Lasting Contributions

[Pamm]

I would be interesting in your views on Alexanders lasting contributions to our world. What do you think?

[xxx]

I suppose his most lasting contribution was domination of the world by western societal influences. Whether or not that's a 'good' lasting contribution is up to you.

[Kit]

I think his most lasting contribution has been on the minds of those who followed. He has acted as an inspiration to countless people since his death, who 'read' into him what they want, for good or ill.People attribute to Alexander motives, ideals, strengths and weaknesses, that he may never have had or even cared about. That is why so many diverse groups (and I don't mean ethnic here- please don't start that again!) 'claim' him as there own.He fascinates me because he is unique. I've studied a lot of history, across many time periods, and I've never come across anyone else quite like him.He is Alexander: who do you want him to be today?regards,Kit

[amyntoros]

Hello Pamela. I'm also writing here response to the comments you made at the end of the "Essay thread (before you began this one). One of the reasons that few people responded could be because blatant requests for pre-written assignments are frowned upon in the forum. However, another reason may be because the identical question was asked and discussed quite extensively as recently as February 16th, when a member asked 'What type of influences did Alexander the general leave after his death?'To be honest, this is not an easy question to answer, especially when you are looking for lasting influences. The most commonly discussed opinion, which came up in the earlier thread, is that by spreading the use of Greek as a written language, Alexander opened up the world for the dissemination of Christianity. This can certainly be considered the most lasting contribution, but there were many others, from the remarkable to the mundane. Not all had a permanent lasting effect - history twists and turns and repeats itself - but there are many things in Alexander's life that are writ large in those same pages of history.He was certainly the first "warrior king" of such magnitude and we can perhaps credit (or blame) him for the spread of the Roman empire as we know it, and not just because of geographical considerations. Whilst Rome was still a republic the Romans certainly did not admire Alexander, but once a man came on the scene with high ambitions for himself, i.e., Julius Caesar, he certainly looked to Alexander for inspiration. This trend continued throughout the period of the Roman empire, through mediaeval times, and onwards into the twentieth century when Patton was one of Alexander's greatest admirers. We absolutely cannot ignore Alexander's lasting influence upon those who aspire to conquer or those who are involved in warfare.You could say that such warrior kings can be found in Homer, but Alexander may be the reason that Homer and other works of ancient Greece have survived to modern times; all because of his founding of Alexandria. Though he was not responsible for the building of the great library and the subsequent influx of scholars to Alexandria, his choice of location made it easy for people from all over the known world to come to the city. The library was the repository for all written works of the time: it must surely have been the place where books were most frequently copied and then taken to the far corners of the known wor

[amyntoros]

The library was the repository for all written works of the time: it must surely have been the place where books were most frequently copied and then taken to the far corners of the known world. And because Alexandria was also the center for trade, many new and then wonderful trade goods were brought from the east - by roads and by sea on routes that Alexander had opened up - and introduced to the rest of the world. This must be why I constantly read of Alexander being credited for the introduction to the western world of such things as Indian spices, aloe vera, cloth spun with gold, silk, and even rice pilaf!Alexander was particularly responsible for a change in attitude towards women in ancient Greece. This is one of those instances where his influence had a strong effect at the time, even though these attitudes have varied since. The change can be seen most prominently in the art of the period - more and more women became subjects for sculpture and paintings and were venerated far more in the Hellenistic period than the classical period. And whether Alexander married Roxane for political reasons or for love, it was promoted in antiquity as a love-match and slowly changed the way men viewed their wives. Alexander's attitude and respect towards women had not been seen before, or at least had not been publicized so, and it was unmistakably emulated as were so many other things about him.Back briefly to the subject of the spread of Christianity. I don't believe that it was only geographical considerations and the spread of the Greek language that enabled the religion to spread so easily. Alexander's practice of syncretism had a huge effect, and though this had always been common amongst the Greeks, Alexander brought this to the forefront. Everywhere he went on his campaigns, he not only identified regional gods with the various gods of the Greek pantheon, but adopted local gods as well, such as Apis. In this manner, even more gods were introduced to the rest of the world, and Alexandria, again, was a major influence in the dispersal and adoption of these deities. Of course, the Romans continued this trend and even enlarged upon it, so by the time Christianity was introduced, a "new" god was anything but new. Amyntoros

[pamm]

Fantastic reply Amyntoros; thank you very much. Thank you to all who replied. Now, this is what I meant in my other post; I can always count on excellent responses from this forum. I'm glad to see we're back on track. Thank you.Pam

[ancientlibrary]

I have to say, I disgree strongly about Alexander and women, but I find the idea very interesting and worthy of discussion. I don't know enough about Hellenistic social history and even less about Hellenistic sculpture, but I'm very interested to hear your argument.Some arguments:1. I'm not sure whether Hellenistic sculpture shows more women, but there certainly are changes. Goddesses are more often naked; I'm not sure if this is an improvement, but anyway the change was well underway in the 4th century, eg., Pratixeles' Aphrodite of Cnidus. Quotidian scenes are more common, as sculpture moves outside of religious contexts, and also becomes more naturalistic. So, we get that famous sculpture of a drunken old women. Whether this is naturalistic or misogynistic isnGÇÖt entirely clear, but it isnGÇÖt a major step forward anymore than Hero(n)dasGÇÖ mime about Alexandrian women buying dildos at the cobblers is a step forward. And we get portraits of hellenistic queens, not representative of female emancipation generally.2. By GÇ£venerated far moreGÇ¥ what do you mean? Hellenistic art of women, or women generally. If the latter, whatGÇÖs your evidence?3. As for AlexanderGÇÖs GÇ£love-matchGÇ¥ with Roxane, IGÇÖm not convinced. IGÇÖd like to see a body of Hellenistic texts remarking on the unusual nature of it. But both before and after Alexander people with power married who they wanted to. So what? In AlexanderGÇÖs case, the sources do not emphasize that Roxane loved Alexander. Is it improvement if instead of marrying a woman for her dowry you marry her for her--lets be clearGÇöfine ass?Beyond Alexander, mutual love-matches were a romantic ideal throughout Antiquity, but everyone understood this was not how things actually worked. Romances and poetry had love matches--from the 5c. through LongusGÇÖs Daphnis and Chloe and beyond--but it is always understood to be the minority way people got married. Most Hellenistic GÇ£loveGÇ¥ poetry is, in fact, addressed to hetaerae. People loved their prostitutes in Periclean Athens too, even if the best ones were cheaper. If prostitutes are the winner, women married to other men are the first runner-up, especially in the Latin continuation of Hellenistic poetry. Prepubescent boys come in third. Wives or women who might become wives are much the loser in the poetry game. Or take the amazement at PericlesGÇÖ habit of kissing his wife when he left the house and when he came back. PericlesGÇÖ 5c. contemporaries found this astonishing, but so did

[ancientlibrary]

PericlesGÇÖ 5c. contemporaries found this astonishing, but so did Plutarch in recounting it during the Roman period.So, what are your arguments for the Hellenistic emancipation of women, and specifically for AlexanderGÇÖs role in this endeavor?

[amyntoros]

All good questions Tim, and I'll be happy to rise to the challenge, but it won't be immediate This isn't an instance where I can answer off the top of my head - your questions require a response where I'll have to go back to various books to locate the evidence to support my opinion. Although there are those here with fantastic memories and instant recall (Marcus and yourself come immediately to mind!), it doesn't work that way with me, I'm afraid. After an absence of decades I'm taking a college course on Alexander and historiography and I'd forgotten what it was like to have to memorize pages of information. I have an exam approaching next week and I really need to "buckle down" - I've saved your questions and I promise a response as soon as I am able, even if it means starting another thread later.Best regards,Amyntoros

[yiannis]

You have left out a significant contribution. The financial part. By throwing into the global market the vast Persian gold reserves that were kept dormant for centuries, he had created an unprecedented economic boom. Trade multiplied immensely and so did the spread of ideas (as a consequence).
Soon, checks and promises of payment on paper, began to be issued in Alexandria, the first banks were born.

[amyntoros]

Yiannis, I hadn't forgotten about the economic boom created by Alexander, in fact I refer to it's societal effect in my response to Tim below (which I've been dabbling with on and off between studies for the last couple of days). In my initial response to Pamela I was trying to think of Alexander's 'lasting contributions', as she requested, though I do admit I didn't hold entirely to that thought. However, your point about the first banks in Alexandria being a significant contribution is important and is duly noted. :-)Tim, here are my thoughts on your post. I initially tried to respond to your remarks in a linear fashion, but unfortunately I meandered too much back and forth with various points and I eventually gave up the attempt. The mere fact that there were portraits of Hellenistic queens *was* an improvement - prior to Alexander there is little or no evidence except for the family representations commissioned by Philip, yet during Alexander's reign all three of his marriages were immortalized and romanticized in paintings - and it's that very romanticizing which is important because it's mere existence elevates the importance of the woman as a wife. However, there was also a huge increase in portraits of average Hellenistic women, most coming from the coroplastic workshops of the eastern Mediterranean. Because of Alexander, Athens was no longer the cultural center of the world - the majority of great sculptures from the Hellenistic period originated in the Greek cities of Asia Minor, while Alexandria became the literary center. Along with this came the lessening power of Athenian thought and attitudes, and an increase in the influence of Persia and the Dorian cities where women were already more respected. In the meantime, in Macedonia, Thrace, Thessaly and wherever soldiers were conscripted for Alexander's army, the women left behind had greater independence than ever before - they alone directed the household and took care of affairs during the long absence of their husbands, emerging from the confines of their homes. Living standards improved because of better and expanded trade routes and the influx of Persian gold into Greece and Macedonia. These great changes in social and economic standards continued through the wars of the Successors. Life in general changed, initially because of Alexander and his conquests - and the status of women changed accordingly. Like it or not, with a change in status comes a change in attitude. (S

[amyntoros]

Like it or not, with a change in status comes a change in attitude. (See also Maria Lilibaki-Akamati, Women in Macedonia. In Alexander the Great: Treasures from an Epic Era of Hellenism, 2004.)And to draw particular attention to your point number 3: I agree that the sources do not mention that Roxane loved Alexander, but as a woman I must tell you that, yes, it IS an improvement for a woman to be married because of a man's desire for her, rather than, as in the classical Athenian model, being treated only as a piece of property; used as a pawn in a financial negotiation; and then relegated to the back room of the house to clean, weave, cook, bear children and not be seen in public while the husband entertains his friends, his mistress(es) and other prostitutes in the best room of the house!!!! If you had no other choice in life and your only purpose was to be married off, then being desired by your husband had to have been better than the alternative above. At the very least one would expect more attention and better treatment. You say that mutual love-matches were an ideal, but a rarity, and I agree. (I want to stress here that I do not believe Alexander married for love - always pragmatic, his marriages were for political and practical reasons.) However, as it was recorded, Alexander's own 'love match' with Roxane (Plutarch, Alexander 47) was given such widespread publicity (added to later by Pseudo Callisthenes) that it created an environment where the average man could now view his future wife as an object of desire. This is in contrast to the known interest in other men's wives, as you mentioned - something emphatically frowned upon by Alexander: he even had his men executed for violating (virgins and) women of the highest breeding. (Curtius 10.1.3.) If 'marrying for love' was appropriate for the greatest king and conqueror ever, then it was certainly appropriate for everyone else. It's not about how we perceive Alexander's marriage to Roxane, but what the public at the time believed. First Alexander supposedly married for love; then Ptolemy married his second wife for love; and Seleucus gave his own wife away to his son for love. (Okay, she didn't have any say in the matter, but I'm not insisting that women were immediately emancipated in all ways!) Where the leaders go, the rest eventually follow.The art of the Hellenistic period is indicative of these changes. There *were* more representations of women, and, eventually, l

[amyntoros]

The art of the Hellenistic period is indicative of these changes. There *were* more representations of women, and, eventually, less nudity: Hellenistic artists started to add clothing on to their depictions of the goddess Aphrodite, one example often repeated being the Aphrodite of Melos with fabric draped over her lower half, indicating a hitherto unseen respect for her status. Christine Havelock (Hellenistic Art, 1981) says. "If in a historical and ideological sense Alexander represents the Hellenistic age, in the visual arts the foremost place is occupied by Aphrodite, the Goddess of Love." The ubiquitous Aphrodite and the portrayals of other women indicate that the female figure did indeed become an object of veneration, although I admit this doesn't necessarily mean it completely supplanted the classic 'beautiful male' as the primary object. We're all familiar with those representations of the naked male physique in Greek sculpture. No one could successfully argue that the attraction existed only towards works of art and not towards the young men themselves. It follows that increased evidence of and attention to portrayals of women in art meant increased attention to women themselves. Though courtesans were most often used as models for sculptures and paintings, It can't be proved that they continued to remain the "only" recipients of affection and attention. Art really does imitate life and a reflection of society can be perceived in its artistic representations. However, it wasn't all about Alexander's perceived attitude to marriage, but also about how he treated other women, something that was thought noteworthy at the time. There is Alexander's remark about his sister having taken a lover, that she "ought to be allowed to get some enjoyment out of her royal station." (Moralia 818B-C) This attitude was unheard of before Alexander - the desires of women were previously not of the least importance to the male population. Although Plutarch didn't approve, and I'm sure many others didn't either, the remark must certainly have had an effect. There's also his respectful treatment of Sisigambis, Ada, etc., and I mustn't forget the royal women of Macedonia, Olympias, Cynnane, and Eurydice - all strong women in their own right. There's considerable evidence that these royal women, and perhaps even the average woman in Macedonia, had more freedom than the women in the city states. As Alexander's reign progressed, and even more so

[amyntoros]

As Alexander's reign progressed, and even more so after his death, this freedom and the increasing public presence of women such as Olympias was brought to the attention of the rest of the world It must surely have influenced men and women alike, though probably with differing responses initially. Olympias, appointed to a position of power by Alexander and always supported wholeheartedly by him, even had the 'audacity' to dedicate a cup to the statue of Health in Athens: she is discussed quite extensively in the Hyperides' oration, On Behalf of Euxenippus. Contrast this with the Athenian norm where the names of wives and respectable women were not even used. Aristotle gives us an example of this - a veritable champion of classical attitudes, he records the name of his mistress, Herpyllis, in his will, but never even mentions his wife and daughter by name. (Mary R. Lefkowitz & Marueen B. Fant. (1992) Women's Life in Greece and Rome: 59-61.)(In response to your comment on Pericles: although Plutarch may have found it strange that Pericles still kissed his wife, It may be because he didn't expect to find such affection for a wife in fifth century Athens. Even I find that surprising!)To sum up: the decline of the old values of the city states; the extended absences of the male head of household; increased contact with Dorian cities and exposure to new cultures; the relative freedom of the most visible and powerful Macedonian royal women (not forgetting future queens such as Arsinoe); the changed economic environment; and the emulation of Alexander in relation to his respect and perceived affection for women - all these combined to bring about a change in attitude towards women. And all bear the imprint of Alexander. . .

Amyntoros

[pamm]

Linda, that was wonderfully said. I never knew so much about the influence of Alexander in regards to the status of women. I had read about his respect for women but never knew the extent of it. Thank you so much for your great endeavor in supplying this information.Pam