POLL: Alexander - good or bad?

[Thomas]

I have added the new "global" pothos poll, so please vote on whether Alexander was a good or bad person.

I think next time I will use the poll functionality in this forum, but for now I will stick with the old (new) functionality. Let me know if there are any problems.

[marcus]

Thanks for the new poll. It will be interesting to see the results.

I was also very interested in the results of the last poll - Antarctica, eh? And all those secretive people who didn't want to tell us ... well, well

ATB

[amyntoros]

Interesting results, especially the votes at the extremes. If we were to debate on this, the 7% who consider Alexander to be Pure Evil, megalomaniac, and tyrannical would be the most difficult to contradict. Not that I share their opinion, but to argue against them one has to counter with acts of goodness and virtue on AlexanderGÇÖs part, and it is fairly easy to prescribe ulterior motives to even these acts if one is so inclined. (V.D. Hanson, for example.)

But what about the greater percentage GÇô a sizeable 26% - who see Alexander as a perfect hero? Perfect as in completely corresponding to a description, standard or type? Or perfect as in being without defect or blemish? I can't see it being the latter, yet I deep down suspect it may be so. I would not have believed that so many still have this view of Alexander had I not seen the results of this poll. Quite revealing . . .

Best regards,

[Paralus]

G'day Amyntoros.

It shouldn't really surprise. A view held of a person as being good or a hero is most difficult to disabuse. Once adopted, it is very difficult to get such a person - the "true believer" - to see the bad in the individual so idealised. Many an act - that committed by another would draw sharp criticism or rebuke - is excused on often specious grounds or otherwise apologised away. It really becomes a matter - in many instances - of tearing the scales from lionising eyes. Not just historical identities such as Alexander either - similar happens in many contemporary relationships between individuals. Of course, the same is true of the "true hater", who can find no good in the same person.

Things with Alexander are very much like that and the fact that it began in antiquity has - on both sides - given it deep roots. The nationalistic fervour of some of our Greek sources in antiquity result in the conquering hero, one who predated Roman emulators. One who embodied arete in all its forms.

It persists resolutely, even today.

[jan]

I actually thought that this poll is a bit humorous and so it is with tongue in cheek that I decided which of the many Alexanders that Alexander really is. Who of the ancient world is discussed so much as is Alexander, not even Achilles or Zeus! So he must be a perfect Hero, what else could it be? Is Noah more famous or less famous than Alexander?

[amyntoros]

G'day Amyntoros.

It shouldn't really surprise. A view held of a person as being good or a hero is most difficult to disabuse. Once adopted, it is very difficult to get such a person - the "true believer" - to see the bad in the individual so idealised.

Excellent point, as is the rest of your post. I also failed to consider another important factor GÇô people NEED heroes GÇô society needs heroes. I suppose the surprise was really about finding such results in a Pothos poll, of all places. It isnGÇÖt necessary to be hostile to Alexander to question some of the events in his life - those of us with a dispassionate or objective approach have a tendency not to let any idealization go unchallenged here! Not to mention the debates that have ensued on various controversial issues GÇô the death of Philip, the razing of Thebes, the executions at Tyre, the treatment of Bessus, the burning of Persepolis, the death of Cleitus, the trial of Philotas, the dispatching of Parmenion, the Branchidae, etc., etc. I wonGÇÖt go so far as to say there is a right way or a wrong way to view these events GÇô everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. However, once one acknowledges that there are questions to be asked, I would have thought it difficult, if not impossible, to then define Alexander as a Perfect Hero. But I was wrong . . . human nature will prevail.

Best regards,

[jan]

As luck would have it, I strolled to a shelf, found a book, and opened the page to 175. I will quote directly, and this is cause to believe the myth about a perfect hero.

This is about Jean Racine and the play Alexandre le Grand.

"end of paragraph:
Racine responded quickly with two more poems: the first congratulates France on Louis's recovery from measles, while in the second, La Renommee aux Muses, Louis is compared, not for the first time, to Augustus and Alexander. And in 1665 comes the full-length play, Alexandre le Grand.

One could hardly claim that Alexandre is designed solely to sound forth the praises of Louis. Racine is clearly anxious to win an audience with a play which flatters ontemporary tastes for the heroic and the galant. But although he certainly wants to please the general public, as he says again and again, he prefaces and dedicatory epistles show him anxious at all times to appeal to a social elite.

p.176 In Alexandre Racine's principal target was the center of the elite, the young king who could see himself flatteringly reflected in the brilliant and amorous conqueror. The whole play, with its decorative eloquence, contributes to the golden legend and reaches its highpoint ( at least in terms of flattery) in the dazzling image of Alexandre-Louis which immediately precedes his first entrance:

Mais de ce meme front l'heroique fierte,'
Le feu de ses regards, sa haute majeste,
font connaitre Alexandre. Et certes son visage
Porte de sa grandeur l'infaillible presage... (Alexandre, III,iii.)

....To clinch it, Racine dedicates his play to the King; in his dedicatory epistle he brings out the parallel between Louis and Alexander (in spite of Louis's lack of military exploits) and foresees the day when he will move on from depicting the heroes of antiquity to recording the deeds of their modern successor.

I believe this supports fully the idea that in history, generally speaking ,that Alexander is the emblem of the Perfect Hero.

(And I had never seen this book before this very moment but thougth it pertinent to the discussion so decided to share it here and now.)
Jan

[marcus]

However, once one acknowledges that there are questions to be asked, I would have thought it difficult, if not impossible, to then define Alexander as a Perfect Hero. But I was wrong . . . human nature will prevail.

I've returned to this thread after a few days of ignoring it. Very interesting comments from you and Paralus. I suppose one could get into some intense philosophical discussion about human nature and the need for 'heroes'; yet I do agree with your last point (above), that it seems, to me at least, impossible to define Alexander as a Perfect Hero. If I understood the criteria that people used, then I would better understand the heroising.

One of the more disturbing aspects (again, as far as I'm concerned, anyway), is the fact that some people who consider Alexander to be a "perfect hero" seem to feel that anyone who acknowledges any flaws in him must be "against" him. Why is this? It is akin to much of the religious fundamentalism that plagues the world. Alexander is my "hero", yet to my mind he was a flawed man, and not even as idealistic as some others would believe. But it is these flaws that make him so much more interesting, and therefore it is these flaws that contribute to his being my hero - I wouldn't spare the time for anyone who was "perfect".

Then, what do we mean by "perfect"? I'm not even going there now.

ATB

[cynisca]

Alexander was human....living in a time when life could be very cheap
He was fair and compassionate compared with some, but he could also be hard and unrelenting and nobody stood in his way.
To call Alexander a perfect hero is just as wrong as calling him tyrannical or full of self interest.
Alexander was a person of changing moods....he did what he needed to survive and follow his dreams, sometimes at the expense of others....but he always regretted his mistakes. He was a dreamer and visionary just as much as a King and military commander and sometimes he became what in modern terms would be classed as 'too big for his boots'
He destroyed but also built and gave back some of what he had taken away. His vision of a united Empire would have changed the face of history, if he had survivied.
Alexander was possibly a boy who became a man too quickly and later felt he had to prove himself to gain the trust and admiration of the men he inherited from Philip. Nobody, except maybe his closest companions knew what was in his heart and mind.
Alexander was a man who stood head and shoulders about the rest and whose faults (yes, he had them) were balanced by his greatness of spirit......he was simply ALEXANDER....
regards
Cynisca

[jan]

In literary terms, or in fantasy, Alexander fits into the mold of a man who is superhuman and whose very acts make him appear somewhat supernatural, and because his main motivation is one of a man dedicated to the service of his people he becomes the prototype for the role of hero. Perfect hero means that he achieved total success in his mission or goal. He did do that, so he is the Perfect Hero.

It has nothing to do with his defects, flaws, or personal limitations. It has to do with his achievements and his being the designated leader of those goals. He fits the mold! He is the Perfect Hero. In fact, what is most amazing about him is that as time has passed, his reputation and fame have flourished and his star shines even brighter than ever. He is the most heroic leader in all of military history in that measurement!

[marcus]

... and because his main motivation is one of a man dedicated to the service of his people he becomes the prototype for the role of hero. Perfect hero means that he achieved total success in his mission or goal. He did do that, so he is the Perfect Hero.

Hi Jan,

So, what evidence do you have for his being a man "dedicated to the service of his people"?

Considering he (a) failed to persuade his army to follow him beyond the Hyphasis, (b) failed to achieve a seamless integration of non-Greek troops into his army, and had to face a mutiny at Opis as a result, (c) died before he could achieve his next set of goals (whatever they were) ... how can you justify saying that he achieved total success in his mission or goal?

Sorry to be picky, but ...

ATB

[cynisca]

Hmmmh,
well take St George and the dragon......a 'hero' because he rid the people of the destructive dragon...but what would have made him more of a ' perfect hero'
1...doing as he did and killing the dragon
2...facing the dragon and overcoming it without killing it and making it a captive or/and allie
Of course, St George and the dragon are probably metaphors for an ancient battle between 'George' and a dragon standard bearing warrior(s) ravishing the countryside or a fire spitting vimana flying ship...
In some people's eyes, fighting and killing the dragon is far more heroic than fighting and overcoming without killing....because the 'dragon' then becomes a friend...(and, of course, you don't get the story of heroic bravery that a one on one battle often entails)
Alexander followed both methods....once he had killed one 'dragon' so to speak, he was feared as a 'dragon slayer', so other 'dragons' sometimes submitted far easier to him.
If Alexander had been a statesman who conquered by peaceful means, strategy and discussion.....we would still know his name of course....but would he be so much of a hero and admired as such
We have to admit our heroic vision of Alexander is in full panolpy on Bucephalus's back with sword raised......and most of us love the battle of Gaugamela in the film, if not Hydaspes....!
regards
Cynisca

[Paralus]

We have to admit our heroic vision of Alexander is in full panolpy on Bucephalus's back with sword raised......and most of us love the battle of Gaugamela in the film, if not Hydaspes....

A marvellous little allegory about "George and the dragon" but, I fear, little relevance Cynisca. A little explanation might be required, such as who is the dragon? Thebes, Miletus, Tyre or the Persian Empire?

As to whether or not Alexander was "a statesman who conquered by peaceful means", he conquered and, in no so peaceful a fashion. For it is in the nature of conquerors that they kill and destroy. The "statesman" of Macedonia was first to die.

I doubt that Alexander ever rode Bucephalus into battle in Asia (the horse was too old) and, if he did, it was with xyston raised rather than a sword.

One last note. The battle of Gaugemela was GÇô to my mind GÇô poorly executed in the Stone film: the extending of, and constant feeding of units into, the right wing was what turned the battle. One would not have guessed from the film. Jhelum too was disappointing. The desperation of the phalanx was well captured but, fighting in a Thai jungle??

[kennyxx]

Folks as you know I work with an Iranian in my kitchen and alas we speak about Alexander. As its accepted I adore Alexander yet the guy said something wich I could really dismiss out of hand as I try to be as Marcus open minded.

The Iranian guy stated that he read somewhere that Alexander had Intimate relations with his mother. At first I would instantly dismiss. But really we cant. Based on Society at that time not ours its fare to say that Alexander could have had sex with his mother.

Just look at the Ptolemies of Egypt full of inter relative marriages and as we would say today incest. NOw was that a totally Egyptian custom or is it rooted in Macedonia also.I know this is really an awful subject and thing to say about Alexander. but even though hes my hero I try to be logical. I believe the fluff is too much. For me Alexander knew about at least of Philips death and also had something to do with Darius convenient demise. Im totally aware that in his way Alexander could be just as ruthless as any ruler or politicain out there.

Kenny

[marcus]

The Iranian guy stated that he read somewhere that Alexander had Intimate relations with his mother. At first I would instantly dismiss. But really we cant. Based on Society at that time, not ours, it's fair to say that Alexander could have had sex with his mother.

How good is your Iranian colleague's English, Kenny? After all, it's certainly true that some modern writers have talked about Oedipal Complexes (which technically don't have to involve any physical sexual relationship with one's mother); and I wouldn't be surprised if that could translate, if someone is speaking English as an additional language, as suggesting a sexual relationship.

Alternatively, if there are Iranians who view Alexander as an all-round bad guy, as I believe many do, there might have been some propagandist element that at some point used these Freudian interpretations to create a myth that a sexual relationship existed.

Whether or not it is "fair to say" that Alexander could have had a sexual relationship with Olympias, I would be inclined to say that it is no more or less likely than it would be today - I'm not sure that the "societies" in question are really that different. I don't think there was ever any cross-generational marriage within the Ptolemaic dynasty, or in the Pharaonic dynasties or any others which permitted incest. I might be wrong - perhaps someone else knows more about these things.

All in all, I think it no more likely than it would be today that Alexander and Olympias had any sort of sexual relationship. Whatever that likelihood is, personally I don't think that they did, but as there isn't a shred of evidence one way or the other, I'd be hard pressed to 'prove' your Iranian colleague wrong (although at the same time, of course, he would have absolutely nothing to back up his own statement). And there is certainly nothing in the sources that a psychologist/psychoanalyst would be able to use to construct an argument either way - if someone did say that there is, then they are talking rubbish.

ATB