Why Was Alexander "great"?

[Cohort]

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.

 

yes agreed he did what no man before him had done..he ..he invaded the Persian empire which had attempted many times to subjugate the Grecian peninsula

Edited October 6, 2006 by Cohort

[DecimusCaesar]

despite his nephews gains or losses in Italy ( Pyrrus

[Aurelianus]

Yes, I've heard of the these claims too, I don't remember where I read them, but I know they are there. I seem to remember the Romans thought barbarians effeminate because of their trousers too. And today we would view any man who wore a skirt to be effeminate, so I suspect it is a cultural thing. Also calling someone effeminate seems to have been a traditional insult down the ages, so any excuse would have been grabbed upon.

[georgious]

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.

Having read the thread and being a modern Greek I feel an urge to participate.Alexander was an ancient conqueror whith a cultural agenda of Hellenization, in the sense that Caesar was an ancient conqueror with an agenda of Romanization.He used brutal methods but there was not international law to sanction him.The concept of balance of power is very modern indeed.The idea that political actions should be judged with the same political criteria as personal conduct is even more modern and originates in the Wilsonian school of American diplomacy as the good doctor Kissinger says in his fine book "Diplomacy".Aristotle found normal that Greeks should be masters and barbarians slaves so Alexander did actually improve his master's principles.The test of a Great Power as the late A.J.P. Taylor said is the ability to wage war. The same applies to antiqiuity.Hitler according to Taylor did nothing not done before in international relations except that he was a German.I do not agree with that statement absolutely.Wars of conquest were rationalized in the early twentieth century as "White man's Burden" and "mission civilizatrice". I see nothing particularly bad in Alexander. Lord Acton said that Great Men were almost always bad.Caesar's methods were harsh but this earned him respect not approbation.The French describe their country as "vieux pays Gallo-romaine" and popular representations of Caesar from HBO's Rome to Asterix are far from negative.The obvious moral is that success justifies everything.