Re: Agreed-upon character traits

[kenny]

Marcus HailThe Alcoholic stuff was spread by cassander following Alexanders death probably to smear Alexander and make himself look reasonably ok.I guess anyone in power accustomed to success as Alexander would be prone to Meglamania.I would say fortitude and the persistence to keep going to the end where most men would drop. He was proud bold strong and in most cases a Just ruler.Basiacally Alexander was just Great.
Kenny

[stan]

I think "generosity" is indisputable. And "harsh to those who betrayed him" is a usual characteristic, but there were exceptions.He was generous to his friends, soldiers, and allies. But also to his opponents in the terms he offered before battle, and for those opponents he respected, he was generous after he defeated them.Some examples: He pardoned Harpalus, his friend from childhood, the first time he stole from the treasury, and even let him keep his job as keeper of the treasury.His soldiers were always well paid. And after his return from India, he paid off the debts of those who had squandered their earnings. There are lots of other examples.He returned to Athens all the statues the Persians had looted from Athens in the Persian war. In India he let Poros keep his kingdon, and even added to it.

[karen]

Going to disagree with you here, Kenny -- I don't think megalomania is so dangerous to those who are accustomed to success, or power, as it is to those who are *not* accustomed to success, or power, who then come into it, perhaps suddenly.Alexander said, "Sleep and sex remind me I am mortal" (or however it's best translated) -- which means, unlike the true megalomaniac, he allowed himself to be reminded that he was mortal by such everyday, human things. I imagined he couldn't escape it on the battlefield, either; thinking of him saying, when he was wounded, to someone who was sucking up by making as if he was oozing ichor, "No, you idiot, it's blood." (Okay, it's usually not translated as 'you idiot,' but that sounds more right to me.)Regards,
Karen

[kenny]

Karen HailCompliments I dont at all mind debate nor for people to disagree with what I say. I just thought someone used to succes a and really believing yourself unbeatable maybe Meglamania would be part of the Phsyche.I never heard the qouter made by Alexander about the blood.Kenny

[ruthaki]

Wouldn't you agree he was certainly becoming 'dillusional' toward the end of his life?

[amyntoros]

Karen, I think the difficulty in requesting agreed-upon characteristics and abilities of Alexander is that you will only get this by a process of elimination; i.e., when people express their disagreement - and I suspect that objections will be raised more frequently over so-called negative traits rather than anything considered complimentary. That said, hereGÇÖs a quick, ungrammatical (and probably redundant in places) list off the top of my head:Autocratic; belligerent (eager for war and conquest); heroic, intellectually perceptive; formidable; resourceful; politically astute; administratively pragmatic; unrelentingly ambitious; fearless in battle and bold to the point of taking undue personal risks; brilliant militarist; practical; skillfully adaptable; determined with an unshakeable resolve; supreme tactician; enduring of hardship yet fond of luxury; seductive and magnetic personality; possessing highest qualities as a leader by inspiring loyalty in his men and fear and awe in his enemies; philosophical; impatient of criticism; ruthless, cruel and implacable in response to threat; philanthropist of the arts; believer in his own invincibility and passionate in his desire for fame; demonstrable showman; deeply religious; egotistical; deeply affectionate, generous, attentive and concerned for his friends; considerate and compassionate towards women on a personal level; possessing unusual affection for animals (for the period); hard and sometimes intemperate drinker; restrained sexual appetite; violent temper; Homeric; fond of and susceptible to flattery; frequently magnanimous; proud; superstitious.Best regards,Amyntoros

[karen]

Hi Ruth:Well, I don't know for sure. I would want to see evidence of actual delusions, though. What is there?
To use Hitler as a comparison -- at the end of the war, when Germany's position was utterly hopeless, rather than surrendering to the Allies and cutting his country's losses, Hitler insisted on continuing to "fight," even calling on his civilian population to do it. He seemed to be acting under the delusion that victory was still possible. I don't think Alexander, in the same position (not that he ever would have got himself into the same position!), would have been so blind to reality, even at the end of his life. If he was ever delusional, it was not so severe as that, I think!Not to say I am dead-set opposed to the idea that he had delusions. Please share what evidence there is.Warmly,
Karen

[karen]

You know, when I first posted the question, I was thinking to myself, 'I really hope Amyntoros answers this one. She's bound to come up with good stuff.'WOW!!!It's even better than I hoped! What a terrific, well-thought-out, knowledgeable list!It's so long, I need to cogitate on it. There are a number of terms which I have thoughts about already, or I'd like to ask you to define better, or so on.Re elimination, yes, I thought of that beforehand myself, but I am trusting Pothosians to be intellectually honest here! I also have it in mind to eliminate the "outliers" -- responses that are either so worshipful or so contemptuous of Alexander that they admit nothing but good in the one case and bad in the other.Preliminary thanks! I'll post again in a bit!Best,
Karen

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros, back again --Here are five of your terms that I want to nail down more exact definitions for.heroic - can mean different things to different people. "Brave" is the first that comes to my mind, but you covered that elsewhere. What is your definition?Homeric - I've never seen that used as a personality trait! Do you mean, governing himself by the Homeric ethos/ideals? In which case, what are they?formidable - do you mean 'having great force of character,' or something else?philosophical - I think you mean "interested in philosophy" or "of a philosophical bent" here, but it could also mean "sanguine" as in "I'm just trying to be philosophical about it."autocratic - if a man is a king -- an autocrat -- how do you tell whether he's autocratic by nature? Or did you mean, autocratic even for a king?More anon... I'm working on grouping your traits into categories, just to make it all more manageable.Thanks again,
Karen

[S]

Greetings Amyntoros,Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading your post; you included some traits that many forget or fail to include in their assessments.>AutocraticAutocraticAutocraticAbsolutely. And this would be a trait that has made me often say, that those who admire Alexander would be less inclined to do so if they *were* to meet him, because he *would* be autocratic and would, these days, be perceived in a negative way. This would be a trait Hephaestion would share, also. >intellectually perceptiveintellectually perceptiveintellectually perceptiveBoth in situations and in judging men, but at the same time, that fatal flaw, as with Harpalus> politically astute politically astute politically astuteAbsolutely. yet at the same time, that sense of autocratic entitlement and ambition could get in the way of knowing when to move and when to hold> determined with an unshakeable resolve determined with an unshakeable resolve determined with an unshakeable resolveThat may well have, later in life, created severe problems. The bureacracy would have been wearing> enduring of hardship yet fond of luxury enduring of hardship yet fond of luxury enduring of hardship yet fond of luxurySomething often forgotten. Luxury has its own temptations and will usually win out. Alexander was not prepared for its seductions or he might have handled a few things differently> possessing highest qualities as a leader by inspiring loyalty in his men and fear and awe in his enemies possessing highest qualities as a leader by inspiring loyalty in his men and fear and awe in his enemies possessing highest qualities as a leader by inspiring loyalty in his men and fear and awe in his enemiesOf course, loyalty from followers is often a double-edged sword, since the more you give the more they want; and of course,one could argue that the "highest qualities as a leader" should also result in not only fear and awe in ones enemies, but a sense of respect and honour and ultimately, a grudging sense of wanting to follow the leader!> impatient of criticism impatient of criticism impatient of criticismEmbarrassed by it, seeing it as an attack, leading to rash decisions sometimes. Hating to be found wanting.. and angry at the ones who pointed it out
"Don't shoot the messenger"> ruthless, cruel and implacable in response to threat ruthless, cruel and implacable in response to threat ruthless, cruel and implacable in response to threatCold. The decision to *stop* that which threatened, at all costs, even to his own detriment.. that "temper" burned not just hot but the more dangerous cold> demonstrable showman demonstrable showman demonstrable showman(Laughing) Yes. Knowing how to play a crowd, knowing the words they would hear to achieve his own goals... something politicians excel at even today. But eventually, the words stop having the same affect.
Knowing how to "play" a scene for best response> deeply religious deeply religious deeply religiousBut not easily fooled by claims. Astute enough to know when to use religion and when to turn it to advantage.> egotistical egotistical egotisticalAnd therefore, sensitive

[amyntoros]

Hi Karen, I think this is where some redundancy might come into play - and it also demonstrates the inadvisability of writing off the top of oneGÇÖs head! Yes, I did mean governing himself by the Homeric ethos/ideals, and Homeric and heroic should probably be paired, however, I was pretty sure that there would be some who would argue with GÇ£HomericGÇ¥ but possibly not with heroic. However, I *was* thinking of the Homeric conception of a hero GÇô a GÇ£warriorGÇ¥ whoGÇÖs ideal is centered upon nobility and its realization; distinguished by intellectual will against instinct; possessed of both wisdom and daring and a sense of duty in personal conduct; a devout believer in Xenia (guest-friendship) as well as deferred reciprocity. A man devoted to the concept of ar+¬te, the ideal of self-fulfillment and self-realization in terms of human excellence on moral, intellectual, physical and practical lines, but which in the Iliad is specifically indicated by a manGÇÖs skill and prowess as a soldier in war. ItGÇÖs also the duty to improve oneself - IGÇÖm sure you know the quote "always to be the best and to be superior to others." And the above reminds me of something I forgot to include in my previous list which is that it was extremely important to Alexander how he GÇ£appearedGÇ¥ to others! I used the word GÇ£autocraticGÇ¥ and although it isnGÇÖt strictly a character trait it is demonstrative of AlexanderGÇÖs nature. He became king of Macedonia because of his bloodline, however he garnered and utilized unlimited power which overshadowed that bloodline. For example, he GÇ£allowedGÇ¥ oligarchies to continue in Greece, even establishing them in conquered cities in Asia and returning some territories to their original rulers, yet it was Alexander who manifestly ruled over all, whether it be Greece, Persia, Bactria, or India, etc. This is clearly demonstrated by his GÇ£Exiles DecreeGÇ¥ - although there was the appearance of autonomy in the Greek cities, here was a simple case of GÇ£My will be done!GÇ¥ And I chose the word autocratic rather than the alternative, despotic, because although the purest definition of despotic is GÇ£having unrestricted powerGÇ¥ it also has the more objectionable connotation of wielding power oppressively, along with the modern interpretation of tyrannical rule. {continued)

[amyntoros]

As for "formidable" - I think that Alexander was formidable by every definition of the word (although it may be a redundant expression on this list), i.e., arousing fear, dread or alarm - inspiring awe, admiration or wonder - extremely impressive in strength or excellence. - difficult to surmount or defeat - adapted to excite fear and deter from approach, encounter, or undertaking; And by "philosophical," yes, I did mean "interested in philosophy" or "of a philosophical bent." Somehow I don't think "sanguine" quite applies to Alexander. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Hello Sikander,Many thanks for your comments. You've provoked further thoughts on some of Alexander's qualities. (Possessing highest qualities as a leader) ***Of course, loyalty from followers is often a double-edged sword, since the more you give the more they want; and of course, one could argue that the "highest qualities as a leader" should also result in not only fear and awe in ones enemies, but a sense of respect and honour and ultimately, a grudging sense of wanting to follow the leader!***Actually, here you have reinforced the description of Alexander as having the "highest qualities as a leader" as he does appear to have gained a sense of respect and honor from some, though admittedly not all, of his enemies - many of the Persian aristocracy, the Egyptians and Porus come immediately to mind.(Ruthless, cruel and implacable in response to threat) ***Cold. The decision to *stop* that which threatened, at all costs, even to his own detriment.. that "temper" burned not just hot but the more dangerous cold.***An excellent assessment - couldn't agree more. (Deeply religious) ***But not easily fooled by claims. Astute enough to know when to use religion and when to turn it to advantage.***Yes, indeed - and astute in many other situations as well. I don't think I included that word on my list, but Alexander was certainly shrewd and quick to see how to gain an advantage. The problem is, when do these adjectives start to become superfluous? I guess that will be Karen's call. (Egotistical) ***And therefore, sensitive***

Ah yes - sensitive. Perhaps I should have said both impatient *and* sensitive of criticism, but it's also a part of him being concerned about how he appeared to others even when criticism wasn't evident.

Best regards,Amyntoros

[karen]

My apologies, Marcus!!! -- I genuinely was NOT trying to be patronizing!I must add, though, because of what you say about 'writers,' in quotes, that whatever other people might do, I would not call myself a writer if I were not a professional one, making my living by it. For exactly the reason you complain of, people saying they are writers when they are not, I have been quite strict about that all my life, not claiming to be a writer during those years in which I was not earning money at it.I did as you suggested and looked it up in Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Cambridge. The former two have a double definition, with the medical definition being one of the two. Cambridge has, "an unnaturally great desire for power and control, or the belief that you are very much more important and powerful than you really are"; which, considering the word "unnaturally" I'd say connotes an abnormal condition, beyond the desire for power that most people have, and the belief being a false one, i.e. a delusion. It goes on to define "megalomaniac" as "a person with megalomania," which to me strongly connotes a medical condition, not a common trait, as you say "a person with cancer" but not "a person with egotism" and so forth.Medical dictionaries, needless to say, all define it as a medical condition.So you are right in the sense that I did find non-medical definitions, but I found more medical than non-medical. Short of taking a mass survey on what people mean when they use the word, I think that's more or less as far as it can be argued.I'm sorry to say this, but I think even the Chambers definition, as you've given it, is disputable in regard to Alexander. Because people are always asking, "What drove the man?" If it were clear that it was lust for power or possessions, that question would not be commonly heard. As well, you have writers such as Hammond and Lane Fox who do not ascribe such motives to him. I'm not actually asking for what any single Pothosian *thinks* is indisputable; I'm asking for what is not generally dispuTED. I feel that is as close as I'm going to get to that which is actually factual.All the best,
Karen

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros:No, I don't think sanguine applies to Alexander either ;-)Though would you agree with, "given to occasional sardonic humour?"As ever, you think things out with admirable care. I think I will leave "formidable" off my list -- I think it's too vague, and too subjective from others' view, to call a personality trait. It doesn't go back to the source enough, if you see what I mean; I find myself wanting to ask, "Sure -- but what in him makes him formidable?" Which I think is answered in many other of the terms you and others are giving.Re being concerned about appearances, I don't think that's disputed, and it gathers a number of the traits you give all up into nicely into one. When I think about it, it even goes beyond what was necessary to safeguard his *timae*, which could be a life-or-death consideration for a king; I'm thinking of whichever ancient historian said he'd get boastful when drunk, even to the point of annoying his friends. That comes out of a deeper need.I think I will leave "autocratic" out too, as you're saying yourself it isn't strictly a character trait. If it is not despotism, then I think it's really just a man fulfilling the requirements of his position.When you included "Homeric" and "heroic" I thought you might be meaning all the things you're delineating now, but I wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly. I'm sure we agree that however devoted Alexander was to these ideals, sometimes he fell short... being merely human.But how to translate it into character traits? *Arete* and *xenia* were seen as things that one could *choose* to exercise, or not -- your personality would determine how often you chose and how well you succeeded. 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.Thoughts?With gratitude,Karen