Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by amyntoros »

No, not literally a Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander, but an excerpt from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Ancient Greece. The other day I took the book off the shelf of Barnes n Noble to read with my coffee, expecting to disdainfully dismiss the section on Alexander. That may sound harsh, but books covering the full swathe of ancient Greek history tend to either treat Alexander from an exaggerated Plutarchian perspective, full of only admiration and praise, or they reproduce a rather boring list of his achievements with little attention paid to his character one way or the other. This time I was rather pleasantly surprised …
(Page 296) Whereas Alexander's father, Philip II, was (and is) often seen as a man of personal and professional excesses, cunning disloyalty, and brutal violence, Alexander's own life was (and is) often viewed through the filter of admiration and wonder. Yet, in many ways, Alexander was his father's son. Both men took advantage of all available means to achieve adventure, conquest, and victory. Both possessed the ability to blend and mold traditions, and both met challenges with creative and decisive action. And both men led lives characterized by excess. By living on the edge, and by continuously challenging the boundaries of physical, social, cultural and personal norms, both men contributed to their untimely deaths. So, in this chapter, we'll try to capture both the legend and the life of Philip II’s son, Alexander the Great.
Not bad, not bad at all, IMO. (Comments from other Pothosians are encouraged :) ). And the rest of the chapter lived up to the introduction, as much as a few brief pages on Alexander's life are able to do so. I forgot to take my (new) reading glasses with me so I passed on reading the chapter about Philip. Next time though …

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Fiona »

I can see why you would be impressed by this. It's original and refreshing to see them held up side by side like this, to look for a moment just at the similarities between them. I bet they got on really well together when they weren't at each other's throats. If the chapter then goes on to show why Alexander is remembered as 'the Great', and Philip as 'II', then I'd be well impressed.
But if it's just a preliminary to a debunking of Alexander, I'd be sad. So often, debunking of historical figures seems to have more to do with their social class, ethnic origins, or simply the high regard in which they were held by previous generations. (Florence Nightingale? Just a nervy middle-class woman who did nothing that Mary Seacole didn't do better....Robert Scott? Crazy English man who didn't know what he was doing and risked the lives of his team...Alexander? Imperialist! Shock, horror!)
If Philip and Alexander's generations were reversed, I wonder what each of them would have achieved? Of course it is only idle speculation, but to me it is interesting to think about, because they were both highly talented. Could Alexander have united Macedon and built an army that used the latest technology? Yes, I think he could. He could be just as patient and canny as his father when he wanted to be. Could Philip have built on Alexander's foundation, and successfully invaded Asia? Of course - he was a great general. But I don't think he'd have thrown his spear onto the beach, and I think that kind of gesture is where the real difference lies. Alexander captured people's imaginations, in a way that Philip couldn't and didn't. Perhaps it is unfair that Philip isn't remembered as 'the Great' - but if he was, Alexander would have to be, 'the Magnificent'.
Fiona
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by marcus »

Fiona wrote:Perhaps it is unfair that Philip isn't remembered as 'the Great' - but if he was, Alexander would have to be, 'the Magnificent'.
I don't see that, were Philip to be recognised as he should be, Alexander would need to become more than "Great" himself - so long as it was clear what he and his father were respectively "great" for.

I do agree with you that there is a tendancy to prick the bubbles of previously lionised figures, although that isn't always without good reason. What I find more irritating is where their achievements are belittled simply because of their character flaws, and that is what you are worried about with this book that Amyntoros quotes - I think? While I know that you and I have somewhat different attitudes towards Alexander, I certainly agree with you here - but from the bit quoted I think it is probably OK ... but it would be interesting to read the whole of the chapter on Alexander.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Fiona »

marcus wrote:
I don't see that, were Philip to be recognised as he should be, Alexander would need to become more than "Great" himself - so long as it was clear what he and his father were respectively "great" for.
That seems fair enough - though it strikes me that history in general is stingy and unimaginative with approbatory and derogatory epithets. If each outstanding monarch had his or her own adjective, it might all seem fairer. I still like 'magnificent' for Alexander, because I think it captures his flair, but then we'd have to find a new one for Lorenzo.
Don't know much about him, but I bet he wasn't as magnificent as Alexander.
marcus wrote: I do agree with you that there is a tendancy to prick the bubbles of previously lionised figures, although that isn't always without good reason. What I find more irritating is where their achievements are belittled simply because of their character flaws, and that is what you are worried about with this book that Amyntoros quotes - I think? While I know that you and I have somewhat different attitudes towards Alexander, I certainly agree with you here - but from the bit quoted I think it is probably OK ... but it would be interesting to read the whole of the chapter on Alexander.
Yes, it is that partly, but also that I see things described as if they were character flaws, when they don't strike me as such, and sometimes you see his achievements described with not much concern for the way he achieved them, as if that wasn't an important thing. But I agree, it would be very interesting to read this chapter.
Talking of books, I just had a birthday and was given Heckel's 'Who's Who'. I am feeling very happy to have such a book as that now in my collection. It is very tempting to keep dipping, and I am not getting much work done!
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote: But I don't think he'd have thrown his spear onto the beach, and I think that kind of gesture is where the real difference lies. Alexander captured people's imaginations, in a way that Philip couldn't and didn't.
That, I'm afraid, is rubbish. Not the spear into the beach routine, the summation.

All the available material indicates that Philip was resoundingly popular with the Makedones. He seems, at the time, to have quite captured "their imagination". In the period following Alexander's death both were highly popular in the Macedonian imagination.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Semiramis »

Hi Amyntoros,

That was a very good paragraph. Much more nuanced than I would have expected. I guess one should never judge a book by its title. :) I notice the current trend of replacing that unsavoury word "wars" with the fun and cute-sounding "adventures", has been followed. :)

Hi Fiona,
Fiona wrote:But if it's just a preliminary to a debunking of Alexander, I'd be sad. So often, debunking of historical figures seems to have more to do with their social class, ethnic origins, or simply the high regard in which they were held by previous generations. (Florence Nightingale? Just a nervy middle-class woman who did nothing that Mary Seacole didn't do better....Robert Scott? Crazy English man who didn't know what he was doing and risked the lives of his team...Alexander? Imperialist! Shock, horror!)
Do you feel that "imperialist" is an inaccurate description of Alexander?

I'm not sure I would put criticism of Alexander in the same category as that of Florence Nightingale (to be honest I have not yet come across any criticism of her). :) One dedicated her life to the service of others. The other, if there is one thing we can be sure of, did not.

As for Scott, his expeditions were rather the non-violent kind. Alexander's "adventures" resulted in substantial wealth and power for him and left a long trail of thousands of dead. Scott certainly didn't intend to go out and get his team killed, let alone attack anyone who did not subjugate themselves to him and offer him their wealth. Most accounts of Scott's life mention the criticism of his risk-taking. But how is that comparable to Bosworth's horror at the Indian massacres or many people's disdain of imperialism, exploitation and wars of aggression in general?
Fiona wrote:Alexander captured people's imaginations, in a way that Philip couldn't and didn't.
Do you mean the imagination of the Macedonians of their own times? Their troops? The people they conquered? All of the above? What evidence supports that assertion?

Of course, if you're speaking of adulatory historians from Plutarch to Robin Lane Fox or fairy tales and folklore, it goes without saying that Alexander far outshines Phillip in these narratives. :)
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Fiona »

Paralus wrote:
That, I'm afraid, is rubbish. Not the spear into the beach routine, the summation.

All the available material indicates that Philip was resoundingly popular with the Makedones. He seems, at the time, to have quite captured "their imagination". In the period following Alexander's death both were highly popular in the Macedonian imagination.
I am very glad that Philip was popular with his own people, he certainly deserved to be, after all he had done to make his country strong and well-respected. But actually I was thinking of people in a much broader sense than that, of the enduring fascination with Alexander that spread beyond his own empire and his own time, especially with reference to why Alexander ended up being known as 'the Great' and Philip did not. Possibly this was unfair, but it happened, and I was trying to put my finger on that extra 'something' that might account for it.
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Fiona »

Semiramis wrote: Hi Fiona,
Do you feel that "imperialist" is an inaccurate description of Alexander?
Hi! I feel it is an incomplete description of Alexander. I would have no problem seeing him described as an imperialist so long as it was accompanied by other words, such as tactician, party animal, explorer, bibliophile, innovator and hero, to name but six. He was a complex character, and to label him with one word seems unfair, it doesn't give the full picture.
It would be refreshing too, sometimes to see references to imperialism that didn't automatically assume it was always a Bad Thing. However, this is something of an aside - I'm not assuming or implying that the book Amyntoros is telling us about does criticise Alexander.
Semiramis wrote: Do you mean the imagination of the Macedonians of their own times? Their troops? The people they conquered? All of the above? What evidence supports that assertion?

Of course, if you're speaking of adulatory historians from Plutarch to Robin Lane Fox or fairy tales and folklore, it goes without saying that Alexander far outshines Phillip in these narratives. :)
I meant people in general, both then and now and all the ages in between, his enemies who told stories about him, his early admirers who told stories about him. The evidence would be things like, the Successors needing his 'unseen presence' for their discussions before his empty throne, the existence of the Romance and the way it spread through Europe, the way he inspired other generals, from Augustus to Napoleon, his sheer fame, that has lasted so long. Even my mum's heard of him, and she left school at 13. It was Alexander's charisma that caused this, not any adulatory historians or fairy tales or folklore. They are the effect, not the cause.
So yes, I am asserting with this evidence that Alexander captured the popular imagination, in a lasting way, and whether that is fair or not, and regardless of how popular Philip was with his own people, Philip could not and did not come anywhere near it. If you mention 'Philip II' to any non-historian, averagely well educated person in western Europe, I bet they would think you meant Philip II of Spain.
I'm not too sure what you mean by fairy tales and folklore. If you mean things like the Alexander Romance, then I think their very existence is part of the evidence. If, however, you mean the 'nice' bits in Plutarch, then I would say, yes, I believe them. But I don't, by that token, disbelieve the nasty bits. They're all part of who he was.
Fiona
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Semiramis »

Hi Fiona,
Fiona wrote:But actually I was thinking of people in a much broader sense than that, of the enduring fascination with Alexander that spread beyond his own empire and his own time, especially with reference to why Alexander ended up being known as 'the Great' and Philip did not. Possibly this was unfair, but it happened, and I was trying to put my finger on that extra 'something' that might account for it.
Fiona wrote:I meant people in general, both then and now and all the ages in between, his enemies who told stories about him, his early admirers who told stories about him. The evidence would be things like, the Successors needing his 'unseen presence' for their discussions before his empty throne, the existence of the Romance and the way it spread through Europe, the way he inspired other generals, from Augustus to Napoleon, his sheer fame, that has lasted so long. Even my mum's heard of him, and she left school at 13. It was Alexander's charisma that caused this, not any adulatory historians or fairy tales or folklore. They are the effect, not the cause.
That extra ‘something’ would have to be the size of Alexander’s empire - the largest the world had ever seen at that time. When Alexander died, Phillip’s sphere of influence, in contrast, constituted but a small and distant part of his holdings. The ensuing wars between the Successors and their need for legitimacy would see his legend grow and spread. Even the Parthians mingled Seleucid ideas of kingship along with Achaemenid and Iranian ones.

Alexander’s name is recognized, both positively and negatively, because he was such a successful imperialist. If he had lost the wars he started, charismatic or not, his spear-throwing propaganda would have been little more than a one-line joke in some Persian satrap’s court. Xerxes too had invoked the Trojan war before crossing the Hellespont. Not to mention the numerous occasions of Greek identification of Persians with Trojans. As far as war propaganda went, Homeric allusions were not particularly original in that part of the world.

Centuries later, the Roman general Crassus would declare his desire to conquer Bactria and India. However, having underestimated the strength of the Parthians, he lost his life and army in a foolish battle. He could have been a most charismatic man, but there is no Crassus Romance.
Fiona wrote:Semiramis wrote: Hi Fiona,
Do you feel that "imperialist" is an inaccurate description of Alexander?

Hi! I feel it is an incomplete description of Alexander. I would have no problem seeing him described as an imperialist so long as it was accompanied by other words, such as tactician, party animal, explorer, bibliophile, innovator and hero, to name but six. He was a complex character, and to label him with one word seems unfair, it doesn't give the full picture.
To label anybody with a single word is unfair and of course I agree that some of the adjectives in your post describe Alexander well.

Alexander was certainly an excellent military tactician. There would be no empire without wars, sieges, sacks, massacres, wholesale enslavement, crucifixions and movement of populations. Not to mention of course the omnipresent threat of such assaults. Clearly, conquest and organized violence are inexorably linked and Alexander excelled at this. Words like adventurer or explorer seem to obfuscate that fact that these acts of aggression were vicious and bloody matters causing much death, destruction and terror.

Without doubt, he had to be innovative in his propaganda and practices - having subjugated such diverse and often unwilling populations. While his actions frequently mirrored those of Cyrus II and other Achaemenids, there are also examples of him trying his own ideas to consolidate the newly-acquired empire.

He was certainly a privileged well-educated Macedonian. However, attention needs to be paid to the fact that without his usurpation of the Persian Empire, we would not concern ourselves with the minutiae of his personality - his interest in culture or party animal ways.

I think one should be able to discuss Alexander without accepting a priori that he is either a “hero” or “villain”. To describe someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of wealth and power through violence as a “hero” makes little sense to me. I find many accounts of Alexander’s army’s butchery positively nauseating. On the other hand, Alexander was a man who was born an Argead heir in Phillip’s Macedonia, a state that could not survive without extortion. He grew up in the shadow of the Persian Empire at an age when young men hero-worshipped warriors. To describe him as a villain ignores that context.

Of course, we may have felt differently had we been recently made into slaves, to be marched out of our destroyed city past our crucified male family members. But thankfully, we live in a safe distance from the age of Alexander and wars of aggression are a thing of the past. :roll:

The matter of admiration or condemnation of a historical figure only comes into play when their actions are systematically whitewashed. You will find that a segment of any population will enthusiastically cheer for the most grotesque violence and exploitation, provided that there is enough propaganda creating nationalistic cults of personality and the victims are perceived as sufficiently ‘Other’.
Fiona wrote:It would be refreshing too, sometimes to see references to imperialism that didn't automatically assume it was always a Bad Thing.
When would imperialism be a Good Thing?
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by marcus »

Semiramis wrote:I find many accounts of Alexander’s army’s butchery positively nauseating.
However, Alexander's army was no worse than many others before or since. While I would never seek to excuse Alexander, it would be grossly unfair to judge him on the basis of this, out of context.
semiramis wrote:When would imperialism be a Good Thing?
How long have you got? There are plenty of arguments in favour of imperialism, just as there are plenty of arguments against it. It all depends on the empire; the context in which and the reasons for which it was created; the state of the constituent geo-political areas prior to inclusion, as well as after disbandment; its achievements as well as its failures ... the list is endless, and it is far too easy (but unhelpful and disingenuous) simply to say that imperialism is "good" or "bad".

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Phoebus »

Semiramis wrote:To describe someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of wealth and power through violence as a “hero” makes little sense to me.
I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

To the ancient Greeks, heroism seems to have had as much to do with scale rather than morality--if not moreso. Hegel's use of the term/title to identify people who fit in a state's Zeitgeist would also apply here.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Semiramis »

marcus wrote:
Semiramis wrote:I find many accounts of Alexander’s army’s butchery positively nauseating.
However, Alexander's army was no worse than many others before or since. While I would never seek to excuse Alexander, it would be grossly unfair to judge him on the basis of this, out of context.
Nowhere in my post do I suggest that Alexander's army was unique in its savagery. The most cursory knowledge of previous or current wars would contradict such a view. To feel sickened by accounts of butchery, by any army, I assume is a natural human reaction. It is misleading to quote that line out of context without those that followed, where I attempted to put Alexander in his historical context. The question of judging someone who lived over two thousand years ago is only relevant when that person is glorified in the present day and horrific acts are ignored or actively excused. Let's remember that a label like "hero" is laden with as much value judgment as "villain".
Semiramis wrote:I think one should be able to discuss Alexander without accepting a priori that he is either a “hero” or “villain”. To describe someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of wealth and power through violence as a “hero” makes little sense to me. I find many accounts of Alexander’s army’s butchery positively nauseating. On the other hand, Alexander was a man who was born an Argead heir in Phillip’s Macedonia, a state that could not survive without extortion. He grew up in the shadow of the Persian Empire at an age when young men hero-worshipped warriors. To describe him as a villain ignores that context.
marcus wrote:
semiramis wrote:When would imperialism be a Good Thing?
How long have you got? There are plenty of arguments in favour of imperialism, just as there are plenty of arguments against it. It all depends on the empire; the context in which and the reasons for which it was created; the state of the constituent geo-political areas prior to inclusion, as well as after disbandment; its achievements as well as its failures ... the list is endless, and it is far too easy (but unhelpful and disingenuous) simply to say that imperialism is "good" or "bad".

ATB
As I wrote to Fiona, I would love hear these arguments in favour of imperialism if you personally find them convincing. :)
Last edited by Semiramis on Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Semiramis »

Phoebus wrote:
Semiramis wrote:To describe someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of wealth and power through violence as a “hero” makes little sense to me.
I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

To the ancient Greeks, heroism seems to have had as much to do with scale rather than morality--if not moreso. Hegel's use of the term/title to identify people who fit in a state's Zeitgeist would also apply here.
And what do you think Hegel would make of Spartacus? :)
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by marcus »

Semiramis wrote:
marcus wrote:
semiramis wrote:When would imperialism be a Good Thing?
How long have you got? There are plenty of arguments in favour of imperialism, just as there are plenty of arguments against it. It all depends on the empire; the context in which and the reasons for which it was created; the state of the constituent geo-political areas prior to inclusion, as well as after disbandment; its achievements as well as its failures ... the list is endless, and it is far too easy (but unhelpful and disingenuous) simply to say that imperialism is "good" or "bad".

ATB
As I wrote to Fiona, I would love hear these arguments in favour of imperialism if you personally find them convincing. :)
You give me the empire, and I'll look at it in the light of all the conditions I mentioned; then I'll tell you whether there are any favourable things to say about it. Like I say, it's not that imperialism is, per se, a good thing; but that there are instances where one cannot say that the empire was a bad thing just because it was an empire.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Semiramis »

Hi Marcus,
marcus wrote:You give me the empire, and I'll look at it in the light of all the conditions I mentioned; then I'll tell you whether there are any favourable things to say about it. Like I say, it's not that imperialism is, per se, a good thing; but that there are instances where one cannot say that the empire was a bad thing just because it was an empire.

ATB
Oxford online defines the term as -

"imperialism • noun a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

So let's clarify that we really are discussing arguments in favour of imperialism. Or are we hunting out specific instances where imperialism produced the side effect of something positive? Surely the two are different matters? World Wars may have given rise to the League of Nations and United Nations, but that doesn't necessarily argue in favour of World Wars. I have enjoyed many fascinating cricket matches. But surely Brian Lara's batting skills can't be used to argue in favour of British imperialism? :) Are you saying that the perceived "benefits" excuse the principle? Or the methods?
Post Reply