Enigma

[Archange]

First of all, I would like to tell that I am a novice in the history of Alexander the great... I am very interested at the life Alexander III... The revolution he brings...
But how was the man?, was he a master of his mind? Was he able to dominate himself? his person? His conscious? I rode on internet one of Alexander's quote, it is said: "It is better to beat himself that to beat others..." I think a very long time to this quote... and ask myself why he haven't do this? perhap's he wasen't able to do this? But how can it be possible because he have been teached by Aristote and much more of the "intelligentia" at this period... The name of Alexander is an enigma he created, but that's why he is the greatest...isnt' it?
What is great in Alexander? perhap's his conquest...or...The legend of his death?
How were the social and cultual conditions of the period? his young period? What was his teaching? If Alexander was teached by persians or by the indians he would surely have another conception of the world? What he would have done? Would he have reached the gange river? ... Someone write somewhere on this site about Georges custer if he had faced Alexander...hmm... It's very difficult to say... who would defeat who... Write something about Alexander himself, his famous quotes and His famous relations with his generals... because I need to Know...

Thanks!

[dean]

Hello,

Welcome.

ermmmm, you got a lot of questions there, aint ya?

It is better to beat himself than to beat others.

I think that somewhere there is a quote in Plutarch, that he would only seriously consider competing in the games, if he was competing with Kings. He didn't want anyone to let him win- as we can see in Issus.

He didn't want the victory to be anything other than absolute, the attack could be made at night but Alexander didn't want a sly victory- (love the similarity in the film, Troy, when Achilles orders Hector to get up, conceding that he doesn't want to owe his victory to a stone.(anyone who's seen the flick will know what i am talking about)

I think as far as self-discipline is concerned, as a youth, he had amazing control, yet we see another Alexander in Samarkand- drinking his way into oblivion.

Write something about Alexander himself, his famous quotes and His famous relations with his generals... because I need to Know...

I think that quotes are to be taken a little tongue in cheek- I mean were there people there writing what he said down? So what we have now is a distortion or the effect of a lot of time between what was said and it's been put to paper(papyrus)
I admire the quote "so this is what it is like to be king" after Issus. He never really enjoyed great luxury and perhaps that was what most different from him and the Persian king- he was a companion and didn't try to be treated better- he took on the hardships and this underscores the reason why he got his troops got to India in the first place. Loyal to the last.

Best regards
Dean

[Archange]

He never really enjoyed great luxury and perhaps that was what most different from him and the Persian king-

Maybe it's right, It is perhap's the result of the social and cultural condition of the "democratic Greece" where alexander was teached... If he does not enjoy in the "pleasures" of the persians kings, he enjoyed perhap's in the fact that he had to listen to his military mind and to dominate other kings... His destiny carry him to the "far from him" so that's why he wasn't able to dominate himself and that's why he fill the blanck trying to dominate the others, at this time we can say that he was under pressure and was carried by all the macedonians and greeks because if you had a little memory Alexander was "carried" by the fact of "the revenge of the greek nation" over the world and particulary the persian (before Alexander was born Persian Army defeated the greek Army and occupy all the Greece for one century). Otherwise we can deduct that he was "the product" of the elite society in the Ancient Greece. With Alexander, Greece was a second time born to take revenge over the persians...

He was a companion and didn't try to be treated better- he took on the hardships and this underscores the reason why he got his troops got to India in the first place. Loyal to the last.

We can also write from this quote that the greek army at this ages was totally renewed and reformed by Alexander' officers and generals, it was like today a professional army who was able to fight against extreme weather conditions... So that's why Alexander allow to his generals to take sometimes after the victory great pleasures with women and other luxuries but this does (it's true) not interest Alexander... He tried also to get from his army during wars campaigns compliments from his generals, and to take care of this same generals that they had everything they need to be good soldiers like for example wine and women for each good soldier during the campaign
who would have donne perfectly "his job" on the ground...

So what we have now is a distortion or the effect of a lot of time between what was said and it's been put to paper(papyrus)

yes it's true for every king and period of history... What a pity... the history is written generally for the circumstances... a victory or a defeat, The true is hidden and what we get like Issus is a result of different point of vue...

[Efstathios]

before Alexander was born Persian Army defeated the greek Army and occupy all the Greece for one century

Ermmm, no.All of Greece was not occupied by the Persians, and surely not for one century.The Persians managed to occupy the areas up to Athens, but there they got defeated.They never got to the Peloponnese.And the occupation wasnt more than some months.

As for the rest, Alexander surely didnt need his officer's comments.He was the King.His officers needed Alexander's good comments on them.

You are correct, Alexander never payed much attention to some pleasures like drinking, eating, and sex.His mind was on the conquest.Exploration was the pleasure for him.Although he drank a lot some times ,it didnt happen often.He was a casual drinker.

[rocktupac]

For me, Alexander was not about complete control of the world for the simple fact of dominating over all. He was more of what we would call a philosopher-king. Alexander was kind when it came to his adversaries (with the exception of some) and treated women with respect and honor. His idea of a 'brotherhood of man' was unheard of and not fully understood during his reign; this is evidenced by Ptolemy's lack of understanding confessed after the mutiny at Opis.

He saw a need for freedom to be extended over all men, not just freedom from slavery or oppression but freedom for all things. This does sound paradoxical: how can someone really be free if they're ruled by a king? But, given the time, Alexander was truely revolutionary in his concept of a "new" world. He wanted a world of mixted cultures. This melting pot would be able to share the best characterisitics from multiple societies and spread information thoughout.

It's hard exactly to explain what actually made him "Great." It was the culmination of the actions in his lifetime. He was like no other. Alexander saw the need for equal treatment of ethnicities generations in advance from others.

[amyntoros]

I’ve wanted to comment on a few things in recent threads, but for the time being I’ll touch briefly on this:

He saw a need for freedom to be extended over all men, not just freedom from slavery or oppression but freedom for all things.

I don’t think that Alexander can be described as seeing a need for freedom from slavery and oppression. In fact, quite the opposite, as he was actively responsible for turning free men into slaves. Thebes is the most prominent example, but there were certainly other incidents in the western parts of Asia (along with his committing Greek mercenaries to the mines). That there’s less emphasis in the sources as the campaign continued eastwards does not mean that turning captives into slaves didn’t continue to exist, although it may have been less practical as the army advanced. At the very least, the natives who were captured and removed from their place of abode in order to populate Alexander’s new cities were entering into a form of servitude under their new Greek “masters.” And it wasn’t as if they were given an option.

Also - and I’ve said this before – the huge numbers of Persian women who accompanied the army and bore their children weren’t given an option either. And some might use the story of Alexander encouraging his men to marry their Persian mistresses as proof of his wish for a “melting pot,” but it wasn’t really the case, was it? He may have hoped that the legitimization of the relationships would appease the rest of the Persian population; however, the Macedonian soldiers raised no objections to leaving these women and children behind when they were told to return to Macedonia. The reality of the situation is that by saying he would, himself, be responsible for raising the huge number of half Persian sons, Alexander was creating a new army that would be totally beholden to him in every way. I view this as a quite brilliant practicality rather than a “Romantic Ideal” of a world of mixed cultures.

Best regards,

[Archange]

I would like to add and to question...

And some might use the story of Alexander encouraging his men to marry their Persian mistresses as proof of his wish for a “melting pot,” but it wasn’t really the case, was it?

I think you are right this times are not really different from today... It was the result of a political choice and not an ideal of a "melting pot". Alexander considered him as "pure" as the king of a "pure nation"' (Macedonia) who had the mission to civilized and to regent the world with "democratic values".

I don’t think that Alexander can be described as seeing a need for freedom from slavery and oppression.

I think That is true, Greek values and the greek society are strongly opposed to the fact that slaves get freedom... That will mean that the greek society would have been changed totally... The slaves would had had the same right that a noble in the city... see spartakus in the rome empire... there's no philosophy of freedom... Also I think that turning captives into salves was not an idea from Alexander but from Athens and the other greek cities but it' true far from the natal Macedonia, turning captives into slaves was not realistic.

[Paralus]

At the very least, the natives who were captured and removed from their place of abode in order to populate Alexander’s new cities were entering into a form of servitude under their new Greek “masters.” And it wasn’t as if they were given an option.

Bringing freedom to men indeed. Is that what a conqueror is about? Methinks not. Such romantic notions do not obtain.

As to Amyntoros' point: bingo. The sources actually (more than once) state that the native population were removed to "supply the needs" (or some such language - I don't have them in the office!) of the Macedonian/Greek implants. It was repeated with each founding. It was an extension of his father's policy of giving to the "Macedones" the captured lands (whilst, of course, remaining the King's property) to live from and the native population to work it for them.

The reality of the situation is that by saying he would, himself, be responsible for raising the huge number of half Persian sons, Alexander was creating a new army that would be totally beholden to him in every way. I view this as a quite brilliant practicality rather than a “Romantic Ideal” of a world of mixed cultures.

Too true. Yet again, an extension of his father’s Royal Pages. Where Philip bound the nobles’ sons to the king, Alexander would bind battalions.

I think you are right this times are not really different from today... It was the result of a political choice and not an ideal of a "melting pot". Alexander considered him as "pure" as the king of a "pure nation"' (Macedonia) who had the mission to civilized and to regent the world with "democratic values".

Oh dear. There is a one word description for that (if I have read it right). It should not grace this forum though.

[Archange]

Oh dear. There is a one word description for that (if I have read it right). It should not grace this forum though.

what do you mean Paralus?

Best regards.

[Paralus]

what do you mean Paralus?

You would ask.

Cow pats

I was not aware that Mills&Boon published Alexander biographies.

[amyntoros]

Hmmm, quickly stepping in here!

Alexander considered him as "pure" as the king of a "pure nation"' (Macedonia) who had the mission to civilized and to regent the world with "democratic values".

Archange, I think the problem is your use of the word pure in this context as it brings all kinds of modern political and/or racial connotations to the forum. This is to be avoided at all costs. I’m not sure, however, that you fully comprehend the meaning behind your words – English does not appear to be your first language and you may be unaware of how this sentence might be interpreted within the English speaking community.

As far as the issue of civilizing the world with “democratic values” goes, I’m afraid I don’t see this applying to Alexander. He was the king of an absolute monarchy, and after the defeat of Darius and the official ending of the so-called Greek “alliance” there’s nothing in the histories to suggest that Alexander’s intent was anything other than the further expansion of Macedonia. IMO, allowing Greek cities to maintain the appearance of a democracy was nothing more than expediency.

Best regards,

[Archange]

Amyntoros,

I felt so sorry and deeply sad that the word "pure" appears to be incomphrensive... I was based on an "historical connotation" which did exist in the Ancient Greece... Alexander ruled his empire in the name of some princips that you may have forget and which are "tipically" connotate a totallitary regime. I know the ancient texts does not mention it because they were written by greeks themselves in the name of the greek "propaganda".

Best regards.

[Paralus]

Alexander ruled his empire in the name of some princips that you may have forget and which are "tipically" connotate a totallitary regime. I know the ancient texts does not mention it because they were written by greeks themselves in the name of the greek "propaganda".

English is evidently not your first language, as Amyntoros has noted, Archange and so it is difficult to know exactly what you mean. I'd simply observe that Alexander - IMO - had no plan to civilise the world or spread democracy about the Persian east. He did, though, have a very clear goal to topple the Achaemenid empire and make it his own.

Greek "liberty" in Asia Minor was a very plastic thing. That he favoured democracies was a purely political/ tactical decision. Nothing whatsoever to do with any fervent belief in it as a fair system of government.

Without overstating the "pure" bit, the way Greeks view themselves and the outside world has not really changed too much. I have Greek friends in Australia who firmly deny that they are Australian (second, third generation or not), they are "Greek". I once had a Greek receptionist work for me who, although having been born here, refused to carry an Australian passport because she was Greek, not a "skip" (skippy...kangaroo...Aussie).

It is a prevalent attitude. And, that is today. Imagine the way the city states viewed these things back in Alexander's time? It is an idea that is hard for some to imagine it seems...

[Efstathios]

Once again i'll have to disagree about Alexander's intentions.

We dont know which were his intentions.Or to say it better, if one of the things in his mind was to civilize and spread Greek culture apart from conquest.The only thing that we have is his actions.

And his actions show a ruler who was generally tolerant to political systems, and who made sure that the cities would be built according to the Greek way, but also with local characteristics.Meaning, that there were theatres e.t.c but also buildings and characteristics of the local tradition of each area.He blended civilizations ,so that the foreign people wouldnt feel that out of place at these new cities.

This takes planning, and to say he did it unwillingly is a mistake.He himself brought architects, poets, actors, e.t.c from Athens and Macedonia to built these cities and to entertain people there, and teachers to teach both Greeks and non Greeks the language and culture.

Alexander didnt have a reason to allow a democratic goverment in some cities of Asia Minor.He was a conqueror and a ruler.He could keep a strict monarchic goverment to everywhere he went, as the Persians did, thus having more control on the cities.But he didnt.In the same manner that he treated Athens.He had of course control of every city, but where democracy existed he respected it.

[Archange]

Alexander didnt have a reason to allow a democratic goverment in some cities of Asia Minor.He was a conqueror and a ruler.He could keep a strict monarchic goverment to everywhere he went, as the Persians did, thus having more control on the cities.But he didnt.In the same manner that he treated Athens.He had of course control of every city, but where democracy existed he respected it.

O.K But was also "carrying" Alexander to go to India, what was "carrying" his destiny?, why he didn't stop his conquests in Asia minor. He was tolerant but why Did he not reach the gange river? Was he really great as history pretend or was he a "simple monarch"?
Let me see he pretend to rule the world and built new cities for his glory but he didn't do it India? I think there is "a paradox" in his story...
Certainly English is not my first Language but I can understand what you mean.

I once had a Greek receptionist work for me who, although having been born here, refused to carry an Australian passport because she was Greek, not a "skip" (skippy...kangaroo...Aussie).

I think the problem is here. Greeks view themselves as a nation with a rich history and a rich past. They are "out" of the australian society and even in United state rich greek buisnesmen don't forget their origins... It's like the problem of the Algerians who live in France... They feel not French but Algerians because They have never been "integrated" when they were a colonized.

Here we have the same problem with Alexander and His conquest...

Best regards.