tyrians to do it. " Peter Greene

 

Krackalackin, this entire post is completely subjective in nature (meaning it is simply your opinion and cannot be proven). It is absolutely fine if you think Alexander is the greatest XYZ person in history. However your suggestion that others are somehow flawed for not agreeing with you is outside the realm of courteous discussion.

 

In fact, while speculative conversation regarding the ancient world is encouraged, posts such as this have routinely been sent to Tartarus in the past.

 

Additionally.. to all (myself included) we definately seem to be diverting from the original topic, so why was Alexander Great?

[Ursus]

I'm going to ignore for a moment analysis of tactical achievements on the battlefield. I think the central question is whether or not can we see the chain of subsequent history unfolding without the man in question.

 

1) Was there another agent that could have united Greece, thus ending the Classical Age of the polis and beginning the Hellenistic era of larger land masses ruled by god-kings?

 

2) If Alexander had not brought token measures of Hellenism to the Orient, could Rome have conquered and maintained what became its Eastern half?

 

3) Would Roman culture have developed as it did without the incorporation of a Hellenistic East standing in Alexander's shadow?

 

4) Would Christianity have developed as it did, if at all, without aforementioned Hellenistic East subsumed into Rome?

 

5) In the sum of things, how would Western Culture be different?

 

 

Everything is speculation, but it's hard for me to envision history as we know it without Alexander. And from that perspective, as a mover and shaker of world events, Alexander might be called "great" whether you agree with his actions or not.

 

Those of us who appreciate the "great man" theory of history may simply appreciate in Alexander a man who sought glory and won. The amoral pagan in me finds comparisons to recent totalitarian leaders beside the point. To go down in history, whether in fame or infamy, might be argued by some to be better than dying unknown and forgotten to the ages.