Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

hiphys
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:59 am

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by hiphys »

But now Green's biography of Alexander is (at most) out of fashion, yet it is always quoted!
User avatar
chris_taylor
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:30 pm
Location: UK

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by chris_taylor »

Paralus wrote:
chris_taylor wrote:http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/

Study the headlines in that link. They come from what was until very recently the most widely read newspaper in the UK. Peter Green appeals to the same readership, for the same reasons.

Chris.
I think that overly harsh and inaccurate. Many may (and do) take issue with Green's view of Alexander. Green himself has said that one's view of history cannot but be coloured by the prism of the times through which one writes. In Green's case, that prism was of a Greece of the Colonels (Alexander as a recruitment tool) and a world where "geo-politco adventurism" (for want of a better way of putting it) would lead to American failure in Asia. It was also a time of long overdue reaction to Tarns absurd notion of the gentleman/philosopher-conqueror who sought a worldly brotherhood of man and whose mission was to civilise the east (as if there had been no civilisation prior to the conquest).

Which is not to say that this view has not gone too far (as Tarn before in the opposite direction) but to categorise Green as some sort of "News of the World" of ancient history is incorrect. Perhaps you should try Classical Bearings or From Alexander to Actium.
I've quoted your post in full because it's important for context.

Firstly: So I have no issues with scholars who condemn Alexander. I have issues with those who distort facts to suit their own agenda. I adore Alexander: yet Tarn bores me because his agenda is just too obvious and I read all your posts, no matter how critical they are of Alexander.

Secondly: my point was that Green *appeals* to the same people who read the News of the World.

The NOTW produced stories that specifically targeted a subtype of the mediocre man: those with a hatred of anyone in some way extraordinary.

I consider that morally repulsive, but that's what tabloids do and the NOTW never pretended to be anything other than a tabloid. Provided they stay within the law, they are entitled to print what they want. Whoever buys the paper kow exactly what they'll get.

Peter Green is in a different league altogether. On the cover, his book is a historical biography written by a scholar. Inside is sensationalist nonsense dressed up with pseudoscientific jargon. The book pretends to be what it is not.

I read it with a sense of unease: there was something "not quite right" about his narrative, but I couldn't put my finger on it. The penny dropped when I got to his section on Alexander's death. Green argues that Alexander died of strychnine poisoning. To the average reader, his line of reasoning must sound very convincing.

I'm lucky: I've seen & treated a few thousand patients with poisoning and I know Green is talking through his nose. Fantasmagorical nonsense, start to finish.

If you want to know why your car doesn't start, ask a car mechanic. If you want to know what somebody died off, ask a doctor. He clearly didn't and his methods are those of hypochondriac who has decided to have cancer: he avoids asking a doctor (because he knows they'd tell him not to be so stupid) and instead, types his symptoms into Google, making sure to omit all results that contradict what he set out to prove.

So no, I do not consider Peter Green the tabloid journalist of classicism. I consider him the Demothenes of modern Alexander studies: a brilliant, but devious and hypocritical demagoge.

Chris.

PS: your reading suggestions noted, thank you.
All men by nature desire understanding. Aristotle.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by agesilaos »

I cannot defend Green as I only have his earlier work (I have never been too sure how much different 'an Historical Biography' really is, and there is no shortage of material demanding my money) I started reading it but found his contortions trying to justify Diodoros' version of Granikos totally unconvincing so put it down and have yet to pick it up again!

I would say that it is important to read versions of history with which you disagree if only to test the version you favour against its rivals. There are authors out there who really deserve the vilification you pile on Green; Doherty and Phillips spring to mind as totally unaware of the sources, geography or anything other than the chance of a fast buck. Green, at least does cite the sources and that allows one to judge him more favourably, although the interpretations he places upon them may be rather left-field, to a lesser extent the same could be said of A B Bosworth and the cause is immediately apparent; greater reliance on the Vulgate. On the other side of the coin Hammond is guilty of crediting Arrian with too much authority based on the fantasy that the Ephemerides were a fully detailed account of everything Alexander said or did and that they survived to be used by Ptolemy and ultimately, through him, by Arrian.

There is no scientific way to decide how much weight to attach to each imperfect tradition, hence the myriad Alexanders, all conditioned by the biases of the author and re-interpreted by the reader.

As that doyen of the Classics, Michael Winner, would put it, 'Calm down, dear; it's only a commercial [enterprise]' :lol:

Totally agree on the Strychnine Scenario, it's a case of what has no legs and yet runs and runs? A nose? No, a conspiracy theory! And this one has been running since Onesikritos in 318 :shock:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:There are authors out there who really deserve the vilification you pile on Green; Doherty and Phillips spring to mind as totally unaware of the sources, geography or anything other than the chance of a fast buck. Green, at least does cite the sources and that allows one to judge him more favourably, although the interpretations he places upon them may be rather left-field, to a lesser extent the same could be said of A B Bosworth and the cause is immediately apparent; greater reliance on the Vulgate. On the other side of the coin Hammond is guilty of crediting Arrian with too much authority based on the fantasy that the Ephemerides were a fully detailed account of everything Alexander said or did and that they survived to be used by Ptolemy and ultimately, through him, by Arrian.
Bosworth belongs to the more "real world" reaction against the Tarn fiction. He is less strident and critical than, say, Ernst Badian. His view is deeply based in source criticism and, I think, a more realistic appreciation of the "Vulgate" than has been the case. Just as Bosworth (and Badian before him) tore at the fabric of Tarn's fantasy, he tears at the silken cocoon that is Arrian's "preferred" or "correct" tradition status. This is, to my mind, all to the good. That does not mean that Bosworth is always correct; just that he should always be read.

Hammond was, occasionally, of the I surmise so it is mindset or I suspect and so it is; views which the evidence must then, somehow or someway, support. Hammond, too, should always be read for he is often correct. One needs to be aware of the rigid mindset absolutely defended though.

Authors who deserve the vilification? Most recently I'd suggest Worthington.
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
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by agesilaos »

Absolutely, Bosworth is admirable, and Hammond certainly no fool, I had forgotten about Badian, who once had a sound line, but lately seems to have drifted into the outskirts of a critico-paranoiac town. Heckel deserves a mention among the more virtuous sinners, and Errington too, the list goes on.

Wothington's Alexander book was another of those quick book film cash-ins, Cartledge stands accused in the same dock; I class these as aberations so recommend a suspended sentence, m'lud.

As for you and I, Para, are we not the very doyens of virtue? :twisted:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by athenas owl »

agesilaos wrote: I had forgotten about Badian, who once had a sound line, but lately seems to have drifted into the outskirts of a critico-paranoiac town.
Sadly, Ernst Badian has drifted into the next world, nearly two years ago.

This is what fascinates me about the ATG historiography. Each scholar seems to reflect their contemporary world view back onto a man who died 2300 years ago. Green and Tarn for example, seem, to me, to be no different than say Curtius and Arrian.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by sikander »

Greetings,

Good discussion to come back to after a long absence! I agree with the others- I am afraid that when you read modern historians, you have to read with an understanding that most writers have a tendency to "interpret" character without much to back it up- Green does this in a big way, as in his quip about Hephaestion/Hephaistion being 'fundamentally stupid".

Not surprising- even in the modern age, contemporaries can misunderstand the nature of a person, as witness the many "personalities" of TE Lawrence, as portrayed by his various biographers. How much more room for error- or fantasy- when the person has been dead for centuries.

That said, we can try to surmise *some* elements of a person's nature from other behaviors that are shown; in this case, the evidence for a dislike of "ugly people" would seem to be somewhat lacking. It is a good question, though, and you will find many well-read persons here who will be able to hunt down most sources and either rebut or support various positions.

Regards,
Sikander
job
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 4:53 pm

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by job »

It is difficult to envision a group of people more repugnant in their visage than the mutilated Greeks allegedly* encountered by Alexander as he approached Persepolis (see Curtius 5.5.5-24; Diodorus 17.69.2-4; Justin 11.14.11-12;) but we are told that Alexander responded to their appearance with empathy, compassion and lavish generosity.

*Green accepts the historicity of this episode (as i do) but Heckel regards it as fictitious.
User avatar
Susa the Great
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:36 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by Susa the Great »

job wrote: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:19 pm It is difficult to envision a group of people more repugnant in their visage than the mutilated Greeks allegedly* encountered by Alexander as he approached Persepolis (see Curtius 5.5.5-24; Diodorus 17.69.2-4; Justin 11.14.11-12;) but we are told that Alexander responded to their appearance with empathy, compassion and lavish generosity.
*Green accepts the historicity of this episode (as i do) but Heckel regards it as fictitious.
My twopence here: It is widely known that Persian chastisement was, beyond other God alone knows what stuff, cutting off noses and ears of whom they thought was an offender. So I don't see any reason for anyone doubting anything.

One can doubt Green though.

We who know Alexander and his idiosyncrasies -- who would even think of such an idiotic thing as "alexander disliked ugly people"!? Really, who is this person who even thinks of writing a bio on a once living person? Alexander was a human being first, not a fictional character, for God's sake!
How can one even think that he would have disliked looking at tortured people just because it was an ugly show? What of humanity then? Why people go on blabbing about Alex, but deep inside think he was a psychopath? This is so sick!

Ehehe.... this explains some things... Green certainly have once considered Hephaistion his other self :lol: :lol: *dies of the lulz*

And the Asian Greeks, besides getting Alexander's empathy, got the symbol of the Persian empire burnt down in a blink of the eye.
Now you go poking a wild type with a short stick, and see what you get: flamboyant retaliation. And by the hands of someone else! Total Genius!
Come live forever with me, or transpire / a flame alone on a funeral pire / We'll build an empire if we so desire, travel the world, and set it on fire.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: Did Alexander dislike ugly people??!!

Post by sikander »

"The problem with Green's biography is that he first bamboozles you with facts - Green's knowledge is encyclopaedic. So you follow him along without noticing that he gradually spins his yarn by mixing in pseudoscience and before you know it, he's led you into a fantasia land so absurd, it makes Mad Hatter's tea party look like a documentary.

Unless you're a very astute reader, or you happen to know more about something than he does, it is extremely difficult to spot where the breaks occurs, ie where he leaves his circle of competence and starts fantasizing to prove his own (often sensationalist) points.

So I would take anything he states with a very large dose of salt. "

My feelings, exactly. I've had this discussion with others, who also took Green at face value without realizing he was adding some imagined elements

Regards,
Sikander
Post Reply