How do you describe/explain Alexander in <= 4 sentences?

[Paralus]

I do think Ian Worthington's description of Alexander pretty well sums up the modern - or as some call it - "sober" - view of Alexander: a worthless soldier, a worthless commander and a worthless king. And no, not all "sober" (that is: non romantic) historians are as extreme as he is - but they're in the same ballpark. And this is - let's face it - the view of Alexander that has won. The game is over. Alexander may have been "invincible" during his lifetime, and admired by people such as Caesar and Napoleon, but after 2300 years he has, finally, been defeated - and in my opinion completely annihilated - by historians. Unlike Philip. Unlike Caesar. Unlike Hannibal..

Strike me bloody sideways theaccursed, there's a chip there the size of an Idaho potato farm. I gathered you had a dislike for "historians" but was unaware it was an active hate. Worthington's view is one extreme, an extreme you wish to paint all historians as being a party to. Popycock.

There are few historians I've read that would argue that Alexander's military success was simply luck. One of those historians, Peter Green GÇô how much you despise him I'm not sure GÇô has described Alexander as "the most brilliant (and ambitious) field commander in history". Fairly straightforward and direct language I'd think. An opinion that resides about as close to your "worthless soldier" ballpark as the next country.

And in my opinion, Alexander's starting position wasn't exactly "fortunate". It's true that he had a great army. But he also had very little money, and was surrounded by nations (if that's the proper word) that wanted Macedon destroyed, and Alexander himself killed.

It was Fifth Avenue NYC compared to what his father Philip started with. Philip had an army that had recently been annihilated by Bardylis' Illyrians and a treasury coining in bronze. Alexander, by comparison, was the Macedonian equivalent of a minor millionaire when he ascended the throne. Five years later he was the Saudi royal family.

In the (ca.) 23 years that Philip was king, he ultimately did not create a stable empire. With a weaker successor, after his death the macedonian empire could have fallen apart.Yet, Alexander is being criticized for not having created a stable empire out of, essentially, "the world" - and in half that time - and a time where he was constantly busy fighting armies, hunting down enemies, besieging cities. I think it's unreasonable.

That is churlish at best and wrong at worst. Philip spent the period of his rule (re)creating the Macedonian state. He inherited (or assumed) a "kingdom" that very much resembled Britain after Dunkirk. He indeed was as you describe Alexander: surrounded. By the time of his death he had subjugated Greece, the tribes to the north and west, destroyed the Chalcidian League (as well as the Athenian Alliance) and extended Macedonian borders to the Danube and the Hellespont. In all that time, he assiduously saw to the recruitment and training of the professional army that would serve Macedonia well, and, conquer the east under Alexander. Hardly what I'd describe as unstable.

I can only assume your "unstable" description relates to the uprisings which occurred at the time of his son's accession. If so, that is a lame basis for the claim. Such were always going to occur at the death of the overlord GÇô as happened at Alexander's death.

You are correct in stating that someone of lesser ability may well have lost Macedonia its primacy. It was the mistake that Thebes (and others) made: underestimating the young king. Greece did not make that mistake again.

As to the empire and criticism of its stability, it was plainly unstable GÇô particularly in the year before Alexander died. That break-up which his death accelerated was already underway before he died. One thing that is clear (to me at least) is that Alexander had little time for the organisation of his conquests. The administrative headaches of empire seemed to engender ennui. He appeared to stay in one place only as long as it took to stich it together well enough for him to be off again. The results GÇô when he returned from India GÇô were summary executions and wholesale replacement of officials. He was about to leave again with Greek mercenaries departing the various fortified "Alexandrias-in-the upper satrapies", Thrace in rebellion and virtually independent as well as areas behind him yet to be pacified.

As to the notion of "luck", that is a misleading term. The Greeks GÇô especially the Hellenistic Greeks GÇô will have referred to Tyche. Roughly translated as fortune, this assumed the status of a deity during the age of Alexander. My statement above reflects that and the fact that the Greeks of the Hellenistic age will have declared Alexander as favoured by Tyche.

[amyntoros]

. . . hereGÇÖs my two centGÇÖs worth.

I do think Ian Worthington's description of Alexander pretty well sums up the modern - or as some call it - "sober" - view of Alexander: a worthless soldier, a worthless commander and a worthless king. And no, not all "sober" (that is: non romantic) historians are as extreme as he is - but they're in the same ballpark . . . . .The game is over. Alexander may have been "invincible" during his lifetime, and admired by people such as Caesar and Napoleon, but after 2300 years he has, finally, been defeated - and in my opinion completely annihilated - by historians.

I must be reading the wrong books! Evidence please. Which modern historians consider Alexander to be a worthless soldier, a worthless commander, and a worthless king? And yes, I know you said that not all of them are as extreme as this GÇô but if they are in the same ballpark then it must be possible to quote them extensively and without contradiction. IGÇÖm trying to think of whom they may be. For example, Ernst Badian may not have liked Alexander, but he certainly didn't consider him worthless (or in the ballpark thereof). HereGÇÖs a list of 20-21st century biographies from which to choose:

Alexander : The Ambiguity of Greatness by Guy MacLean Rogers (2004)
Alexander and the East : the tragedy of triumph by A. B. Bosworth (1996)
Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography by Peter Green (1992)
Alexander the conqueror : the epic story of the warrior king by Laura Foreman (2004),
Alexander, the god; by Maurice Druon (1960)
Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox (1986)
Alexander the Great by R. D. Milns (1969)
Alexander the Great by J. R. Hamilton (1973)
Alexander the Great by Jacob Abbott (1900)
Alexander the Great by Ernst Badian (1948-67)
Alexander the Great : Legacy of a Conqueror by Winthrop Lindsay Adams (2004)
Alexander the Great : Man of Action, Man of Spirit by Pierre Briant (1996)
Alexander the Great : Son of the Gods by Alan Fildes (2001)
Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past by Paul Cartledge (2004)
Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy : A Biography by John Maxwell O'Brien (1994)
Alexander the Great;: The meeting of East and West by Benoist-Me+îchin (1966)Alexander the Great by Ulrich Wilcken (1997)
Alexander the Great by Dennis Wepman (1986)
Conquest and Empire : The Reign of Alexander the Great by A. B. Bosworth (1988)
Envy Of The Gods by John Prevas (2005)
The Generalship of Alexander the Great by J. F. C. Fuller (2004)
The genius of Alexander the Great by N. G. L. Hammond (1997)
Into the Land of Bones : Alexander the Great in Afghanistan by Frank L. Holt (2005)
The life and actions of Alexander the Great by the Rev. John Williams (1900)
The life and times of Alexander the Great by Roberto Bosi (1972)
The nature of Alexander by Mary Renault (1975)
The Search for Alexander by Robin Lane Fox (1980)

Alexander, no doubt, wanted fame...but has become infamous. He wanted, more than anything else (in my opinion) a chance to prove himself...but, by doing exactly that, ultimately only managed to prove (or add to) the greatness of pretty much everyone except himself: his army, Parmenion, the successors, his father, Olympias (and that I find horrifying)...and even his horse! (Who is, after all, still often described as having been "unusual" and "remarkable").

Try a pop quiz of an average population - people on the street; people at work or school; people who have no real interest in history. Give them the names of Parmenion, Antiogonus, Seleucus, Perdiccas, Olympias, etc. Ask if they know who they are. Then ask them about Alexander the Great. YouGÇÖll find out which of them has achieved lasting fame! As for AlexanderGÇÖs horse GÇô by treating Bucephalus as unusual or remarkable the ancient historians were reflecting AlexanderGÇÖs personality or "glory" in that an ordinary horse wasnGÇÖt good enough for him.

Even many of Alexander's opponents are still reasonably respected today. Such as, for instance, Memnon, Poros and the Tyrians. If they weren't successfull, then at least they were "brave". When Alexander, on the other hand, was "brave", he was being "reckless". And when he won, even against nearly impossible odds, he was being "lucky".

If the opponents werenGÇÖt reasonably respected, then that would diminish AlexanderGÇÖs achievements, not the other way around. And one can be both brave and reckless at the same time. As for the winning against nearly impossible odds, I know of no historian or member of this forum who attributes his victories merely to outside influences or luck. It may occasionally play a role in a battle, itGÇÖs true. In fact, Alexander prayed to Tyche (Fortune) at least once, didnGÇÖt you know? Should luck only be limited to AlexanderGÇÖs enemies?

Yet, Philip, Caesar and Hannibal are still generally described as having been military geniuses. They, too (at least Caesar and Hannibal) slaughtered people en masse, and could be absolutely brutal (as could Philip) - but people with an interest in military history can still admire them.

Are you saying that Alexander isnGÇÖt generally described as having been a military genius? Of course he his! Are you saying that he isnGÇÖt admired? Of course he is! IGÇÖm at a loss to understand where you are coming from with this.

Alexander is being criticized for not having created a stable empire out of, essentially, "the world" - and in half that time - and a time where he was constantly busy fighting armies, hunting down enemies, besieging cities. I think it's unreasonable. And I think it would be considered unreasonable, had only the conqueror in question been someone else than Alexander.

First of all, IGÇÖd like to see evidence of all this unreasonable criticism. And secondly, itGÇÖs impossible to say how anyone else would be viewed. If they achieved the same as Alexander, then essentially they would BE Alexander. If they didnGÇÖt, then history would be rewritten and an assessment of public opinion would be impossible to make.

(And, by the way. The splitting of a thread isnGÇÖt an insult. If the topic under discussion has moved in a new and interesting direction then the threads are sometimes split so that readers of the forum know better what to expect under a particular heading.)

Best regards,

[theaccursed]

Paralus:

Strike me bloody sideways theaccursed, there's a chip there the size of an Idaho potato farm. I gathered you had a dislike for "historians" but was unaware it was an active hate. Worthington's view is one extreme, an extreme you wish to paint all historians as being a party to. Popycock.

More like the size of Hindu Kush. But no, not "active hate". I don't stalk Alexander scholars down dark alleyways. Rather, an active feeling of unfairness. I think scholars write about Alexander in a way that the don't write about other successful conquerors of antiquity.

There are few historians I've read that would argue that Alexander's military success was simply luck. One of those historians, Peter Green GÇô how much you despise him I'm not sure GÇô has described Alexander as "the most brilliant (and ambitious) field commander in history". Fairly straightforward and direct language I'd think. An opinion that resides about as close to your "worthless soldier" ballpark as the next country.

Green's book was the first book I read about Alexander (about a year ago). I liked it, and having read a number of biographies since then, I think it's probably the best Alexander biography available. So no - Green I like. Green's portrait of Alexander is not one sided. Which i guess is at the very core of my hostility towards some Alexander scholars: the one sidedness - and the simplifications. That's the "ballpark". I have no problem with scholars telling the truth. I have no problem with scholars writing about the massacres, or that there were periods when Alexander drank a lot of alcohol (though I'm not convinced that he was an alcoholic) - et. c. But I do have a problem with one sided portraits of him, and with one sided and simplified explanations for the negative things that happend during his reign. And I know there are many one sided "romantic" portraits of him too, but those carry, in my opinion, little weight today (among scholars). The one sided negative - and simplified - portraits do carry weight.

It was Fifth Avenue NYC compared to what his father Philip started with. Philip had an army that had recently been annihilated by Bardylis' Illyrians and a treasury coining in bronze. Alexander, by comparison, was the Macedonian equivalent of a minor millionaire when he ascended the throne. Five years later he was the Saudi royal family.

A "minor millionare", then, who could not afford to keep his army without going heavily into debt, something that created great problems for him that lasted almost his entire career. And a Fifth Avenue where all your neighbours in the surrounding buildings want to kill you - and some of the people in you own building, too.

I can only assume your "unstable" description relates to the uprisings which occurred at the time of his son's accession. If so, that is a lame basis for the claim. Such were always going to occur at the death of the overlord GÇô as happened at Alexander's death.

Yes, but then, only Alexander is being criticized for the lack of stability. Apparently, at the time of his death, his entire empire should have been one happy family. In my opinion, creating a stable empire out of all of Greece, Egypt and Persia would have taken a lifetime - at the very least.

As to the empire and criticism of its stability, it was plainly unstable GÇô particularly in the year before Alexander died. That break-up which his death accelerated was already underway before he died. One thing that is clear (to me at least) is that Alexander had little time for the organisation of his conquests. The administrative headaches of empire seemed to engender ennui. He appeared to stay in one place only as long as it took to stich it together well enough for him to be off again.

In my opinion, Alexander wanted to keep the organisational structure that was already in place in Persia. On top of that, he wanted to make the persians - especially the nobles - feel like it wasn't all over for them. That they could in fact be a prominent part of the new empire. He wanted to make persian loyalty towards him to be in their own best interest - which (among other things) would minimize, but not eliminate, rebellions. I don't think he could have avoided rebellions no matter how he had organized the empire.

As far as the "ennui" is concerned, I think it was more a matter of dissatisfaction. He delegated as much as he could to others, and expected them to be efficient and professional, because there was one thing he could not delegate, nor give up, or even to any great degree postpone: the conquest of the rest of the world.

As to the notion of "luck", that is a misleading term. The Greeks GÇô especially the Hellenistic Greeks GÇô will have referred to Tyche. Roughly translated as fortune, this assumed the status of a deity during the age of Alexander. My statement above reflects that and the fact that the Greeks of the Hellenistic age will have declared Alexander as favoured by Tyche.

I don't think "luck" is misleading. When Curtius writes about Alexander having been favored by fortune, and that he was more "fortunate" than skilled, he ultimately means exactly this: lucky.

[Paralus]

A "minor millionare", then, who could not afford to keep his army without going heavily into debt, something that created great problems for him that lasted almost his entire career. And a Fifth Avenue where all your neighbours in the surrounding buildings want to kill you - and some of the people in you own building, too.

He was not alone in that either theaccursed. His father spent an inordinate amount time replenishing the equally inordinate amount of money he spent both on the professional army and slings to Greeks ever happy to see his "bearer of gifts". Philip had problems with money his entire career, Alexander had the same until Issus. From then on his only problem with money was how much to take with him at any given time and who to trust to keep it.

Philip GÇô as I explained GÇô too was surrounded by hostiles who'd dearly have loved to have knocked him off. Indeed, part of the news the courier delivered along with Alexander's birth was the defeat GÇô again GÇô of the Illyrians by Parmenio. Those hostiles were not limited to outside the Macedonian state. Philip removed GÇô in the Macedonian royal fashion GÇô pretenders to his throne. Some, inside his "own building", he could not or did not. They, in gratitude, removed him.

Yes, (I can only assume your "unstable" description relates to the uprisings which occurred at the time of his son's accession) but then, only Alexander is being criticized for the lack of stability. Apparently, at the time of his death, his entire empire should have been one happy family. In my opinion, creating a stable empire out of all of Greece, Egypt and Persia would have taken a lifetime - at the very least.

He was not being criticised for any lack of stability in the Macedonian empire at the time of his accession GÇô far from it. His swift and decisive actions to restore order were praised. As to the empire at the time of his death, that is another matter.

Part of the reason his father took the time he did (aside from compiling the resources) was due to the trouble he took to organise and re-organise his possessions so as to ensure a stable and profitable rule. It is well to note that the empire that Alexander conquered (Persia) was not won and organised in ten years. The reason for the criticism was the nod and wink approach to dealing with the power/authority vacuum taken by an Alexander for ever in a hurry to catch the triumvirs: Heracles, Dionysus and his father.

And yes, to a large extent he did want to keep the Persian arrangements and win the Iranian nobility's loyalty. All the more reason to spend some time deciding what trust to place in whom.

I don't think he could have avoided rebellions no matter how he had organized the empire.

An inevitability not helped by the fact that the king and the best part of his army is forever over the next horizon. An attitude amply illustrated by his plans to leave for further conquests when what he had already was in no stable state. And this because:

GǪ there was one thing he could not delegate, nor give up, or even to any great degree postpone: the conquest of the rest of the world.

Exactly.

[theaccursed]

amyntoros

I must be reading the wrong books! Evidence please. Which modern historians consider Alexander to be a worthless soldier, a worthless commander, and a worthless king? And yes, I know you said that not all of them are as extreme as this GÇô but if they are in the same ballpark then it must be possible to quote them extensively and without contradiction. IGÇÖm trying to think of whom they may be. For example, Ernst Badian may not have liked Alexander, but he certainly didn't consider him worthless (or in the ballpark thereof). HereGÇÖs a list of 20-21st century biographies from which to choose:

Let's put it this way: I think that when Frank Holt said that there's a "new orthodoxy" regarding Alexander - "...a reprehensible Alexander beset by paranoia, megalomania, alcoholism, and violence" - I think he was correct. But you're right: "worthless" is an exaggeration. But it's not far off the point.

Regarding your list, I simply don't think that many of the writers on it, with some exceptions (such as Holt and Green), in comparison carries much weight as Alexander scholars today. They are not shaping the future image of Alexander. Worthington, and even Victor Davis Hanson, is. And Bosworth, certainly. Lendering, too. Has Milns, Druon, Wepman or Williams written anything about Alexander that has had any real impact, and that is still relevant today?

Try a pop quiz of an average population - people on the street; people at work or school; people who have no real interest in history. Give them the names of Parmenion, Antiogonus, Seleucus, Perdiccas, Olympias, etc. Ask if they know who they are. Then ask them about Alexander the Great. YouGÇÖll find out which of them has achieved lasting fame!

Yes, but then, that's because most people haven't actually read about Alexander. It does after all take time for new ideas to have an impact on people in general - but that impact can, in my opinion already be seen in history forums (about Rome, antiquity or military history in general).

If the opponents werenGÇÖt reasonably respected, then that would diminish AlexanderGÇÖs achievements, not the other way around. And one can be both brave and reckless at the same time. As for the winning against nearly impossible odds, I know of no historian or member of this forum who attributes his victories merely to outside influences or luck. It may occasionally play a role in a battle, itGÇÖs true. In fact, Alexander prayed to Tyche (Fortune) at least once, didnGÇÖt you know? Should luck only be limited to AlexanderGÇÖs enemies?

No. But with no other commander (that I know of) - not just of antiquity, but in history, does the "luck" component get stressed to the same degree as with Alexander.

First of all, IGÇÖd like to see evidence of all this unreasonable criticism. And secondly, itGÇÖs impossible to say how anyone else would be viewed. If they achieved the same as Alexander, then essentially they would BE Alexander. If they didnGÇÖt, then history would be rewritten and an assessment of public opinion would be impossible to make.

I suppose you would not find it unreasonable. Do you think it's reasonable to think that Alexander's empire should have been stable at the time of his death?

Regarding "being" Alexander, I think there's something about Alexander himself that inspires great animosity, in a way that hasn't happened with many other - previously admired - military commanders, perhaps with the exception of Napoleon.

(And, by the way. The splitting of a thread isnGÇÖt an insult. If the topic under discussion has moved in a new and interesting direction then the threads are sometimes split so that readers of the forum know better what to expect under a particular heading.)

I didn't consider it an insult. It's just that my answer was not off topic - no more than many other replies in this thread.

[theaccursed]

He was not alone in that either theaccursed. His father spent an inordinate amount time replenishing the equally inordinate amount of money he spent both on the professional army and slings to Greeks ever happy to see his "bearer of gifts". Philip had problems with money his entire career, Alexander had the same until Issus. From then on his only problem with money was how much to take with him at any given time and who to trust to keep it.

Philip GÇô as I explained GÇô too was surrounded by hostiles who'd dearly have loved to have knocked him off. Indeed, part of the news the courier delivered along with Alexander's birth was the defeat GÇô again GÇô of the Illyrians by Parmenio. Those hostiles were not limited to outside the Macedonian state. Philip removed GÇô in the Macedonian royal fashion GÇô pretenders to his throne. Some, inside his "own building", he could not or did not. They, in gratitude, removed him.

I have not argued that he was alone in having those problems. I have only said that it was unfortunate. Your entire argument seems to be that it wasn't, because it could have been worse - as it was for Philip. I don't buy that argument.

He was not being criticised for any lack of stability in the Macedonian empire at the time of his accession GÇô far from it.

Nor have I said he was. I was talking about the instability in the empire as a whole at the time of Alexander's death.

Part of the reason his father took the time he did (aside from compiling the resources) was due to the trouble he took to organise and re-organise his possessions so as to ensure a stable and profitable rule. It is well to note that the empire that Alexander conquered (Persia) was not won and organised in ten years. The reason for the criticism was the nod and wink approach to dealing with the power/authority vacuum taken by an Alexander for ever in a hurry to catch the triumvirs: Heracles, Dionysus and his father.

No wonder, really. Was there a greater curse in Alexander's life - and from his own point of view - than to be the son of Philip? In my opinion, there was nothing Alexander feared more, before he became king, than that he would never get the chance to prove himself. Did he get that chance? What did it take to outdo Philip? Where was the finish line that Alexander had to cross? In my opinion, there was no such finish line. There was nothing he could have done, from the moment he became king, that could ever, in the eyes of the world and probably in his own eyes too, have outdone what Philip had already done before him. And for someone like Alexander, that's about as unfortunate as it get's.

[dean]

Hello,

To most everyday people today I think that Alexander sufficiently eclipsed all of Philip's achievements- but I don't mean to underestimate Philip.
I mean, ask people today who was Alexander the great and most people will immediately tell you something - but ask about Phillip II of Macedon and you'll invariably get a blank expression- why? Not because Philip didn't do extraordinary things in his lifetime but because his son did more, many more. Probably we wouldn't be talking about Philip at all if it weren't for his son.

ATB,
Dean

[Paralus]

I have not argued that he was alone in having those problems. I have only said that it was unfortunate. Your entire argument seems to be that it wasn't, because it could have been worse - as it was for Philip. I don't buy that argument.

Fine, let's use your word, in which case he was, in fact, in an unarguably more fortunate position than his father at the same time in their respective careers. You argument was:

And in my opinion, Alexander's starting position wasn't exactly "fortunate". It's true that he had a great army. But he also had very little money, and was surrounded by nations (if that's the proper word) that wanted Macedon destroyed, and Alexander himself killed. 5 years later he was the richest and most powerful person on the planet.

.

Again, much more fortunate than those who came before him. As to the money side of thingsGǪ

A "minor millionare", then, who could not afford to keep his army without going heavily into debt, something that created great problems for him that lasted almost his entire career.

Which is it? For a career that lasted from 336 to 323, five years demonstrably is not "almost his entire career". Alexander GÇô as I've written GÇô had problems with money that any other Greek state would have coveted. At the time of Alexander's birth, having annexed Thracian territory about Crenides (Philippi), the Macedonian treasury was reaping some 1,000 talents per year from its mines GÇô more than the entire total of Athenian revenues from her fifth century empire. These revenues only multiplied after the fall of the Chalcidic League and Thrace proper. The main reason for Alexander's "unfortunate" financial position was the paying and provisioning of some 43-47,000 men under arms in the field. Post Issus, that problem became how to spend the Achaemenid windfall.

Probably we wouldn't be talking about Philip at all if it weren't for his son.

There is some truth to that. Though, I would say that the downfall of the Greek city states will have merited much ink GÇô Alexander or not.

As well, there is the obverse to that coin: were it not for Philip's career, we'd not be talking about his son.

[theaccursed]

Paralus

Again, much more fortunate than those who came before him. As to the money side of thingsGǪ

Sure. Though I don't think I share your definition of "fortunate". In your opinion it's apparently a strictly relative term.

But - more importantly, as I said in my post, the fundamental reason I called him "unfortunate" has little to do with anything that happened to him while he was still alive. Rather, I was talking about the hit his reputation has taken since, how he (in my opinion) is being judged by a different standard than other conquerors - and the fact that he ultimately did not really get any chance to prove himself. What good did it do him that he was so successful? Philip has the better reputation, as does Caesar and even Pompey. And did he get the chance to prove himself? You yourself think he would have been nothing without Philip - and so he clearly did not prove himself (to you, at least, and those who agree with you) even by conquering Persia.

A "minor millionare", then, who could not afford to keep his army without going heavily into debt, something that created great problems for him that lasted almost his entire career.

Which is it? For a career that lasted from 336 to 323, five years demonstrably is not "almost his entire career".

I was refering to ending up in the clutches of the nobles, and especially Parmenion, in return for lending him the money. However, regarding Parmenion I remembered incorrectly, since his influence (in Alexander's army) came from backing Alexander as king before Alexander had borrowed any money.

Dean:

To most everyday people today I think that Alexander sufficiently eclipsed all of Philip's achievements- but I don't mean to underestimate Philip. I mean, ask people today who was Alexander the great and most people will immediately tell you something - but ask about Phillip II of Macedon and you'll invariably get a blank expression- why? Not because Philip didn't do extraordinary things in his lifetime but because his son did more, many more. Probably we wouldn't be talking about Philip at all if it weren't for his son.

Perhaps. But as...

...were it not for Philip's career, we'd not be talking about his son.

...illustrates, Alexander could never, whatever he had accomplished, even if he had lived longer, conquered all of Europe, Asia and Africa, and kept it all together, have fully escaped Philip's shadow. It would still be said that he would have been nothing without Philip. Under such circumstances, I don't think it would be correct to say that Alexander ever truly eclipsed his father - or that this was ever possible. Personally, though, I think that Paralus underestimates Alexander. Alexander would in my opinion never have accepted merely being an administrator in Macedon (however good that would have been for his reputation). Could someone like Alexander have been successful commanding some other army than the macedonian, if it had come to that (and as I recall, almost did)? I'm pretty sure of that.

[cynisca]

Hello,

To most everyday people today I think that Alexander sufficiently eclipsed all of Philip's achievements- but I don't mean to underestimate Philip.
I mean, ask people today who was Alexander the great and most people will immediately tell you something - but ask about Phillip II of Macedon and you'll invariably get a blank expression- why? Not because Philip didn't do extraordinary things in his lifetime but because his son did more, many more. Probably we wouldn't be talking about Philip at all if it weren't for his son.

ATB,
Dean

I agree with that....only those with an interest in Alexander or Hellenistic history will generally know of Philip...however, in the world of ancient military history, Philip is the warrior king known for the development of the Phalanx into a formidable fighting force....a force that changed the pages of history....
Philip was the greatest war leader and statesman of his time, but Alexander took over where Philip left off and carried on to create an Empire that Philip had only envisualised...
and Alexander was the one whose name carried down the years and into legend.
Alexander is known the world over....whether he is loved or hated.....he is somebody that is recognised and admired for his amazing ability to do what nobody had done before.....and maybe part of what drove him was to eclipse what Philip had achieved....
Maybe he needed to gain his own self respect and that of the men he inherited...and to push himself to the limit.
Bearing in mind, nobody knows the truth behind Philip's assasination and Alexander could have needed to gain the support and respect of those men who had loved Philip and suspected him or Olympias as being a party to his death..
Maybe in a roundabout way...Philip did help to create Alexander the Great....!
regards
Cynisca

[Paralus]

What good did it do him that he was so successful? Philip has the better reputation, as does Caesar and even Pompey. And did he get the chance to prove himself? You yourself think he would have been nothing without Philip - and so he clearly did not prove himself (to you, at least, and those who agree with you) even by conquering Persia.

What waffle! As this site says, possibly the most famous secular person in history. Philip and Caesar do not compare. As for Pompey, that Anna Kournikova of empire builders, his claim to fame (apart from losing his head) was self-promotion.

It is largely hypothetical to imagine Alexander without Philip. Had Philip been as successful as Perdiccas, there will have been no Macedonian state for Alexander to inherit. Everyone is a product of the environment they grow in. Alexander grew up in a strong Macedonia which grew stronger yet. It had - by the time Alexander was entrusted as co-regent at sixteen - gone from being political plaything of Athens, Thebes, Sparta, Thrace and the Chalcidic League in the internecine Greek wargames, to being the master of that game.

There is absolutely no way that Alexander can be viewed as hermetically sealed off from that springboard from which he jumped in 336. That is not to denigrate his accomplishments in any way - it is, rather, part of understanding them. And nowhere have I ever claimed that Alexander would have been nothing without Philip. He will have likely been less - or achieved less - should he have had to start his career as a client king of the Illyrians though.

What is the fascination with "proving himself"? He - without fear of contradiction - proved himself the most gifted field commander in history. What I conjecture about him personally (and obviously I've never met the man) has no impact on that at all.

"minor millionare", then, who could not afford to keep his army without going heavily into debt, something that created great problems for him that lasted almost his entire careerGǪ.

I was refering to ending up in the clutches of the nobles, and especially Parmenion, in return for lending him the money. However, regarding Parmenion I remembered incorrectly, since his influence (in Alexander's army) came from backing Alexander as king before Alexander had borrowed any money.

You didn't make that terribly clear. Even so, granting that was your original meaning, Alexander will have owed little to anyone after Perseopolis if not before. The only real mortgage holder exercising a lien over Alexander was removed after Gaugamela, thus effectively discharging the king's debt.

And yes, were Philip to have had no career, we likely would not be talking about his son. In exactly the same fashion that were not Alexander to have been and died in the fashion he did, we'd likely not have the Diadochoi to so interest us GÇô well, at least me.

[Aspasia]

Hi theaccursed

Your reply as to why you think Alexander was unfortunate is very intereting. You claim Alexander was unfortunate because he got the opposite, or a distortion, of everything he ever wanted. You quite clearly state throughout your reply, that your justifications for this view point is based on what you think Alexander wanted.

Alexander accomplsihed great fame during his reign, this fame is very highly correlated to his deeds. And through his deeds he did prove himself. The fact that the memory of Alexander is alive and well today is testament to this fact. Yes luck played a role, as it does in many cases, however, this does not detract from the fact that he was a genius.
How can anyone take seriosly the claim that everything Alexander achieved was due to luck!! Maybe once, twice but then the probability of luck being the only variable has to be seriously questioned. That is why we should always question the reliability and the legitimacy of the sources we read.

You are completely right, Alexander was a genius. Unbelievebly so, that you would have to class him above "normal". Alexanders potential mixed with external factors which he used to his advantage, led him to achieve what he did. So much so, that it is not surprising that he was seen as almost supernatural. What he did was amazing and thus the fascination he has held and holds for so many people . His is an amazing story.


Ian Worthington's view, is just that, his view. The fact that Alexander was admired by people such as Napoleon etc gives more weight to the his genius and ability than "the views" of historians. You have to question the validity of these views. Napoleon looks at Alexanders deeds and states "genius". Worthington describes him as "worthless". What criteria are these men using to judge Alexander?? Historians look at teh facts and interpret them. This interpretation is always going to be tainted by their own bias and by that of the society they live in. But its also tainted by the fact that by being controversial they get more recognition and sell more books. In the end it is only their opinion and interpretation of the known facts.

I assume you dont share the opinion that Alexander was a worthless soldier, commander and king. There is so much published on Alexander, from his youth, death, horse, lovers, the list goes on and you would probably need a whole lifetime to get through it. In his lifetime Alexander achieved and had the oppurtunity to achieve more than most people would even dare to dream. In my opinion he was an amazing individual. He was fortunate and certainly made the most of it.

Alexander is revered for so many resons. Not just because he was a military genius. You cant say Alexander was unlucky because he is not remebered in the way that you think is the most suitable. He was a military genius but he was so much more. If Alexander could have a peek into the future and see the impact he would make on the world, would he see himself as unfortunate ? That after 2000 years we still sit here and talk about him.

[theaccursed]

Paralus

What waffle! As this site says, possibly the most famous secular person in history. Philip and Caesar do not compare. As for Pompey, that Anna Kournikova of empire builders, his claim to fame (apart from losing his head) was self-promotion.

Hitler is world famous too. I just don't think Alexander would have wanted that kind of fame - or the kind of fame that he's got. He wanted to be a new Achilles. Instead he's, at best, a mad, delusional, paranoid drunk who possibly wanted to have sex with his mother and possibly was behind the murder of his father...and was a decent, or even pretty good, or even brilliant commander. Had he known he'd get that kind of "fame", I think he would have prefered to remain unknown.

Regarding the claim that he's "the most famous secular person in history", since you brought it up, I'll just state for the record that I think that's greatly exaggerated. Only people with an interest in Alexander - or, as in your case, the successors, would ever say that. Julius Caesar? He certainly does compare. Both in deeds and fame. And, of course, there are many others who are just as famous, such as Shakespeare, Mozart, Napoleon, Columbus et. c. Together with them, Alexander is just another face in the crowd.

What is the fascination with "proving himself"? He - without fear of contradiction - proved himself the most gifted field commander in history. What I conjecture about him personally (and obviously I've never met the man) has no impact on that at all.

Because that, while waffle and poppycock, I'm sure, to you, was what he (in my opinion) wanted himself.

You didn't make that terribly clear. Even so, granting that was your original meaning, Alexander will have owed little to anyone after Perseopolis if not before. The only real mortgage holder exercising a lien over Alexander was removed after Gaugamela, thus effectively discharging the king's debt.

Believe what you want. Green returns to the problem several times in his book. I just remembered it, wrongly, as the nobles, and Parmenion in particular, gaining influence in his army as a result of him borrowing money from them, and not, as it was, from getting their support as king before he had even borrowed any money. I said myself that he was the richest man in the world at 25.

And yes, were Philip to have had no career, we likely would not be talking about his son. In exactly the same fashion that were not Alexander to have been and died in the fashion he did, we'd likely not have the Diadochoi to so interest us GÇô well, at least me.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think what Caesar did, or Napoleon, or Cyrus, was something Alexander could not have. Had had the ambition, and he had the talent.

[theaccursed]

Hello Aspasia

While I don't particularly disagree with your post, perhaps, though, I should also mention that I probably belong to a (strange and unusual) category of my own regarding why I visist this site at all. I'm not one of his "admirers", nor one of those who hate or loathe him. I rather feel sorry for him. Still - I should just have kept my mouth shut regarding the topic of this thread. That's usually what works best for me.

Alexander is revered for so many resons. Not just because he was a military genius. You cant say Alexander was unlucky because he is not remebered in the way that you think is the most suitable. He was a military genius but he was so much more. If Alexander could have a peek into the future and see the impact he would make on the world, would he see himself as unfortunate ? That after 2000 years we still sit here and talk about him.

I think he would, indeed, see himself as unfortunate. I think he'd have a nervous breakdown, and then he'd want to go and hang himself.

[rjones2818]

TheAccursed:

Actually, this has been a most enlightening discussion.

You should be thanked...

Thanks.

I tend to side with most of what you've written, particularly about his being denigrated by many, if not most, current popular historians and academics.