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
Rubén Alejandro wrote:I think the size of his ideals , should be meassured ,
as one main point in which to consider him great .
Alejandro -
I would say yes and no. Just because I think anyone can have ideals of greatness, he just had the means in his grasp to execute them. But he DID executed his ideals with great success, where others in his situation, could have the same ideals, but then execute the means with disastrous outcomes.
(Did that even make sense?)
All the best!
The problem is we have little or no idea of Alexander's ideals; we have plenty of evidence for ideals ascribed to him but other than a couple of letters carved in stone nothing from Alexander himself. Even as he died he became the object of others' propaganda, viz Perdikkas subverting his hypomnemata, Ptolemy purloining the corpse and Ephippos of Olynthos and Nikobule (in Athenaeus XII 51D) concocting tales of excess and impiety. Later philosophical schools graft there teaching onto him, or find exempla from his career of the effects of not following their teaching! Either way, the best we can do is to extrapolate from his actions and that is so subjective a process as to keep Alexander's own ideals pretty obscure - which is one reason for his usefulness as an example
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Just because I think anyone can have ideals of greatness, he just had the means in his grasp to execute them. But he DID executed his ideals with great success, where others in his situation, could have the same ideals, but then execute the means with disastrous outcomes. 
