Re: Agreed-upon character traits

[karen]

[Amyntoros:] The problem is, when do these adjectives start to become superfluous? I guess that will be Karen's call. :-)I am trying not to make the entries on my list redundant. I'm also sorting them into categories, so that "intellectually perceptive" would be under "mental" and "violent temper" would be under "emotional." It also occurred to me that I should include physical traits, too, and a couple sprang to mind. I'm looking for things that don't apply to everyone, of course -- e.g., strong and muscular goes without saying -- all the warriors were that, their training ensured it. So far I have "strong constitution" and "energetic," although I suppose the latter shades into an emotional trait, being related to drive."Quick" applies to Alexander all over -- there's all sorts of evidence that he was quick-thinking, as well as quick-moving as per the many force-marches and pursuits -- I don't think I've ever heard that disputed, has anyone else?All the best,Karen

[amyntoros]

Hi Karen,***Though would you agree with, "given to occasional sardonic humour?"*** Certainly would! I always think of him as "possessed of a dry wit" although your expression is a better illustration. I honestly don't think that a simple "sense of humor" properly applies to Alexander although people have expressed otherwise and I'd be surprised not to see comments on this. It could be, however, that I feel this way because of the strong contrast between Alexander and Philip; the latter possessing an often self-effacing sense of humor which I *don't* see in Alexander. Modesty just does not apply to the man! Like you, I see even the "Ichor" exchange has having an air of cynicism rather than the self-depreciation as interpreted by others, and although it is arguable in the Ichor instance, "sardonic humor" can definitely be applied to others.Athenaeus VI. 250 f-251 a.
Satyrus in his Lives says that Anaxarchus, the philosopher of eudaemonism, was one of Alexander's parasites. On one occasion when he was traveling with the king there came a violent clap of thunder so extraordinary that everybody cowered in fear, and he said, 'Can it be that you, Alexander, the son of Zeus, did that?' Alexander laughed and said "No, for I don't want to be so terrifying as you would have me, when you urge me to have the heads of satraps and kings brought to me when I am dining.' Oh, and Kenny, you mentioned earlier in the thread that you hadn't heard the quote about blood and Ichor. There are several variations; here's one from Plutarch:Plutarch Moralia 180 E. Sayings of Kings and Commanders - Alexander.
(16) When he was hit in the leg by an arrow, and many of those who were oftentimes wont to hail him as a god hurried up to him, he, relaxing his countenance, said, "this is blood, as you see, and not Ichor, like that which flows from the wounds of the blessed Immortals."Now back to Karen! Yes, I understand completely about leaving off formidable and autocratic. ***When you included "Homeric" and "heroic" I thought you might be meaning all the things you're delineating now.( . . . ) If you think Alexander was unusual in that, then would the term be "idealistic"? I think we can separate it from the cultural influence that way; someone who is idealistic is devoted to the ideals he has been taught -- whatever they are.***. . . continued

[amyntoros]

Well, *I* would probably use "idealistic of the Homeric ethos" or "devoted to the Homeric ideal" to express my thoughts, however, as I said before, the use of Homeric to describe Alexander has previously been argued against. I think it may be because it isn't usually used according to my interpretation and is most often brought up when debating whether or not Alexander emulated the Iliad; frequently in conjunction with the Achilles/Patroclus versus Alexander/Hephaistion pairing - a subject seemingly bound to cause controversy on the forum. So if you want to stay away completely from "Homeric," then I think "idealistic" as you described it - someone who is devoted to the ideals he has been taught, whatever they are - certainly applies to Alexander. There appears to be evidence of him also being strongly influenced by Xenophon's Cyropaedia (more than just the direct references to Cyrus in the ancient texts). I've been meaning for a while to research that more thoroughly but this summer just hasn't worked out the way I planned.Question: Do you intend to finish compiling the list of Alexander's characteristics and then post again later in another thread, asking for opinions? There may be many reasons why Pothosians aren't participating here, from being too busy to not being interested in the subject. (And I do suspect that the number of lurkers far outweighs the fairly small group of active Pothosians.) I'm bringing this up because as it stands right now you are building an image of Alexander in which we both agree (and probably Sikander too) but have no idea if others support this. I mean, it could be that no one has commented simply because they agree, but without more feedback, how will you know? :-)All the best,Amyntoros

[smittysmitty]

Character trait that best suits ATG in my opinion would be 'imitator'- LoL not sure if imitating is a character trait! But essentially, he liked to imitate past and contemporary monarchs.Bound to get a few resposes

[amyntoros]

Hello Karen,***"Quick" applies to Alexander all over (. . .)I don't think I've ever heard that disputed, has anyone else?*** Well I wouldn't dispute it! I'm under the impression that there are also several references to Alexander's "personal" speed, i.e., quickness of gait, however, I've only found one. (I started a file on Alexander's image but right now it is a confused mess and woefully incomplete.) This from Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus seems to indicate a speedy gait because "swiftness" is included in personal characteristics while "rapidity and strength in fight" follows later in the same sentence.Plutarch: Life of Pyrrhus
The fight did not so much exasperate the Macedonians with anger for their loss, or with hatred to Pyrrhus, as it caused esteem and admiration of his valour, and great discourse of him among those that saw what he did, and were engaged against him in the action. They thought his countenance, his swiftness, and his motions expressed those of the great Alexander, and that they beheld here an image and resemblance of his rapidity and strength in fight; other kings merely by their purple and their guards, by the formal bending of their necks and lofty tone of their speech, Pyrrhus only by arms and in action, represented Alexander.Another reference from St. Jerome (of all people) refers curiously to "tricks of manner and gait" and blames them on his tutor Leonidas! It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that Jerome is talking about a fast gait, although I'm baffled about "tricks of manner."Jerome: Select Letters of St. Jerome. Excerpt from CVII.
"GǪThe first impression made on a young mind is hard to remove. The shell-dyed wool - who can bring back its pristine whiteness? A new jar keeps for a long time the taste and smell of its original contents. Greek history tells us that the mighty king Alexander, who subdued the whole world, could not rid himself of the tricks of manner and gait which in his childhood he had caught from his governor Leonides. For it is easy to imitate the bad, and you may soon copy the faults of those to whose virtue you can never attainGǪ"Anyway, searching the files made me remember something else. Have you considered "fastidious about personal cleanliness" or some similar expression? I've seen it written that there are more references to bathing in the Alexander sources than in the history of any other person!All the best,Amynotoros

[marcus]

Hi Karen,Well, I'm sorry for being a bit snotty about it - I was kicking myself all today for what was a bit of an unnecessary retort. I am aware that you are a professional writer, never fear (and, I promise you, I would not have called myself one were I not just that myself, at least until I left my last job, where I suppose I can only call myself an 'aspiring' one now, if truth be told ).Anyway, I know exactly what you mean about the megalomania business - I don't think we were disagreeing at any point, it's just that the word is used in quite a cavalier fashion, without medical connotations, and I did feel that, to some extent, it could hardly be disputed that Alexander was a megalomaniac - one doesn't conquer as much as he did, and end up doing some of the things he did, if one didn't hanker after power and possessions. But it is true that one could dispute it on other levels ... and all things comes from my looking for clarification of what you meant! Tsk, eh? :-)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

You have anticipated my question: Karen, why exactly *are* you compiling this list?ATBMarcus

[marcus]

What, you mean "unoriginal"? Hefty :-)M

[karen]

Ah, Marcus! You are a gentleman. I hope you've stopped kicking yourself.I suspect you are right and we were just "agreeing loudly" as I've sometimes said.May you return to writing professionally very soon!Having clarified "megalomania" as much as I think we care to... might we get a list of undisputed traits of Alexander from you? (Or do you just agree with Amyntoros'? Perhaps she's making it too easy for everyone else )Warm regards,
Karen

[abm]

Hi Karen and others involved,I don't think i've got a lot to offer on the character traits themselves right now, I haven't really thought about that a lot, but I'd like to make a few other points.-without reopening the megalomania debate, I think there's a quite important source for Alexander's unstoppable desire to be the master of everything, Aristobulus (FGrH 139), F56: he's says of Alexander that he was "oregomenon pant+¦n einai kurion" ["longing to be master of everything"; Karen you seem to like translation debates , but I don't know whether there is much to be disputed here] as the reason why he wanted to start the Arabian expedition. And after all, Aristobulus knew Alexander himself and was quite positive about his king. (The passage is quoted by Strabo. I don't have the exact reference, but I can check it if you want).-as for paying the soldiers, I think there's article by Hammond about how he had not payed his soldiers in the end, but I don't remeber whether his death was the only reason for that or not: N.G.L. Hammond, 'An Unfulfilled Promise by Alexander the Great', in W. Will (ed.), Zu Alexander d.Gr., vol. I, pp. 627-634, if anyone would like to get deeper into this.-also, one has to be very careful with ancient historians and their views on character traits of kings, both positive and negative ones, as they might have modelled their descriptions to the image of the ideal king. Similarly, one might wonder to what extent Alexander imitated past kings and heroes, and to what extent this is literary elaboration by ancient authors, both contemporary ones and later ones.regards,abm

[karen]

Hi Alexander -- it's for this reason that I am trying to get the traits that are agreed upon -- to avoid the biases, either way. I know I have my own.I'd say a man who sleeps with the Iliad under his pillow every night is probably genuinely emulating -- unless you think that was made up by later sources. Which raises the old question... how much do we believe, from whom? There seems to be enough mention of the Homeric influence, not just re Alexander but Makedonian society itself, that I doubt it can just be the work of later writers.Alas, I'm not qualified to debate translations from ancient Greek, knowing only a little of it. I wouldn't mind the citation, so as to get the quote in context -- if you have a chance, please!Re Hammond's article, I'd say if the soldiers weren't paid at Alexander's death, it was hardly his fault.Thanks!Karen

[abm]

well, actually I didn't mean to go that far on the emulation thing, Alexander certainly did that (i think).as for the Hammond article, that's why I said I don't know whether there were other reasons for it than Al's death, but actually I guess there were, because otherwise the article wouldn't have been that long :-)regards,abm

[karen]

Well, with any luck, Amyntoros, other Pothosoi will pick up on your hint! ;-)Though I wonder how much they're hesitating because they think, "Amyntoros has it pretty much covered." ;-)Or as you say it may be that they find the topic boring, having seen Alexander's character picked apart and psychoanalyzed to death already. I don't blame them. I wouldn't do it myself without a specific reason.Short version: novel research. Longer version: for my novel I'm postulating two... factors, shall we say, in Alexander's early life. It never occurred to me until recently to do some research on the common aftereffects of these things -- so I went on the Internet and did so. I was very struck by how, if you put those two things *together* -- you get much of what I, at least, think to be the characteristics of Alexander -- those that I consider the undisputed ones. Combine that with the culture and position, and -- to me, at least -- it explains pretty much everything. Contradictions and all.But then I thought to myself, perhaps I'm biasing my own idea of the characteristics of Alexander so as to verify my own hypothesis... I need to consult with some outside sources -- knowledgeable people who don't know the hypothesis and so cannot be biased about it -- and from their input, make up a good solid list, and then see if it still matches.Though there are others as well I might ask, the contributors to this forum were the obvious choice.I won't say yet what the two factors are, however, since we're still in the midst of the exercise; I want to "keep it pure" until we're finished, and not risk biasing anyone other than myself ;-)If the theory holds, I might do an essay on it. Not exactly the traditional academic approach, but then I'm not an academic -- and of course if it *does* come out well enough, I *could* "academicize" it by substantiating the traits with citations. We'll see.All the best to everyone -- much gratitude -- I appreciate this enormously!Karen

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros -- et al --I'll add "occasional sardonic wit." I imagine it probably had more of a barb in it than usual, so to speak, when he'd just been wounded.I think I will also just use "idealistic" or "devoted to ideals" -- I don't myself dispute that they were Homeric ideals, but Homeric is not a personality trait -- i.e. something that can be true of anyone of any culture. That particular combination of virtues that were prized and strived for, that you've delineated so nicely, was idiosyncratic of that culture. I mean... I think some virtues are appreciated and nurtured in *every* culture -- kindness vs. selfishness comes to mind (Ayn Rand notwithstanding) -- but that particular combination is identifiably... well, I'm afraid to say Greek, in case the current-day Makedonians pile in, but... you know what I mean. Of that time and place.I hope you do get to your Cyropaedia research; I'm sure it will be interesting.Kindest regards,
Karen

[karen]

Makes me wonder what "tricks of manner" he picked up from Leonidas. You know, though, it actually fits in interestingly with smitty smitty's point about imitativeness... of course all kids learn by imitation, but bright ones osmose things particularly well and thoroughly.I think Alexander purposely did imitate prior figures such as Achilles and Kyros, and was quite purposeful about it -- but that didn't take away from his own originality, any more than the fact that the great painters of the Renaissance learned by precisely imitating their masters takes away from theirs. So... I wonder if Alexander's inclination to imitate previous greats we can just slot in under "devoted to ideals" -- just as the painters were devoted to the ideal of great art -- and his ability at it is already covered by "intellectually perceptive."As for personal cleanliness, I can't see anyone disputing that -- it's as Amyntoros says, there are so many references.This is the kind of thing I'm looking for -- something that is not disputed because the evidence for it is overwhelming. It isn't necessarily what the historical accounts *say* -- but what they *demonstrate*. I don't think any of the ancient sources come right out and say, "Alexander loved to take baths." You just see it mentioned a lot -- enough to know that he must have.This might be throwing a cat in with the pigeons...... would anyone argue with "honest"?Best,
Karen