Anniversary of Alexander's death

[Alexias]

Funny how there's always an excuse for every atrocity Alexander ever committed. Somehow, nothing was never really his fault.

I think it would be nice if, for once, people would give some thought to Alexander's victims, and commemorate them, rather than their glamorous killer. The men who never returned to their families, or returned as invalids. The women who were raped and murdered or sold into slavery. The children who were made orphans, and who's homes were burnt to the ground. Their lives were real too.

But I'm guessing I get no cheers for such an atrocious suggestion.

I understand your point of view. Today we try not to glamorise violence, but that doesn't make it go away. Such atrocities are still being committed in some part of the world every day. The drive to get our own way, and it's various manifestations such as aggression and competitiveness, appear to be a necessary components of the human condition. Without it we stagnate, as the collapse of Communism demonstrated. But don't forget that war, and the drive to survive, can produce enormous technological advances, which are not all bad eg what would our modern world be like without radar? Alexander's conquests arguably paved the way for the Roman Empire and Christianity, without which modern Europe would not exist in the form it does, and the idea that all men (and women) are equally important - which underpins your statement - might not have spread throughout the world. (Perhaps getting a bit idealogical there!)

Alexander at least did not destroy the civilisation he conquered, unlike say Ghengis Kahn or the Visigoths and Vandals who descended on Rome. He championed respect for women, and his men were often prohibited from raping and pillaging. Occasionally he let them off the leash, but he frequently channeled their aggression into athletic contests. Alexander was by no means perfect, but he tried to be seen as a noble king, as a role model for others, which is maybe why we find him glamorous.

[rocktupac]

I think it would be nice if, for once, people would give some thought to Alexander's victims, and commemorate them, rather than their glamorous killer.

And in the interests of balance, which I can see is a special concern for you, perhaps we should also give some thought to Alexander's beneficiaries: the millions of people in the succeeding centuries that lived longer, richer and more fulfilled lives due to the economic, scientific and cultural boosts from his deliberate policies of building superb new cities, sponsoring philosophers, opening up and protecting new international trade routes and putting the contents of the Persian and Indian treasure houses into public circulation. Remember also his contribution to democracy and freedom of speech by replacing the oligarchies of the Ionian cities with democratic governments. And what a loss he would be to art!

Best wishes,

Andrew

Yes. Nicely said sir.

[Semiramis]

I think it would be nice if, for once, people would give some thought to Alexander's victims, and commemorate them, rather than their glamorous killer.

And in the interests of balance, which I can see is a special concern for you, perhaps we should also give some thought to Alexander's beneficiaries: the millions of people in the succeeding centuries that lived longer, richer and more fulfilled lives due to the economic, scientific and cultural boosts from his deliberate policies of building superb new cities, sponsoring philosophers, opening up and protecting new international trade routes and putting the contents of the Persian and Indian treasure houses into public circulation. Remember also his contribution to democracy and freedom of speech by replacing the oligarchies of the Ionian cities with democratic governments. And what a loss he would be to art!

Best wishes,

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

The Persians did their bit for trade and learning as well. Empire in that region and the commerce and interaction associated with it, had gotten underway long before Alexander was born. It makes sense for any long-standing empire to encourage "economic boosts" as it widens the good old tax base.

Persians too encouraged Babylonian and Chaldean science and mathematics, Egyptian philosophy and even many *gasp* Greek philosophers prospered under their rule. Pity we don't know much about the Eastern part of the empire. Let's just say that the Zoroastrian priests that were hunted down and Brahmin philosophers that were crucified during Alexander's mission of benefit and mercy probably didn't have much to contribute to human civilization anyway.

I might also have to point out that many of the cities that Alexander was set to have built from scratch already existed in some significant form. Alexandria in Egypt and Samarkand come to mind. So some other less glamorous person(s) should also get a little credit here. It has also been proposed that the number of Alexandrias may not be as high as reported - perhaps as low as 6.

As for "putting the contents of the Persian and Indian treasure houses into public circulation", I'm not sure it was such a Robin Hood moment as it is sometimes painted as. Alexander and his men took others' possessions by force of arms. A vast portion of the wealth was then spent on organized violence which resulted in the deaths of untold numbers. I believe this was the "robbery" part Accursed mentioned.

I'm also not sure what our Hellenic hero was thinking when he took to appointing satraps to the newly democratized Ionian cities. The Greeks were only liberated from the outrage of barbarian rule to have to pay taxes to the new Achilles. Detractors may even suggest that the events that followed the invasion were somewhat at odds with the war propaganda.

When some Athenians in the assembly were vehemently opposing Alexander's ridiculous demand to be worshiped as a God, a calmer head reminded them that "in grudging Alexander the heavens, they may be lost to the earth." It seems that the constant and looming threat of execution is not conducive to introducing free speech.

And as for art Andrew, there must have been other pretty boys to sculpt and draw. Both Darius and and Porus were said to have been more handsome than our boy.

[Semiramis]

Hi Alexias,

I understand your point of view. Today we try not to glamorise violence, but that doesn't make it go away. Such atrocities are still being committed in some part of the world every day. The drive to get our own way, and it's various manifestations such as aggression and competitiveness, appear to be a necessary components of the human condition. Without it we stagnate, as the collapse of Communism demonstrated. But don't forget that war, and the drive to survive, can produce enormous technological advances, which are not all bad eg what would our modern world be like without radar?"

I fail to understand the argument here. Is it that ultimately the atrocities being committed around the world right now are a good thing for humans? It means we won't "stagnate"? Or that they should excuse older events? Or that we should not care about them? Recently a UN tribunal delivered a verdict of genocide regarding the calculated massacre of 7,000 men and boys in Srebrenica. Should we bother with such attempts at justice if atrocities are supposedly such a basic drive, or even beneficial to our species?

Regarding communism, there was that other contemporaneous ideology which indeed focused on aggression and competitiveness. That also collapsed spectacularly and in a much shorter period of time, but not without leaving its mark on human history. Although, I'm not sure if that challenges your argument or adds to it.

I'm pretty sure radars were built before WWII. There was some fine-tuning of pre-existing technology during the war but also after the war. During WWII the British used radars try and prevent the aerial bombing of people in British cities. Aerial strikes are still in vogue of course and as you mention, and that technology is even more efficient now.

Alexander's conquests arguably paved the way for the Roman Empire and Christianity, without which modern Europe would not exist in the form it does, and the idea that all men (and women) are equally important - which underpins your statement - might not have spread throughout the world. (Perhaps getting a bit idealogical there!)

What if the Roman Empire didn't exist? Yes, that would mean that modern Europe, Middle East and North Africa would not be around in their current forms. Things would have been just that - different.

It's amazing that this idea that freedom and equality are the White Man's Burden to spread throughout the world still has currency. It was the most hypocritical propaganda employed during the years of European colonialism, race-based slavery and mass dispossession. The ideology and practice could not have been any more disparate.

Alexander at least did not destroy the civilisation he conquered, unlike say Ghengis Kahn or the Visigoths and Vandals who descended on Rome. He championed respect for women, and his men were often prohibited from raping and pillaging. Occasionally he let them off the leash, but he frequently channeled their aggression into athletic contests.

Alexander conquered more than one civilization. It is hard to claim that acts of destroying cities, killing all the men and selling the women and children to slavery did not have a destructive impact on the culture in that region. Perhaps the people of Gaza had something unique to offer civilization before they were crucified to the last man, the entire city cleansed of its population and replaced with another. In India, there are examples of whole cities and villages were destroyed during Alexander's campaign - some violently, some left to starve after being stripped of their resources. Yes, his men were sometimes prohibited from raping and pillaging cities that surrendered, but that was the carrot to entice surrender as opposed to having to use the stick. It was no matter or principle as evidenced by other times when the men weren't forbidden. Persian civilization did survive and from the Sassanian period onwards formed powerful empires. But they do call him Alexander the Accursed, ingrates that they are.

Alexander was by no means perfect, but he tried to be seen as a noble king, as a role model for others, which is maybe why we find him glamorous.

If the amount of Achaemenid propaganda that survives to this day is anything to go by, Alexander was not the first Great King to try and control his image and perception. My favourite bit of Achaemenid royal propaganda is from an Egyptian temple. It’s a carved relief Darius the Great being cuddled and blessed by the god Ra and goddess Isis, his parents in the narrative.

[the_accursed]

And in the interests of balance, which I can see is a special concern for you, perhaps we should also give some thought to Alexander's beneficiaries: the millions of people in the succeeding centuries that lived longer, richer and more fulfilled lives due to the economic, scientific and cultural boosts from his deliberate policies of building superb new cities, sponsoring philosophers, opening up and protecting new international trade routes and putting the contents of the Persian and Indian treasure houses into public circulation. Remember also his contribution to democracy and freedom of speech by replacing the oligarchies of the Ionian cities with democratic governments. And what a loss he would be to art!

Best wishes,

Andrew

I think the victims - the hundreds of thousands of them – world would have found your arguments hard to swallow.

Yes, Alexander built cities. Mainly, it seems to me, to have somewhere to dump his wounded soldiers, and to keep a Macedonian presence in the conquered territories after Alexander himself had moved on. Pragmatic, but not terribly altruistic, and I doubt the soldiers left behind would generally have agreed that these cities were superb.

Regarding progress made in the conquered territories in the centuries after Alexander’s death, in my opinion, and to the extent that such progress ever even reached most people, the credit should go to the kings who actually bothered to govern and develop these areas, rather than to the constantly bypassing conqueror. Alexander didn’t leave behind a flourishing empire. He left behind a weakened Macedonia, an heirless empire and decades of successor wars.

Regarding Alexander’s “contribution to democracy and freedom of speech”…aren't you a historian? Haven't you studied Alexander's life quite extensively? You should know better than to write something like that, Taphoi.

[the_accursed]

I understand your point of view. Today we try not to glamorise violence, but that doesn't make it go away. Such atrocities are still being committed in some part of the world every day. The drive to get our own way, and it's various manifestations such as aggression and competitiveness, appear to be a necessary components of the human condition. Without it we stagnate, as the collapse of Communism demonstrated. But don't forget that war, and the drive to survive, can produce enormous technological advances, which are not all bad eg what would our modern world be like without radar? Alexander's conquests arguably paved the way for the Roman Empire and Christianity,

To me this claim, popular as it may be, is nonsense. Rome rose entirely without the help of Alexander. Rather, it was their conflict with Carthage, and the resulting Roman victory, that set them on the path towards world domination. It was their great fortune that they had no Sparta to hold them back. Alexander’s greatest contribution to the Romans was dying before he got the chance of bestowing the blessings of Macedonian civilization upon them. As far as Christianity is concerned, it depends on what you mean with "paving the way". What I can agree with is that the large number of people in the world who spoke Greek likely made it easier for Christianity to spread, after the religion had been founded. This,though, was something Alexander could not possibly have foreseen or intended.

without which modern Europe would not exist in the form it does, and the idea that all men (and women) are equally important - which underpins your statement - might not have spread throughout the world. (Perhaps getting a bit idealogical there!)

Alexander at least did not destroy the civilisation he conquered, unlike say Ghengis Kahn or the Visigoths and Vandals who descended on Rome. He championed respect for women, and his men were often prohibited from raping and pillaging. Occasionally he let them off the leash, but he frequently channeled their aggression into athletic contests. Alexander was by no means perfect, but he tried to be seen as a noble king, as a role model for others, which is maybe why we find him glamorous.

Right. Alexander, the kinder, gentler conqueror. But would the Gazans, Tyrians or the Branchidae have agreed? Or what about the Indians he massacred? Would they too have agreed that Alexander was not a destroyer? Was it more pleasant and romantic to be butchered by Alexander than by Genghis Khan? The truth, it seems to me, is that those of you who find Alexander glamorous simply don't care about the victims. They were just the necessary sarissa fodder upon which the glamorous, pious, noble, well-read, charming and kind-hearted conqueror built his awesome and inspiring legacy.

In my opinion, it is, to put it diplomatically, very morally questionable to praise this guy. Heartless, even, I'd say.

[artemisia]

Ok, you are right from your point of view. But this doesn’t mean that your point of view is the only right and acceptable one. There are many people around the world who worship Alexander, in all times since then, more than 2300 years now, and your argumentation won’t stop it.

[Semiramis]

June 12, 2010 turned out to be a significant day in human history.

"ICC makes waging war a crime
By Sam Sasan Shoamanesh

Following the devastation of the second world war, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, established by the Allied Forces to try leading figures of defeated Nazi Germany, described aggressive wars waged against other nations as "[a] supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Some 60 years later, history was made in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 12, 2010 in Kampala, Uganda, the site of the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

For the first time in the war stricken story of mankind, waging aggressive wars has become a prosecutable crime in international law and given precise meaning and teeth before the ICC - this on the strength of an unexpected consensus reached between member states of the Court (or in ICC terminology 'states parties').

The conference in Kampala concluded with the adoption of a resolution that at last defined the crime of aggression listed in Article 5 of the Rome Statute - the Court's founding treaty - using the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) as a guide.

The resolution, in effect, criminalises the use of force (for example: blockades, invasions, bombardments) against another country in violation of the Charter of the United Nations; giving the Court the power to try future political and military leaders who plan, prepare, initiate or execute illegal wars, and to hold them (individually) criminally responsible for the commission of this new, and long-overdue, international crime.

Equally importantly, the Kampala resolution settled the conditions under which the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over the crime."

The full article -

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010 ... 00167.html

[jan]

Did you take the videos and have you published them yet? Is there any way that we can see the videos that you have taken?

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[jan]

I have been reading some of the comments about whether Alexander should be recognized or not. The problem with all historical events is that there are always any number of viewpoints about who the so called good guy or bad guy is, and if we are to learn anything from history, we have to learn to accept what happened, and not really attempt to judge it excep for the fact that it is what has brought us to the point to where we are today.

It simply cannot be changed. It happened. We get either the true facts of it or not according to who is telling the story.

There is no doubt that probably some innocent lives were victims of their town leaders who would not listen to wisdom and simply give in to Alexander's demands. Alexander had to deal with leaders the same as today's leaders only deal with leaders while the rest of us can only sit back, criticize, and vote if in a voting society, and accept the consequences of our own actions.

It is a bit stupid to think that if Alexander had not done as he had done that Greece would not have been under the influence of the Persians as would have Egypt and other oppressed states and nations who lived to serve the King of Kings of all of Asia. So what that Alexander decided to avenge the nation of Greece and become the king of kings instead of Darius...It was his calling and he answered the call.

As for every other small tribal bandit that wanted to war with Alexander, he had no choice but to take them on and win or lose the cause...Alexander has been told by the oracles that he is King of the World and that he would win all battles, it appears, and so he did...Why worry if there was a martyr who was innocent or guilty...everytime I kill a dang gnat in my apartment I don't really care if that gnat is guilty or innocent, just that he is where he does not belong. Out of my kitchen I say! I daresay that if one does not see that often mankind is just that significant to higher beings as a gnat is to me...

Personally, remembering his death date is not so significant as other dates but it does show the end of his rule and influence...It is good to note that people in Macedonia and Greece and elsewhere care to honor him this way.

[sikander]

Greetings,

This has been an interesting discussion. I appreciate the attempts at balance as a call to remember, always, that war and world conquering has a series of consequences, as well as a long list of victims.

Some argue that "if each village had simply acknowledged Alexander as king" there would have been no bloodshed, but human nature is such that, when a people perceive their way of life and their culture is threatened, they fight back... at least, those who have the capacity fight back. Too often, the lower classes are simply absorbed by whatever group is in power.

Some would argue it was Alexander's "calling" to rule, his nature to conquer.. human nature being what it is, many are called, few are chosen- Alexander, whatever his nature, would not have achieved what he achieved had he not been in the right family, at the right time in history.. so it could be argued it was destined, but again, the destiny of the great man usually is achieved on the backs of many who are "destined" to be caught up in events not of their choosing... more proof, perhaps, that the average person simply wants to live and be left alone, but are too often pulled into the lives of "the great" simply by virtue of having no choice due to the culture, time or environment in which they are born.

This is not to diminish Alexander's gifts, but it *is* an acknowledgement that not only do others have such gifts but lack opportunity, but also that those gifts often require the diminishment or decline of other people in order to be exercised fully.

While I can admire the way Alexander marshalled his skills, family position, intelligence and abilities to do what he wanted to do, I can also see things from the other side- not only of the people brought in to his decisions (the army, the camp followers, etc) but the people affected by those decisions- the peoples, villages, nations that were invaded, conquered, etc

Alexander was a reknown warrior king and for his time, unusual (but that can be also said of a number of great warriors and kings), but I try to remember that no "world conquerer" achieves the title by himself. The good king surrounds himself with the best people to advise as regards strategy and logistics, diplomacy and black ops..if they do their job well, some of them will be recorded in history, most will not. The world conqueror also rides on the back of many thousands of unnamed, unknown men, who live and die in obscurity. That is the nature of history.

There were great warriors and conquerors before and after. The greatest difference is that the conditions surrounding their existence all differ, so the results, both short and long term, will be different for each "great king" and whatever dynasty he founds, from the end result of the conquerors action (whatever his intent!) to how they go down in history books....the short and long term impact on the affected populations remain fairly predictable, also.

Regards,
Sikander

[artemisia]

Dear Jan, and to all others who are interested

Finally there were held 3 events in Thessaloniki in honor of Alexander the Great.
The first on 12th June was organized by the prefecture of Thessaloniki, where Vangelis Moustakas, the sculptor of the magnificent statue of Alexander, erected in 1974, was honored. In my opinion it was not as good as in the last years, because the speech of the main speaker (the journalist Giorgos Trankas) was mostly about modern politics “in the official sayings”, and he lacked an optimistic and agonistic spirit, and because the dance performance had no connection to Alexander, but showed the “Askitiki” by Nikos Kazantzakis. It was a rather poor event compared to the previous years.

The second was on 13th June, organized by Dimitrios-Alexandros Michakis and supported by some cultural associations from Thessaloniki and Kavala. It was far better than the official celebration; the speakers were enthusiastic and said political truths (which the official journalists wouldn’t tell us), some nice poems about Alexander were declaimed, the chorus was not so perfect trained, but at least their songs were fitting, and generally the spirits were much higher than on the previous day.

From these two commemorations I uploaded some parts under:
http://www.google.gr/search?q=youtube+c ... CB8QqwQwAA
(or else search in youtube for corneliaartemisia)

To the third event, held on 19th June, unfortunately I couldn’t go. It was held by the right-winged party “Chrysi Avgi”, also with political speeches about the dislike of the Greek people to give the name of Macedonia to FYROM and against the reigning establishment. After wreath-laying they did a demonstration in the town center towards the U.S. Consulate, where they sang the National hymn and “Famous Macedonia”.