How Inteligent was our Guy

[iskander_32]

Companions HiIts readily said about Alexander as a general and ruler but was he only that.I recall one ancient philosopher stating Alexander been the first philosopher dressed in armour.Was he a diplomat, a politicial a thinker.I think as a philosoppher he went beyond the Platos and Aristotles as he looked outside his own bubble and cultures,,, Some ask if Aristotle influenced Alexander at all,,, If he did i think its very shallow I think Alexander turned Aristotles teachings on its head.If he had been influenced at all by Greek thinkers he would have treated all his conquered peoples as barbarian and enslaved them to work the Greek mines as Spartan Helots.I do feel Alexander as polituically astute as his father I think the difference was Alexander much more dynamic and took more calculated risks.RegardsKenny

[jona]

"I recall one ancient philosopher stating Alexander been the first philosopher dressed in armour."This was said by Dandamis, one of Indian saddhu's near Taxila (they are sometimes called Brahmans, but Nearchus appears to have been aware of the difference). It is mentioned by Plutarch, who has picked up the idea and elaborated upon it in his show oration "The fortune of Alexander". But in spite of Plutarch's rhetorical pyrotechnics, there is -as you correctly observe- not much evidence for Alexander as a philosopher. He was a very young man when he visited Aristotle.Yet, it is possible that Alexander had some interest. In the first place, Aristotle dedicated a brief tractate "The Cosmos" to Alexander; the dedication would have been strange if Alexander had not shown some philosophical interest.The second piece of evidence is the Cleitus affair. The philosopher Anaxarchus explained to Alexander the Aristotelian theory that a very just ruler was above the law - after all, this man would be like a god among men, and would be absurd if his acts were limited by laws made by lesser people. Anaxarchus identified Alexander with this perfect ruler (which had been a theoretical construct in the teachings of Aristotle), and from then on, Alexander believed he was above the law. (See Bosworth, *Alexander in the East* for this matter.)This incidents shows us an Alexander who knows something about philosophy and accepts the advise of a philosopher, but has no real knowledge of the details.Jona

[amyntoros]

Coincidentally, I have just reached the point in Strabo where Alexander sends Onesicritus to visit the philosophers - "Onesicritus approached, accosted him, and told him that he had been sent by the king, who had heard the fame of his wisdom, and that he was to give an account of his interview, if there were no objection, he was ready to listen to his discourse"Later, Mandanis (as he is called in Strabo) says, "I commend the king, because, although he governs so large an empire, he is yet desirous of acquiring wisdom, for he is the only philosopher in arms that I ever saw..."Now, why should sending someone else to glean words of wisdom from a philosopher make Alexander a philosopher himself? If that was the case, then every student of philosophy would have the right to call themselves a philosopher, just for attending a lecture. And Alexander didn't even go in person! I'm in agreement here - I'm not even convinced that Mandanis actually said these words. If he did, then it is pure flattery. Otherwise, it seems like another instance of flattery by those who wrote of Alexander, this time from Onesicritus.Best regards,Linda Ann

[agesilaos]

Alexander was clearly not politically astute; he appointed all those governors he subsequently has to execute; his Exile's Decree sparks off the Lamian War; the massacre of the Greek mercenaries at the Granikos ensured their fellows would fight hard for Persia; he introduced no new administration merely taking over the Persian system wholesale; he provoked his own troops to mutiny not once but thrice; he is a despot not a politician.As for philosophy it would be well to bear in mind that all the greatest crimes in the world have been committed in the name of some philosophy or other. Alexander's creed seems to be rather basic even by modern standards 'Do as I say or be crushed' he has the strength of will to invariably carry it off but is that a worthwhile message for any but Alexander?None of this impacts upon intelligence however his problem solving ability semms above average in the fields he enjoyed ie killing but he never comes to terms with the many forces within his growing realm. His solution being to break any potential rival power bases and aggregate as much power into his own hands as possible while terrorising his underlings. He would be as intelligent as Caligula say but the Roman had a better line in humour.

[jona]

"As for philosophy it would be well to bear in mind that all the greatest crimes in the world have been committed in the name of some philosophy or other."And besides, if you look at what kind of things philosophers have, over the past centuries, said about women, one becomes a bit skeptical about the rest...Jona

[xxx]

I feel quite confident in saying Alexander was far more intelligent than those of us who inhabit this forum.

[marcus]

Hmmm ... I'd like to disagree, of course, but I'm not sure how it could be proven, anyway.M

[Nicator]

"Alexander was clearly not politically astute; he appointed all those governors he subsequently has to execute; his Exile's Decree sparks off the Lamian War; the massacre of the Greek mercenaries at the Granikos ensured their fellows would fight hard for Persia; he introduced no new administration merely taking over the Persian system wholesale; he provoked his own troops to mutiny not once but thrice; he is a despot not a politician."Hello Agesilos,
I'm not so sure that he was not politically astute. Alexander was not a mind reader, and could not predict that the men he put into power were going to behave badly after he moved on. The fact that he put untrustworthy men into power may be more indicative of his desire to rule over a realm by the grace of the subjects he ruled, (and his tendency to trust too deeply) than to his inability to use correct political skills. Would his exhiles decree have sparked off the Lamian War if Alexander was still living? His massacre of the Greek Mercenaries was a political mistake, no question, but he did learn quickly from this mistake, did he not? The Greek Mercenaries were well known to be very loyal to their paymaster...whoever that may be. This is a more complicated political question than it may on the surface appear. I would also argue that the Greek Mercenaries were already knowingly and willingly operating against the laws of the league charter, and after the brutal sacking of Thebes may have felt inclined to fight against Alexander anytime, anywhere. This may be the source of the political mistake, but did Alexander have any choice? He was an aggressive conqueror and aggressive conquerors always create problems that are not easily solved. Why would he introduce a new political system when the existing system worked fine? I find this concept to be good policy. Did he have time to sit around and introduce new systems of government? This was something that could be done later, after the military campaigning was complete. The three mutinies do seem to indicate his ever increasing detachment from his subjects, but I would argue that the reasons for each mutiny was different with unique issues. The mutiny on the Hyphasis had little to do with poor politicing. Ultimately, even an expert politician could not have prevented it. When I think about ways it could have been prevented, the glaringly obvious point that comes to my attention is that he failed as a leader to put an end goal i

[Nicator]

When I think about ways it could have been prevented, the glaringly obvious point that comes to my attention is that he failed as a leader to put an end goal into his mens minds, and even when he did, he shifted that goal for his own needs. (Sounds quite typical of a politician to me). Was he as good a politician as he was a conqueror? He was virtually perfect as a conqueror, but could anybody be a perfect politician? later Nicator

[Nicator]

"As for philosophy it would be well to bear in mind that all the greatest crimes in the world have been committed in the name of some philosophy or other. Alexander's creed seems to be rather basic even by modern standards 'Do as I say or be crushed' he has the strength of will to invariably carry it off but is that a worthwhile message for any but Alexander?"I'd be interested to know what crimes Alexander did in the name of philosophy? Be more specific please. "None of this impacts upon intelligence however his problem solving ability semms above average in the fields he enjoyed ie killing but he never comes to terms with the many forces within his growing realm. His solution being to break any potential rival power bases and aggregate as much power into his own hands as possible while terrorising his underlings. He would be as intelligent as Caligula say but the Roman had a better line in humour."I doubt Alexander really enjoyed 'killing', but rather he enjoyed conquering. Alexander could not have come to terms with the numerous peoples living within his realm if he lived a hundred lifetimes...there were just too many and too diverse. Agesilos, really??? Alexander compared to Caligula...that's offensive. I don't think he had any pretenses toward psychotic episodes. Most sources relate that he generally felt bad after one of his rare outburts. Some of his later outbursts seem more indicative of a man thinking on a different (higher) level than the ordinary short tempered general. A man of Alexander's calibur would inevitably grow tired of lesser men, particularly those displaying gross incompetence and short sightedness. Alexander's generalship skills were nothing short of a breathtakingly spectacular display of military genius! It was the sort of rare thing that for twenty three centuries has captivated, inspired, and left thousands in awe and wonder! later Nicator