pothos.org

Not Just about Alexander. Tonight on Channel 5 was a documentary about Herod the Great. Who in actual fact was no where near Great. He was a tin pot Roman puppet nothing more.

Just what is it that Warranst the word Great been given to people.

Alfred the, Great, Kathryn The Great, Herod the Great. to name but three I really dont think any where near as great. These people are labeled THe Great. I think Alexander warrants the name Great.

So why not Caesar The Great. Hannibal the Great.Napoleon the Great. Great great names that dont get the label.

Why is this and who chose or chooses the label great.

Kenny

You made me think of a plaque I once owned that said "It is hard to be humble when you are as great as I am." Thanks, I had forgotten about it.

So many questions...

What makes a person great are their achievements, capabilities, qualities & virtues, Constantine the great was Rome's 2nd best supreme army commander of all Roman times. Other than that he liberated the Christians who weren't worth any money or sunlight in their time, so I think Constantine preformed a miracle by turning Christian slaves into nobles. What happened to Gaius Julius Caesar is pure saddening, I regard Caesar as the greatest politician & army commander of all Roman times. The reason I think Alexander III the king of Macedon is great is because he preformed miracles with strategic planning at such a young age, other than that he listened to his generals. Alexander the great was small of length and grew up riding a horse, so for a king of a small country such as Macedon at that time to conquer the barbaric Persian Hordes is a major military achievement.

Sorry but I am more a Beethoven fan than that of Napoleon.

jasonxx wrote:Why is this and who chose or chooses the label great.

The audience decides whether a speaker has a high or a low ethos.

I suppose being called 'the Great' and having it stick depends on who is writing the history and how it survives. In my opinion, emperor Augustus is one which deserves the epithet 'the Great' but for some reason doesn't have it. Could be he was just too humble (sort of) in his declining years. It's an interesting topic: how history remembers the great deeds of people and who is called 'the Great'.

It is an interesting topic, this. Difficult to pin down a reason for why one person is called great and another isn't. I think that Augustus is probably not referred to as great since his names (Augustus and Caesar) have become bywords for greatness anyway.

My problem with this is that it makes me laugh as I love to play with words, so naturally great becomes grate, as if he grates on my nerves. Then there is of course grateful too and I begin to grate on everyone's nerves.

Alexander is great though through his achievements, but I suspect when this phrase was coined for him it was intended as a great compliment, and made his niche in history and society in the age. He is actually greater than great if truly undefeated, and always besting everyone he is competing against. He would have been considered truly magnificent.

In today's age, I believe the only great people now are called astronauts! I can see the change from cuirasses to spacesuits!

Perhaps even more cogent: who gets to decide how tall a historical figure is remembered to be? Alexander is known to have been diminutive, but always he’s depicted as average height, or portrayed by reasonably large actors such as Richard Burton and Colin Farrell. Whereas Napoleon, who actually was average height for his time, is eternally portrayed as tiny, and even has a supposed complex named after him. If it’s about small men picking fights, why isn’t it named “Alexandrian syndrome?”

I move that in the interests of clearly defining “great,” we rename our man Alexander the Very Large.

Your own jokes about how long his spear was compared to other Makedonians’ may be inserted here.

I have a favorite print of Alexander: "Surrender of Porus to the Emperor Alexander," by Alonzo Chappel, late 1800's. Someone put up a nice scan on the Columbia Education site. (Scroll down to the fourth image.) I love the attention to detail in this print, although I’m not sure about the white horse or if it’s supposed to be the historically already-deceased Bucephalus? However, Porus is shown with convincing height, if not exactly seven feet tall, and Alexander is credibly shorter than everyone else. The portrayal isn’t quite in accord with my own image of Alexander but for some reason I find it absolutely charming, although perhaps a little too “boyish” for the time frame. Am expecting a flurry of objections though (or maybe a “flur” of objections – I don’t think there are enough Pothosians currently posting to make up a flurry). No one likes my avatar either. <Sniff>

By the way, I believe the bearded figure on the right represents Aristander, so do you think the handsome fellow at Alexander’s shoulder is meant to be Hephaistion?

Best regards,

My goodness, he is indeed quite shrimpy in this piece. Especially by contrast with Poros.

Yeah, a little too boyish -- a worse fault is that his head is out-of-proportion, too small. I also think his arms look much softer and less muscular than they must actually have been. But Poros' are too; I think that was the style back then.

If that is Hephaistion, he's a knockout

I think, and it is only me....that some part of Alexander may have played up his not so tall stature...it would go with his shaved faced and highish voice......the eternal boy king/wunderkind.

Nothing like your enemies underestimating you because they think of you as a "boy" even as you approach 30. Now it might not have played as well if he had been pushing 50. As it is its part of the eternal youth image he still has. If he had been tall, with a deep voice and a beard..who knows.

But it's just an idea...