Standards. Or, is character analysis pointless?

[alejandro]

Hi all]Many times it was said in this forum that we cannot judge Alexander by our current standards (moral, cultural, sexual, etc). My question is: can we judge him according to his own timeGÇÖs standards? If he is really an extraordinary personality, can he truly be compared to the average Joe (or Demetrios, since we are talking ancient Greece here )? Many times it was said that Macedon was a more GÇ£HomericGÇ¥ society than the southern city states, so which standards should we use? 3rd century BCGÇÖs Athenian ones? Or IliadGÇÖs ones? Is his an outstanding personality because he was an innovator? Or because he followed old-fashioned precepts?Even if we agree on this matter, can we say he was GÇ£betterGÇ¥ than our benchmark (whatever it is) without involving our own subjective values when doing it? After all, our average Joe represents the archetypical Hellene of the times, doesnGÇÖt he? So how can we classify any deviation from this average as either good or bad, using the very same average as our unit of measure?Also, many times we consider him GÇ£GreatGÇ¥ because of the impact he had on the world. Does it mean that we are using our standards to judge him? (in the end, GÇ£the spreading of HellenismGÇ¥ is important in historic terms only if we think it shaped our own current lives, in one way or another, including, among other things, facilitating the spreading of Christianity). What did GÇ£average DemetriosGÇ¥ think about AlexanderGÇÖs deeds? Can we really use a contemporary guy to establish AlexanderGÇÖs effect on history (think, for example, the frequent differences between Alexander and the Old Guard). So maybe we should use a different average? One born after AlexanderGÇÖs death? But if this is the case, he wonGÇÖt be able to compare the situation before and after, will he?I support the thesis that we cannot get rid of our own prejudices when dealing with historic events. But even if we could, we would still struggle to evaluate a historic character using his/her GÇ£own timeGÇ¥ standards, simply because determining them is a bloody complicated matter. If we can hardly agree on our current standards (if there are any), can we really agree on those of the 3rd century BC, given the scant information we have about them?What do you think?Best,Alejandro

[marcus]

I only have time (at the moment) for a very brief reply.There's a danger of confusing two things here: on the one hand, Alexander's achievement which, to put it bluntly, were remarkable *whatever* day and age one is in - of course the average Demetrius compares unfavourably; on the other hand, some of Alexander's *actions* and character (Tyre, Persepolis, Philotas, Cleitus, the drinking, the sexuality, etc. etc.).Nobody, I believe, ever says that the former, his achievements, must be evaluated according to his time; the latter should be if we are to be impartial historians (and historians *should* be impartial). There's nothing wrong with assessing some of his behaviour in comparison with modern societal standards, but it is disingenious to 'judge' them by our standards. Those can only really be judged by the standards held by Demetrius.ATBMarcus

[kenny]

We can judge measure and compare Alexander through the Anuls of history. Alexander is as relevent today as he was in ancient times.We can measure his acheivements and his ultimate fusion of the world which the ideal is a thread of soul throughout any society today. Never was there any one man that could strive to bring all together without discrimnination and seperatist attitudes that maintain throughout history.As marcus said the crazy incidents Clietus and even the Bisexuality has no bearing on our society. Two mates on the booze comming to blows and one getting speared.But one thing that is relevent with Alexander was his integrity and the trueth of the man. Todays politoicians leaders send people sons to fight there crazy wars for oil land or Capitalistic gains.Alexander was in with the boys and probably gave back what he took.This isd such a long topic and maybe others could build with it?RegardsKenny

[alejandro]

Hi Kenny,I understand your point. But still my perspective holds: GÇ£the Annals of HistoryGÇ¥ is a compendium of what historians think is relevant, and so is polluted with subjective judgments.We can state facts: Alexander defeated Persia, built a mole to reach Tyre, married Roxanne. But can we say anything beyond that? Note that I do not talk about AlexGÇÖs deeds as being subject to this caveat, only the attempted analyses at judging them (Was he right at burning Persepolis? Should he have slept with men? And a long list of etceteras).You can say he is better than the Dubyas of today, but you are using your own set of values to decide it. And thereGÇÖs nothing wrong with that. But the whole discussion becomes pointless when different perspectives are taken into account. And even honest attempts to use GÇ£ancientGÇ¥ standards to measure him are, from my point of view, bound to fail, because there is no way to quantify that GÇ£average DemetriosGÇ¥ I mentioned in the original post (think about Diogenes GÇ£looking for a manGÇ¥ and never finding himGǪ.).My point is you are entitled to think Alexander outshines any other person who ever lived on this world. Other people can think him a murderer (like Bosworth), a gentleman (Tarn), a romantic GÇôhomoerotic- hero (Renault) or a good piece of gossip (Curtius), among others. But hardly we can all agree (think about the disparity of opinions about ManfrediGÇÖs books or StoneGÇÖs movie).There are, simply, as many Alexanders as people know and care about him. And I am happy with it. We can discuss them and put forward arguments why we think he is like this or like that, but as soon as we use different values, we will never agree, even assuming we have exactly the same knowledge about the topic under study. However, it does make interesting debating!Best,Alejandro

[alejandro]

Hi Marcus,Thanks for your comments.Of course I am not trying to say AlexanderGÇÖs achievements were minor (Though it is still true that you have to consider GÇ£conquering the worldGÇ¥ as an important goal according to your scale of values in order to say it. Unless you assume that the qualities required to achieve it are the admirable ones -resilience, strategic and tactical military and logistic skills, leadership, pothos- in which case weGÇÖre back in the case I presented: these are values GÇ£weGÇ¥ consider important, but are not necessarily universal).That is why I rather focused on the GÇ£character analysisGÇ¥ many times attempted here and everywhere. Because this is where the sources leave a gap that we fill in with our own ideas. And we thus end up vilifying or glorifying him even though we read exactly the same piece of literature (and so killing every mercenary Greek soldier by the Granikos is for some unforgivable murder, for others a brilliant exemplary punishment intended to deter other Greeks to fight him). And this will continue to happen, as long as we disagree on how we value different things: Should life be preserved at all costs (or at least at a damned high one)? Or should strategic and reputational considerations be above everything else? Depending on how we weight these two factors we will analyze the Granikos facts in different ways.And this is not only a problem for present-day readers/historians. Discrepancies did occur in AlexanderGÇÖs times (just think about how many times Parmenion is shown to have disagreed with Alex, or the Hydaspes mutiny, among others). The average Demetrios simply doesnGÇÖt exist, it is just a methodological artifact (think about the man Diogenes was looking for and never found, as I mentioned in my reply to Kenny). Even worse, in AlexanderGÇÖs time we should find, maybe, the average Xerxes, as Persians were also part of his empire.I agree you can compare ancient antics to current ones without judging them by present-day standards, but that is rather difficult, and the mental leap from comparison to judgement is so straightforward that most people do it, even historians trying to be as objective as possible. I think we just cannot avoid it, it is our nature. Some words/actions are so full of meaning that we cannot devoid them of it and, consciously or not, we imprint values onto them. Going back to the Granikos, would you feel the same if you read GÇ£the Greek mercenaries were killedGÇ¥ than if you read GÇ£the Greek

[alejandro]

I agree you can compare ancient antics to current ones without judging them by present-day standards, but that is rather difficult, and the mental leap from comparison to judgement is so straightforward that most people do it, even historians trying to be as objective as possible. I think we just cannot avoid it, it is our nature. Some words/actions are so full of meaning that we cannot devoid them of it and, consciously or not, we imprint values onto them. Going back to the Granikos, would you feel the same if you read GÇ£the Greek mercenaries were killedGÇ¥ than if you read GÇ£the Greek mercenaries were massacredGÇ¥? Probably not, but the emotional effect is already there, and you must be damned cold-blooded to factor it out when reading it.
As I said to Kenny below, I am not against having your own image of what Alex was like (I have one as well, probably as false as everyone elseGÇÖs), just against trying to GÇ£scientificallyGÇ¥ prove that oneGÇÖs position is the true one. But as I said to Kenny as well, it generates loads of interesting arguments that enrich the debate!
Best,Alejandro

[kenny]

Exactly Migues.There are only certain things we can be sure about as the points you made. With historical texts to events.Statues building archiology and staues.The rest as you say is conjecture. No one has a clue what Alexander said to any one nor what anyone said to him. WE dont know who he slept with nor his loves. And we definately dont know his mind.As you said various writers give us there Alexanders. With reading all the opinions I think it fair to say we all find our Alexanders.My Alexander is first and foremost an adventurer and a competitor. A man wanting to see over the next hill. A man without any roots. My Alexander was a man of unity and with a dream of unification of people under his own hegmany.My Alexander is brave bold generous and with charisma that must go un surpassed. Basically my Alexander was is Great.Respect
Kenny

[alejandro]

Hi KennyI sort of suspected your image of Alexander. You are very passionate about him, and I commend you for that. I think everyone here feels more or less the same, even though not everyone is as vocal about it as you are (not a bad thing, actually a very good one!).I agree with most of your description, though I am a bit sceptical about his search for the unity of Humankind (but I do agree strongly with your point about him wanting everyone under his hegemony!).And of course, my image changed over time. At the beginning I just read a few paragraphs about him in a secondary school textbook and got hooked by this live-fast-die-young rockGÇÖnGÇÖroll character. Then Plutarch revealed me the wonder-boy side of his. Then Renault showed me his troubled but noble personality. Academic papers gave me some insights about his logistics and politics. Bosworth and Badian presented his darker sides.My image of Alex was influenced by all of them, as well as by the comments from Pothosians, but I think he still is, in the end, that enthralling youngster of my high school textbook, throwing his spear toward Asia from his ship on the Hellespont.After all, several years after that first encounter, here I am, still willing to know more about him!Best,Alejandro

[kenny]

Miguel HailThanks for your remrks.Maybe vocal I guess but most of what I think is basically rationalled and in some cases accept the viscious side.Lets face it anyone succesful as he was needs to be somewhat calculated and even malicious.No one got any where playing the nice guy only walked over.I like your description young and dynamic. I think it fare to say that dying young did many a thing to enhance many a legendary hero.James Dean a big example who to my learning was a casting couch rent boy but dying young in such a way immortalised him. The Same with Kennedy who I feel very overated not to upset my American brothers here. I guesKennedy was a mobster financed politician who got wasted for turning on his paymasters. Yet he died young and is basically legendary.Many others Maralyn Monroe,Princess Diana and Elvis Presley to a certain degree to die early made them more than they actually was. Presley was the greatest entertainer of the last 2 centuries but basically the mans personal weakness and reliance of his mother was extreme.Alexander dying so young also immortalises him more.and with it going alongside such a fantastic and succesful carear his star for me shines more than any other.Once Andrew called Alexander the worlds first superstar and I never quite thought of him like that but on reflection I guess he was right.Maybe my views are passionate to the poiunt of extremes. But for me in the times we have today such a leader would indeed be welcome.RegardsKenny

[kenny]

Miguel HailThanks for your remrks.Maybe vocal I guess but most of what I think is basically rationalled and in some cases accept the viscious side.Lets face it anyone succesful as he was needs to be somewhat calculated and even malicious.No one got any where playing the nice guy only walked over.I like your description young and dynamic. I think it fare to say that dying young did many a thing to enhance many a legendary hero.James Dean a big example who to my learning was a casting couch rent boy but dying young in such a way immortalised him. The Same with Kennedy who I feel very overated not to upset my American brothers here. I guesKennedy was a mobster financed politician who got wasted for turning on his paymasters. Yet he died young and is basically legendary.Many others Maralyn Monroe,Princess Diana and Elvis Presley to a certain degree to die early made them more than they actually was. Presley was the greatest entertainer of the last 2 centuries but basically the mans personal weakness and reliance of his mother was extreme.Alexander dying so young also immortalises him more.and with it going alongside such a fantastic and succesful carear his star for me shines more than any other.Once Andrew called Alexander the worlds first superstar and I never quite thought of him like that but on reflection I guess he was right.Maybe my views are passionate to the poiunt of extremes. But for me in the times we have today such a leader would indeed be welcome.RegardsKenny