Why did The Roman Commanders Hold Alexander so high

[kenny]

We all know the severity and the harshnesh Roman soldiers and Generals Metted out and basically respected and destroyed whateve stood in there way.I know the Senated and Republican would orate and despise Alexander as the hated and didnt want a king over them.So why is It that great and bad generals barring a few held Alexander so high a guy who was actually a foreigner.They show no respect for Habnnibal. Even the gaiulic King voilsogetrix. hummbled himself befor Caesar yet was treated like a dog chained up in Italy till Caesar had the brave guy strangled.I sometimes were Alexander at the Roman Generals. How Would Caesar.Augustus.Scipio etc have treated Alexander if they had beat him and taken him prisoner. Would they treat him as a dog or ,maybe as a celecrity.Kenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I don't think Vercingetorix was chained up. He was certainly kept under house arrest in Rome, but they did tend to treat their high-born prisoners quite well ... up to the point where they were strangled. In fact, I believe prisoners were often farmed out to patrician families, who treated them as honoured guests until execution time - it was quite a social status symbol! ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I don't think Vercingetorix was chained up. He was certainly kept under house arrest in Rome, but they did tend to treat their high-born prisoners quite well ... up to the point where they were strangled. In fact, I believe prisoners were often farmed out to patrician families, who treated them as honoured guests until execution time - it was quite a social status symbol! ATBMarcus

[jan]

Hi Kenny, Good question, and interesting depending upon which general you are discussing...Memnon. Memnon had a Greek Mercenary's regard for Alexander because he was well aware of the kind of discipline this army had. (By the way, I noticed last night while watching the Nat'l Geographic dvd that John O'Brien mentioned discipline, and that tickled me! I had not noticed so if it had not been for you, I probably would not have thought anything of it.)Actually, the puzzle is always why it is that Alexander admired King Porus so much that he gave him total domain over his own territory and trusted him in turn. I suspect that the contrast to King Darius's action when he turned and ran would be one good reason.Alexander instilled both fear and respect into his opponents, having been goaded and taunted so much, first by King Darius who called him a boy and to go back home to Momma where he belonged, and then to the group who told him to fly up to their carefully protected post at the top of a mountain.The simple truth is that while so many today seem to think Alexander ruthless, he had no choice but to show them his strength, his power, his will, and his determination. He could not have succeeded had he not met the challenge overwhelmingly. (Sorry, I don't want to be writing some kids term paper here, but I am on a roll.)The ships at the Battle of Tyre always remind of the time the French came into Yorkstown in their fleet of ships, and just as Alexander was rescued by a fleet of ships, so the American Revolution ended very similar to that as at Tyre, with naval assistance!Paintings of each are very interesting to me, and a study of General Cornwall is something else again, but the French get the glory with General Marquis de La Fayette, Washington's adopted son.To me, Alexander is to Washington and Hephaestion is to LaFayette, and both are featured in the House of Representatives her in the USA. The key to the Bastille was given to Washington by LaFayette and is on display at Mt. Vernon. (Just a piece of interesting history.)My romantic mind at work here.

[jan]

Hi Kenny, Good question, and interesting depending upon which general you are discussing...Memnon. Memnon had a Greek Mercenary's regard for Alexander because he was well aware of the kind of discipline this army had. (By the way, I noticed last night while watching the Nat'l Geographic dvd that John O'Brien mentioned discipline, and that tickled me! I had not noticed so if it had not been for you, I probably would not have thought anything of it.)Actually, the puzzle is always why it is that Alexander admired King Porus so much that he gave him total domain over his own territory and trusted him in turn. I suspect that the contrast to King Darius's action when he turned and ran would be one good reason.Alexander instilled both fear and respect into his opponents, having been goaded and taunted so much, first by King Darius who called him a boy and to go back home to Momma where he belonged, and then to the group who told him to fly up to their carefully protected post at the top of a mountain.The simple truth is that while so many today seem to think Alexander ruthless, he had no choice but to show them his strength, his power, his will, and his determination. He could not have succeeded had he not met the challenge overwhelmingly. (Sorry, I don't want to be writing some kids term paper here, but I am on a roll.)The ships at the Battle of Tyre always remind of the time the French came into Yorkstown in their fleet of ships, and just as Alexander was rescued by a fleet of ships, so the American Revolution ended very similar to that as at Tyre, with naval assistance!Paintings of each are very interesting to me, and a study of General Cornwall is something else again, but the French get the glory with General Marquis de La Fayette, Washington's adopted son.To me, Alexander is to Washington and Hephaestion is to LaFayette, and both are featured in the House of Representatives her in the USA. The key to the Bastille was given to Washington by LaFayette and is on display at Mt. Vernon. (Just a piece of interesting history.)My romantic mind at work here.

[Paralus]

Difficult to compare different eras Kenny and different tactics. Pyyrhus pointed up the limitations of the Macedonian phalanx during his abortive Italian excursus. Now Pyyrhus is no Alexander, but nor was he an arrant dill. Whereas the Romans had learned and adapted between encounters, he had not. After all, this was the armament and basic tactics that had conquered a world.Rather a similar situation to that faced by Philip V at Cynoscephalae and Perseus at Pydna. Both these regents took on mobile Roman maniples with tactics and armaments that had changed little since AlexanderGÇÖs day. Both failed to learn and adapt and so suffered GÇô as would other Hellenistic monarchs GÇô catastrophic defeat. The Macedonian phalanx, armed with the sarissa (and referred to as the GÇ£hedgehogGÇ¥ by Romans), was a none to agile formation. This especially so by the time we are into the third and second century BC. These were no longer the drilled professional phalangites of Philip or AlexanderGÇÖs armies. Much unadulterated slaughter was the order of the day among such units when breached by gladius wielding Romans.Why did Roman generals hold Alexander so high? Ambition, jealousy and greed. A command in AlexanderGÇÖs East was the honey pot. To match and preferably to better the Macedonian monarchGÇÖs achievements was the desire.

Some had a decent shot at it (Caesar obviously) and others fell short (Crassus). Many matched (and exceeded) the brutality. Particularly that bullish brute Cornelius Sulla when, during the Mithridatic revolt (of 87 BC), he sacked Athens, allowing his troops free reign until he thought enough was enough. According to Plutarch, all the Kerameikos inside the Dipylon gate ran red with blood. Chris Habicht, GÇ£Athens from Alexander to AntonyGÇ¥:A terrible bloodbath ensued, sparing neither women nor children, which Sulla only halted after Athenian refuges and Roman senators on his staff pleaded with him to end the slaughter. Praising Athenians of earlier times, he said he was sparing a few (living) for the sake of the many (dead).GÇ¥Sulla had evidently read of Thebes. Athens would ally herself with no rebellious Hellenistic monarch again. It would be Mithridates turn next. Not that he ever got him.In typical Roman style, the city was then looted of its artworks and many of the public buildings trashed. At least it was left standing GÇô unlike Corinth.Paralus.

[Paralus]

Difficult to compare different eras Kenny and different tactics. Pyyrhus pointed up the limitations of the Macedonian phalanx during his abortive Italian excursus. Now Pyyrhus is no Alexander, but nor was he an arrant dill. Whereas the Romans had learned and adapted between encounters, he had not. After all, this was the armament and basic tactics that had conquered a world.Rather a similar situation to that faced by Philip V at Cynoscephalae and Perseus at Pydna. Both these regents took on mobile Roman maniples with tactics and armaments that had changed little since AlexanderGÇÖs day. Both failed to learn and adapt and so suffered GÇô as would other Hellenistic monarchs GÇô catastrophic defeat. The Macedonian phalanx, armed with the sarissa (and referred to as the GÇ£hedgehogGÇ¥ by Romans), was a none to agile formation. This especially so by the time we are into the third and second century BC. These were no longer the drilled professional phalangites of Philip or AlexanderGÇÖs armies. Much unadulterated slaughter was the order of the day among such units when breached by gladius wielding Romans.Why did Roman generals hold Alexander so high? Ambition, jealousy and greed. A command in AlexanderGÇÖs East was the honey pot. To match and preferably to better the Macedonian monarchGÇÖs achievements was the desire.

Some had a decent shot at it (Caesar obviously) and others fell short (Crassus). Many matched (and exceeded) the brutality. Particularly that bullish brute Cornelius Sulla when, during the Mithridatic revolt (of 87 BC), he sacked Athens, allowing his troops free reign until he thought enough was enough. According to Plutarch, all the Kerameikos inside the Dipylon gate ran red with blood. Chris Habicht, GÇ£Athens from Alexander to AntonyGÇ¥:A terrible bloodbath ensued, sparing neither women nor children, which Sulla only halted after Athenian refuges and Roman senators on his staff pleaded with him to end the slaughter. Praising Athenians of earlier times, he said he was sparing a few (living) for the sake of the many (dead).GÇ¥Sulla had evidently read of Thebes. Athens would ally herself with no rebellious Hellenistic monarch again. It would be Mithridates turn next. Not that he ever got him.In typical Roman style, the city was then looted of its artworks and many of the public buildings trashed. At least it was left standing GÇô unlike Corinth.Paralus.

[Pete]

Why did they hold him so high esteem? Easy! He was the embodiment of everything the Romans wanted to be but could never match. While Alexander cried tears that he could not conquer both heaven and earth, his successors Caesar, Trajan etc shed tears that they could not lace his sandals.

[Pete]

Why did they hold him so high esteem? Easy! He was the embodiment of everything the Romans wanted to be but could never match. While Alexander cried tears that he could not conquer both heaven and earth, his successors Caesar, Trajan etc shed tears that they could not lace his sandals.

[Pete]

Why did they hold him so high esteem? Easy! He was the embodiment of everything the Romans wanted to be but could never match. While Alexander cried tears that he could not conquer both heaven and earth, his successors Caesar, Trajan etc shed tears because they could not lace his sandals.

[Pete]

Why did they hold him so high esteem? Easy! He was the embodiment of everything the Romans wanted to be but could never match. While Alexander cried tears that he could not conquer both heaven and earth, his successors Caesar, Trajan etc shed tears because they could not lace his sandals.