Alexander - all his own merit or helped along the way?

[Miranda]

Hello,
I was just wondering if someone could help me decide whether the above question would be substantial enough to write an assignment on (not in those words of course, but along those lines) I have never studied classical history before since I study modern history, but I'm not entirely unfamiliar with Ancient Greece and Alexander and so I decided to pick this subject as a proposal question. I have always wondered whether Alexander was really that great, or whether there were other factors contributing to his success. Obviously, inheritance from Philip and everything that he did was important. But aside from this, there doesn't seem to be any other explanations, at least that I have found, which attributes Alexander's success to anything other than his own merit. All the sources I have read either discuss the great leader vs. tyrant debate, or list his successes. Am I proposing a fruitless area to discuss, was Alexander really the genius king with a little help from his father? I would appreciate it if anyone had any advice.Miranda

[ancientlibrary]

First, what sort of assignment is this? Are you a high-school student, a college student, etc.?That aside, I think the idea can be doneGÇölike most historical topics, it actually has. We can throw some bibliography at you, although we need to know your "level" first. I'm sure the people here would love to outline some of the arguments as well.That said, I feel contrary tonight, so my personal answer is "don't do it." Answering the question has all sorts of methodological problems. For example, it entails counterfactuals. You can outline some of the failings of the Persian empire and military, but you can never know if Alexander would have triumphed over a more healthy Persian empire. History may repeat itself in some broad way, but it's not an experiment you can actually run through with different inputs. As another example, this sort of topic lends itself to the "but for a nail the battle of Concord would have been lost" logic. (ie., The Minutemen wouldn't have been ready without warning from Paul Revere; Paul Revere could not have warned them without a horse; his horse could not have run without a horseshoe; the horseshoe wouldn't have stayed on without a nail; hence, the nail was the crucial factor in the battle). The failure of any element *might* have upturned the whole, but that doesn't mean Alexander's archers are the great ones, not Alexander.That said, it would be a good prompt to look at Alexander "in full. And if the topic is already very interesting you, by all means go ahead. An interesting problem is always better than one you find boring.

[marcus]

I agree with much of what Tim says. I think I'm of the opinion that it should be done, rather than not done (although I do accept that Tim was in a contrary mood when he wrote that). But it does rather depend on the level you want to pitch your assignment at - it could be *extremely* difficult to do in, say, 2,000 words; or it might be very easy to do in the same number.I suspect that if you do go with this proposal, then you'll find that you have to narrow it much more when you actually come to it. But as Tim says, I'm sure there will be *plenty* of us who would be all to happy to comment/argue/debate and generally make you wish you hadn't asked :-)All the bestMarcus

[abm]

I mostly agree with Tim and Marcus, but I would suggest to change the question somewhat to "Which factors influenced Alexander's achievement?" After you've answered this you can also try reach a careful conlusion on whether he was great or not, without making it your main question. A while ago Jona has already pointed out on this forum that the question whether Alexander was great as it is mostly adressed, depends on whether you make absolute ethical judgements. Nobody would deny that Alexander was a great general etc., but many of those who doubt or deny his greatness simply stress that he made a lot of victims rather than that he had extraordinary qualities. This only (or mostly) affects his greatness if you make it an ethical quetsion.regards,abm

[Kit]

Yes, the whole concept of greatness is subjective. It would depend on what criteria you use to judge Alexander by. I do not wholly agree that it has to come down to ethical considerations, although they are often used in the 'con' arguments.You could judge Alexander against Military, Economic, Cultural criteria without necessarily having to resort to any ethical considerations? Of course if you judged him by Political standards then you wouldn't have to worry about ethics or morals at all (only joking- well, mainly joking!)!If you wanted to give the subject a rounded treatment I would probably not tackle that question at anything less than degree level. But that's just my view.regards,Kit.

[Miranda]

Firstly, thanks for all your help and advice, although I'm still a bit divided as to whether to pursue the proposed question.This project is for my A-levels, so not yet degree level. I agree with you Tim on the nitpicking kind of angle I would be taking by choosing this question, since I pretty much know the conclusion of it: Alexander really was great. But I thought it would be interesting anyhow to offer other factors which might have contributed to his success. Ok, it's really because I think the examiners will be further impressed by my choosing an original argument (I'm talking about A-level standard here; half my class think it's genius to re-hash the Vietnam war and Nazi Germany) Only problem is, being an Alexander novice, once I narrow the question down I'm at a bit of a stump: there was the legacy of Philip II, perhaps a weak Persia, Macedonia being at an advantageous point of attack...and then I drift off into Alexander being great, and have to wake myself up from going down the wrong track! This is where I need real points rather than the general to have a balanced argument; please argue and debate as much as you like, it would be helpful for me to hear the views of experts since my knowledge is very limited.I'm mainly trying to establish Alexander's greatness in terms of his military conquests, political aptitude and generally how he was at ruling and leadership. I never really thought of Alexander's in terms of ethical issues, but as I read more I find it's quite a debated issue. Are there any other points against Alexander's success being all down to himself, or any other question suggestions? Thanks again

[beausefaless]

Greetings Miranda,I have a well done thesis I can send you, if you have a high speed connection, if not it will take around eight hours to down load. I notice you're using yahoo for your internet mail so I'm not sure of mg space on your email.This thesis covers Philip; And Alexander went fifty battles undefeated and this covers all the important ones that made him the greatest general ever. It's easy to comprehend and will not take long to read.Using a nail and horseshoe as a metaphor is a very *poor* example to relate on this subject at hand since horseshoes were not used twenty three hundred years ago! Even today there are horses, mules, and jackasses that will do just fine without horseshoes epically if the ground is soft. What I'm trying to say is there are numerous ways to kill many birds with one stone and this was a must during the time of Alexander because weapons were primitive and let's not forget Philip & Alexander innovated mobile artillery which is discussed in this thesis.Just let me know if your interested.Regards,Andrew

[Miranda]

Hello Andrew,thank you for your offer, and if you could send it I would be very grateful (I have plenty of space on my yahoomail inbox, they give you 250MB which should be enough for a thesis in word or some such format)However I'm not sure whether the thesis would help me in my argument, which is to provide a number of factors other than Alexander's greatness which resulted in his success. I have plenty of arguments for, just not a lot against. I may have misunderstood your message on the thesis however, so I would still be grateful if you could send it to my e-mail. Thank you!

[beausefaless]

He also learned something of ethics and politics and the new sciences of botany, zoology, geography, and medicine. However his chief interest was military strategy. With the army went geographers, botanists, and other men of science who collected information and specimens for Aristotle. A historian kept records of the march, and surveyors made maps that served as the basis for the geography of Asia for centuries. He was a master at logistics and engineering which was all vital to the means of his ends.Now you tell me what other army before ever did anything like this, none. There's more reasons why the Romans dubbed Alexander the Great and he was the first to be given this title. I'll give you one more clue *numismatics* the rest is up to you but I would love to assist you with his coinage if you're interested.Of course there was his dark side; One eye was as blue as the sky and the other dark as night.(Arrian).I'll upload the thesis a little more than a few hrs. from now. If it's not what you're looking for, it's still a good thing.Take care, Andrew

[ancientlibrary]

1. You should check out Plutarch's two-part essay on the fortune or virtue of Alexander, discussing both. This is your classical model.2. If you want to minimize Alexander's "greatness" you would argue:a. Philip made the army what it wasb. Alexander's generals were at least as important as Alexander (eg., Parmenio in Asia, Antipater in Europe)c. Macedonians were badasses. Alexander's generalship was frosting on the cake.d. The Persian empire was rotten to the core; Philip could have done it. Heck, Alexander of Pherae would have wiped the floor of that Darius wimp.e. Alexander was audacious, but won most of his battles by a mad cavalry dash in which he might well have died.f. Alexander was lucky, eg., the death of Memnon of RhodesI don't really believe any of these, but that's how the argument would go. It would be interesting to see--as it's said--how much stronger the weaker argument could be made.

[ancientlibrary]

Well, it's a well-known example, and there were horseshoes in Colonial America. Speaking of birds, didn't an eagle get tangled in a catapult at Tyre?

[ancientlibrary]

Hey Andrew, do you want your thesis posted somewhere. I can't believe it *needs* to be so large, but I have gigs and gigs of free space on my sites isidore-of-seville.com and ancientlibrary.com.

[ancientlibrary]

There's a problem of evidence. Cyrus could have run around with a complete Mariachi band, but we'd never have heard of it.

[beausefaless]

Too bad she can't address her question to Philip, Parmenion, and Cletus when they were drinking heavy. I was trying to show, in a more dramatic fashion that the later part of her question was futile...But I have come to the conclusion your first & second post was all that was necessary.

[abm]

as for Alexander the military genius you could start by reading J.F.C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Note, however, the remark of Polybius on the role of Alexander's generals:"For although a large share of the credit must perhaps be given to Alexander, as the presiding genius of the whole, though so young a man; yet no less is due to his coadjutors and friends, who won many wonderful victories over the enemy; endured numerous desperate labours, dangers and sufferings; and, though put into possession of the most ample wealth, and the most abundant means of gratifying all their desires, never lost their bodily vigour by these means, or contracted tastes for violence or debauchery. On the contrary, all those who were associated with Philip, and afterwards with Alexander, became truly royal in greatness of soul, temperance of life, and courage. Nor is it necessary to mention any names: but after Alexander's death, in their mutual rivalries for the possession of various parts of nearly all the world, they filled a very large number of histories with the record of their glorious deeds." (VIII, 10.7-11; on 8.12 in Perseus:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... =Plb.+8.12).the problem is that our sources are interested mostly in the military aspects of his career. Politically the thing that catches my eye first is Alexander's insight that he had to give the Persians a part in the administration despite Macedonian protest, something many conquerors might not have done. You have to be very careful in assessing this problem, since many different views exist.regards,abm