Hi Fiona,
Fiona wrote:But actually I was thinking of people in a much broader sense than that, of the enduring fascination with Alexander that spread beyond his own empire and his own time, especially with reference to why Alexander ended up being known as 'the Great' and Philip did not. Possibly this was unfair, but it happened, and I was trying to put my finger on that extra 'something' that might account for it.
Fiona wrote:I meant people in general, both then and now and all the ages in between, his enemies who told stories about him, his early admirers who told stories about him. The evidence would be things like, the Successors needing his 'unseen presence' for their discussions before his empty throne, the existence of the Romance and the way it spread through Europe, the way he inspired other generals, from Augustus to Napoleon, his sheer fame, that has lasted so long. Even my mum's heard of him, and she left school at 13. It was Alexander's charisma that caused this, not any adulatory historians or fairy tales or folklore. They are the effect, not the cause.
That extra ‘something’ would have to be the size of Alexander’s empire - the largest the world had ever seen at that time. When Alexander died, Phillip’s sphere of influence, in contrast, constituted but a small and distant part of his holdings. The ensuing wars between the Successors and their need for legitimacy would see his legend grow and spread. Even the Parthians mingled Seleucid ideas of kingship along with Achaemenid and Iranian ones.
Alexander’s name is recognized, both positively and negatively, because he was such a successful imperialist. If he had lost the wars he started, charismatic or not, his spear-throwing propaganda would have been little more than a one-line joke in some Persian satrap’s court. Xerxes too had invoked the Trojan war before crossing the Hellespont. Not to mention the numerous occasions of Greek identification of Persians with Trojans. As far as war propaganda went, Homeric allusions were not particularly original in that part of the world.
Centuries later, the Roman general Crassus would declare his desire to conquer Bactria and India. However, having underestimated the strength of the Parthians, he lost his life and army in a foolish battle. He could have been a most charismatic man, but there is no Crassus Romance.
Fiona wrote:Semiramis wrote: Hi Fiona,
Do you feel that "imperialist" is an inaccurate description of Alexander?
Hi! I feel it is an incomplete description of Alexander. I would have no problem seeing him described as an imperialist so long as it was accompanied by other words, such as tactician, party animal, explorer, bibliophile, innovator and hero, to name but six. He was a complex character, and to label him with one word seems unfair, it doesn't give the full picture.
To label anybody with a single word is unfair and of course I agree that some of the adjectives in your post describe Alexander well.
Alexander was certainly an excellent military tactician. There would be no empire without wars, sieges, sacks, massacres, wholesale enslavement, crucifixions and movement of populations. Not to mention of course the omnipresent threat of such assaults. Clearly, conquest and organized violence are inexorably linked and Alexander excelled at this. Words like adventurer or explorer seem to obfuscate that fact that these acts of aggression were vicious and bloody matters causing much death, destruction and terror.
Without doubt, he had to be innovative in his propaganda and practices - having subjugated such diverse and often unwilling populations. While his actions frequently mirrored those of Cyrus II and other Achaemenids, there are also examples of him trying his own ideas to consolidate the newly-acquired empire.
He was certainly a privileged well-educated Macedonian. However, attention needs to be paid to the fact that without his usurpation of the Persian Empire, we would not concern ourselves with the minutiae of his personality - his interest in culture or party animal ways.
I think one should be able to discuss Alexander without accepting
a priori that he is either a “hero” or “villain”. To describe someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of wealth and power through violence as a “hero” makes little sense to me. I find many accounts of Alexander’s army’s butchery positively nauseating. On the other hand, Alexander was a man who was born an Argead heir in Phillip’s Macedonia, a state that could not survive without extortion. He grew up in the shadow of the Persian Empire at an age when young men hero-worshipped warriors. To describe him as a villain ignores that context.
Of course, we may have felt differently had we been recently made into slaves, to be marched out of our destroyed city past our crucified male family members. But thankfully, we live in a safe distance from the age of Alexander and wars of aggression are a thing of the past.
The matter of admiration or condemnation of a historical figure only comes into play when their actions are systematically whitewashed. You will find that a segment of any population will enthusiastically cheer for the most grotesque violence and exploitation, provided that there is enough propaganda creating nationalistic cults of personality and the victims are perceived as sufficiently ‘Other’.
Fiona wrote:It would be refreshing too, sometimes to see references to imperialism that didn't automatically assume it was always a Bad Thing.
When would imperialism be a Good Thing?