Can we call Alexander a hero?

[kenny]

Hail I just finishe watching a documentary about the Scots nationalist William Wallace. A hundred miles off Mel Gibsons take.The reference for William Wallace was national hero etc freedom fighter. Selflessly fighting for his countries independence. An underdog so to speak.Alexander was an inherent prince with the priveleges linked to the post. On a mision of self glorification and conquest with a tool of the magnificent tool of the macedonian army.Can we therefore afford the label hero to Alexander. We know he is legend but what about hero. Can a guy whos forte and genius was war and killing at the same time be called hero.I guess his feats of daring and self risk could count him a hero. but is this enough.Indeed Alexander is was a legend to me and possibly a hero?Kenny

[Efstathios]

Well that is a nice subject for discussion.Firstly lets define what a hero was back then. A hero would be a man that fought very bravely in the battle putting the cause over his life.This cause would be:To defend his home/country,to defend his companions in battle,to fight for an ideal(that is subjective of course)e.t.c. There were several persian men that Alexander would admire for their courage in battle as he would admire his own men that fought bravely.A hero would be distinquished by both sides if he fought bravely for the cause ,either defending or attacking. Of course it is a matter of perspective.I dont know if the troyans would see Achilles as a hero.Maybe,maybe not.But i have the feeling that a man would be considered as a hero by his acts in battle and the bravery that he would show.So Achilles would be a hero because he fought for glory. Generally, back then there was the belief that a man could gain glory by distinguishing himself in battles.In the movie "Troy" this belief was well shown when Achilles told his mother that he would go with the greek army to Troy because he wanted to be glorius. So,there were different beliefs about these matters.Of course i dont believe that even back then someone who was just a slaughtering machine would be called a hero.There were ideals that would make someone a hero.I have read many nouvelles about ancient greece that included a more realistic touch to the matter,as they would be seen from a modern perspective actually.At some point the perspective changed.But i do not know when.I think that Alexander's era was a middle point.Maybe because of the efforts of Alexander and Phillip to unite the greeks ,they realised that killing eachother was not heroic.And then heroism and the hunt for glory may have started to changed form gradually. Was Alexander a hero?From the perspective of the ancient world i think he was.We cannot compare it with modern times.Not even Wallace's times.Ideals were different in 1200 ad. I will post later after i make some reaserch about this matter,because it is a very wide matter with a lot of perspectives.

[heinrich]

Perhaps it is interesting to see that Homer is already unsure what makes a man a hero. In the Iliad, Achilles proclaims that he hates the man who uses tricks during a fight; he even hates this man "like the gates of hell". In the end, however, he can only overcome Hector by using a weak spot in his armor - hardly heroic, according to his own standard.I don't need to stress that the heroism of Odysseus in the Odyssee is completely different from the initial heroism of Achilles in the Iliad.Alexander said about a night attack at Gaugamela that he would not steal a victory. Achilles -before he killed Hector- would have agreed that this was according to a hero's code of honor; Odysseus would have said that there was nothing unheroic about it.

[heinrich]

This is an interesting question. I think the Mallian campaign shows that it is hard to give a clear-cut answer.Alexander's STRATEGY was that of a coward: attacking unprotected villages, terrorizing the populace, and no real attack until the enemy's army has already been demoralized.But then, there's the ACTUAL FIGHT, and Alexander is the first to storm the city of the Mallians. This was heroic.

[chris]

HiMy dictionary defines a hero as "a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility etc. A man who is idealised for possessing superior qualities in any field..."I think this should be accepted by both allies and enemies alike, albeit grudgingly.Chris

[Efstathios]

I think that when Homer mentioned tricks he meant something like:throw sand in the eyes of the opponent or things like these.It is not the same with the weak spot of Hektor.The spartans and the other greeks would usually strike with their spears from above,into the enemy's face.Is that a trick?

[elpinice]

I believe Alexander is a hero, although I disagree with a lot of the things that he does. I agree that you should not judge someone like Alexander by our standards. Few people would live up to it. The ancient Greeks would probably look at a 'hero' like Nelson Mandela, and wonder what was so good about him. They might even consider him a wimp. Heroism is subjective, and it is unfair to decide, based on our modern beliefs, that Alexander is not a hero.In his world, he was brave, successful and glorious. These things might not have solely consituted heorism in those times, but they were a significant part of it. If Achilles was a hero, so too was Alexander.Elpi

[marcus]

Coward? Or sensible strategist, using unconventional tactics to minimise his own casualties when the inevitable armed conflict actually took place?Sounds like an essay question at Sandhurst or West Point ...Marcus

[heinrich]

I'm not so sure that it is a sensible strategy. We've seen similar attacks on non-combatants, dignified with the name "strategic bombing", during WW2 (Coventry, the V2's, Hamburg, Dresden). As far as I know, it only made Churchill and Hitler, the British and the Germans more resolute. I wouldn't call this sensible.Therefore, I would not call Alexander's attacks on the beloved ones of the Indian warriors sensible either. We have no information on the Indian morale, but perhaps the Theban Sacred Band is a valid comparandum: if one lover died, the other would seek death as well. Perhaps we can assume that Indian soldiers who had lost their families, fought better too, just like strategic bombing improved the British and German resolution.So, I'm not sure, but I suppose that attacking the civil population is not a very clever strategy.The difference between strategic bombing and Alexander's Indian policy is, of course, this: the people in the bomber planes knew they could be attacked by flak, and knew that casualties could be immense. Alexander's cavalry attacked unarmed people, and losses must have been minimal. Seen from this perspective, I think we may call the fighters of the RAF and the Luftwaffe (even though they fought for the wrong system) heroes, and can reasonably call Alexander's Indian strategy the policy of a coward.I hope I have expressed myself without hurting someone's feelings; the last I want to do is create a conflict between the AngloSaxons and Germans on this forum. Let's save that antagonism for a soccer match.HM

[elpinice]

Except that bombing civilians didn't always have that effect. Hiroshima, for example. It would have also made supporting the army more difficult. True, revenge would probably have been on their minds, but that doesn't mean that the tactic doesn't have other advantages (sickly brutal though it may seem).Elpinice

[marcus]

Hi Heinrich,I know exactly what you're saying, and to a large extent I agree with you. I suppose my problem is the use of the word "coward". If Alexander attacked the civilians because he was scared to face the armed soldiers, or did it in some other way to avoid having to fight a battle, then I'd agree with the use of the word. It's probably not worth getting into a long discussion over semantics, 'cos I know what you mean and it's just the word I'm not comfortable with.As for the Luftwaffe and RAF - circumstances were very different, of course, but naturally I think there's no way they could be "cowards". ATBMarcusPS: It's OK, I don't like football!

[amyntoros]

Hmmm, the login doesn't seem to be working this morning!I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but I have to agree with you here about the use of the word "coward." I had been thinking about the pre-revolutionary English in America and how they went marching into battle or through the countryside with their traditional show of force, banging their drums and announcing their "mighty" presence. When the Native Americans hid in ambush or attacked the British settlements the English were appalled and thought this a most cowardly way of fighting, yet in the end it changed the face of warfare. And by definition one could hardly call the Iroquois Confederation or any of the other natives "cowards." Just my two cents. Best regards,AmyntorosPS. This really belongs in the other thread but I'm now reminded of one of *my* favorite movie battle scenes - the one in Last of the Mohicans where the British are allowed to leave the fort after surrendering and then are waylaid by the natives at the river. An absolutely incredible, moving, and realistic representation. I don't even want to admit how many times I've seen this movie!

[heinrich]

Perhaps it's interesting to focus on other heroes in the circle of Alexander: those non-military men and women who had to cope with rapid changes, tried to make the best of it, and were a source of inspiration for their people.My favorites are the Artabazus family, which must have offered advise to Alexander and must have tried to help the Iranians survive the disasters that befell them. How I would love to know more about Barsine!Probably Orsines: the prince of Persis who assumed the regency of the satrapy when the lawful satrap had died. And there's Atropates, who offered asylum to the Zoroastrians.They needed some courage to do what they did. Had the Achaemenid Empire survived the war, they would have been considered traitors; nor was it self-evident that Alexander would appreciate them. Orsines was executed.And another hero is Peucestas, who taught himself Persian. How many modern soldiers learn the language of the nation where they are stationed? It think Peucestas was great.HM

[marcus]

Good call!YEs, it's easy to forget these people, and yet they must have been extremely important, useful, and brave (or some of them had to be, anyway).I've always had a soft spot for Barsine, and would also like to know much more about her. One of the things I'd love to know is how willingly she became Alexander's mistress. Was she astute enough to know that it was the only thing she *could* do? or did she go to him willingly, aiming to influence him on behalf of her family (and others)? Or was she coerced, and hated every minute of it?There are probably hundreds of other questions, but it makes it frustrating that we know so little about some of these characters!ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Good call on "Mohicans". A superb movie, and the battle scenes (all of them) are awesome.Great music, too (apart from the Clannad song in the middle of it - the song's fine, but it doesn't fit in the middle of the film).I must watch it again ...ATBMarcus