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

[amyntoros]

theaccursed

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.

rjones2818

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.

These are such generalizations that once again I am asking for supporting documentation. Who are these "many, if not all academics that see Alexander as at best, a mad, delusional, paranoid drunk, etc? Worthington has been mentioned previously - the man who actually wrote in his introduction that he intended to be provocative, thus declaring himself the exception and not the rule. V.D. Hanson has also been mentioned, however, he hasn't even written a book on Alexander so he hardly counts. (His articles are akin to a supermarket tabloid version of Alexander and I see no evidence of them being taking seriously by the academic world.) John Maxwell O'Brien does discuss Alexander's use of alcohol; however he NEVER calls Alexander an alcoholic in his book despite the prevailing opinion to the contrary. The book, if properly read, will not give any indications of hostility to Alexander either - O'Brien leaves it up to the reader to form their own opinions.

Jona Lendering's book was also brought up although I haven't read it (I'm linguistically challenged), I've good recollection of the debates that took place when Jona was active on Pothos. Many times he was accused of hatred of Alexander, yet all he was really presenting was information from the Persian perspective. Why did this cause such consternation and antipathy on Pothos? If cuneiform evidence indicates that Darius was not a coward and was not deserted by his men, how could this possibly reflect badly on Alexander? Surely it adds to Alexander's reputation and not the other way around? How does bringing us a different and more positive perspective of the Persian enemy translate into a hostile attitude towards Alexander? Porus was supposedly a superb fighter with a magnificent army, making Alexander's defeat of him all the more impressive. If our view of the Persian army and Darius is changed to one of admiration (rather than just seeing them in terms of unreasonable and excessive numbers), doesn't this make Alexander's defeat of the Persians more impressive and not less so? So if Lendering does in some way change the future of Alexander scholarship, it would be good thing, wouldn't it?

And for the record, I believe the question of whether Alexander possibly wanted to have sex with his mother was brought up on this forum by a member, not discussed by an academic. As for the question of whether Alexander murdered his father - any discussion of this is acceptable, as is any debate or examination of other disputable matters. It would be highly inappropriate to suggest that these questions shouldn't even be asked and that historians or anyone else should blindly accept only what is considered to be flattering evidence.

Best regards

[dean]

Hello,
What do all these three people have in common?
Three people who died at critical moments in Alexander's life under questionable circumstances.

Coincidence? Perhaps- but it never hurts to steer fate's hand a little.

Like the mention of the so called "Persian perspective"- the animosity that has lasted to the present day- the last shah to his dying day refused to comment on the Macedonian conquestand it is well understandable- it would be like the Greeks making Xerxes a national hero, no wonder they call him accursed or devil. In Iran today children apparently are still told to be good or "Sikandar" will get them...our equivalent of the "boogie" man. How would the Greeks have felt if a conqueror had come and had "mass" weddings at Athens? And the Persian commanders- Bessus, Arziobanes etc.etc. had married with the daughters of local nobility?

Proving there are two sides to every story.
Oh, well, just thinking....
Best
Dean

[cynisca]

Hi,

Paralus
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.

At the end of the day.....what is Achilles now most famous for ..... heroic warfare or killing other men (and the odd woman) and dragging Hector around by his chariot..(i've just been rewatching Troy) before getting shot in the heel by Paris...
In Alexander's day, the viewpoint was a lot different as was the manner of warfare...
Achilles was Alexander's ancestor, a legendry hero of the Greeks, who was probably as far removed from his time as we are from the Elizabethans or Tudors...maybe more..
The difference being, in Alexander's time the Hoplite still fought most of the battles....our manner of war is far different to that of the Tudors...
Alexander is almost being compared to Hitler in some cases.....which angers me no end...as does the 'mad, delusional, paranoid drunk' sort of comments.
Who the hell can comment on somebody who passed away over 2,300 years ago when there are no contemporary or known TRUTHFUL writings that tell us just what he was really like.
Too many people look with modern eyes and viewpoints.....you simply cannot do that.
Alexander was no way a perfect person, by today's standards...but in his own time, he was probably more like Gandhi to some who had known far worse.
This is a general 'Ms annoyed' viewpoint....not aimed at anybody....!
regards
Cynisca

[Aspasia]

Hi Dean

You bring up an interesting point. Alexander is known in most parts of the world. In different societies and cultures he is remembered for very different reasons. Whether you are the conquered or the conquerors would definately impact on how you viewed Alexander.

[Paralus]

... yet all he was really presenting was information from the Persian perspective. Why did this cause such consternation and antipathy on Pothos? If cuneiform evidence indicates that Darius was not a coward and was not deserted by his men, how could this possibly reflect badly on Alexander? Surely it adds to AlexanderGÇÖs reputation and not the other way around? How does bringing us a different and more positive perspective of the Persian enemy translate into a hostile attitude towards Alexander?

Because, Amyntoros, it flies in the face of a record written by the victor. Don't dare attempt to indicate that Alexander may have taken the field against a reasonably efficient Persian army GÇô at either Issus or Gaugamela numbering anything less that 500,000. History is not allowed to be written GÇô much less recorded GÇô by the loser, even if they may seem to have a better handle on things.

The entire argument here is GÇô tiresome as it may be GÇô that one should cease applying a critical eye to the expansion of Macedonian imperialism under Alexander. Any critical GÇô as opposed to fawning GÇô assessment of Alexander's reign results in a view that is "unfortunate".

Piffle. The man was a conqueror with a genius for battlefield tactics. He was wilful to the extent of murder GÇô collectively (Tyre) or personally(list them hereGǪ.) GÇô and possessed the money management skills of Ronald Biggs.

I haven't had the time to consult my Green theaccursed, but I do recall his dissertation on the borrowings at the time of the invasion. How many times does Green come back to it? I recall Alexander short of cash in India - just before the scarpering of Harparlus - but that was a logistical failure as opposed to financial.

After Issus, Alexander was in a position to buy and sell any Macedonian baron ten times over. I doubt the 800 or so talents he "borrowed" at the outset featured any larger than a game of knuckles thereafter.

[dean]

Hello,

After the massacre and sacking was done at Persepolis Alexander came into 120, 000 talents and more in other treasures- it required 70000 pack animals to cart it off.

It was the equivalent of the sum total of the income for several centuries in Athens around that time.

Harpalus can't have "ran off" or "limped off" as I think was more the case, with more than a few pennies in comparison.

Best regards,
Dean

[theaccursed]

Amyntoros

Hanson hasn't only written about Alexander in his articles. In the book "Carnage and culture" he compares him with Hitler. Guy MacLean Rogers mentions this comparison in his book, and also a comparison by Bosworth with Cortez. The MacLean Rogers book, by the way, would probably not even have been written had it not been for Worthington's article. You seem to belive Worthington hasn't been influential. I believe his article, probably more than his biography, has had quite a bit of impact. The Prevas book I've avoided so far. You, on the other hand, I presume have read it (since it's on your list), so perhaps you can enlighten me regarding his views. From what I've read about it, he seems to be almost as extreme as Worthington. My opinion of Lendering is not based on his book, which I can't read either, but by that which I can read - his site, and also things he's written here in this forum. His description of the battle of Gaugamela has not influenced my opinion of him in one way or the other.

And for the record: I think there's nothing that can be said about Alexander, or about any other historical figure, that is out of bounds or should not be allowed. I've never said so, nor suggested it. There's quite a step between thinking that a certain criticism is unfair, which is what I've said, to thinking that people should not be allowed to voice such criticism at all.

And, Paralus...

I haven't had the time to consult my Green theaccursed, but I do recall his dissertation on the borrowings at the time of the invasion. How many times does Green come back to it? I recall Alexander short of cash in India - just before the scarpering of Harparlus - but that was a logistical failure as opposed to financial.

I don't believe I'm that unclear, Paralus. I have said several times over that I remebered it incorrectly. It wasn't the money he borrowed, it was backing as king even before he had borrowed any money - in return for influence.

But sure - I was clearly wrong - that was never a problem for Alexander. He considered Parmenions' influence in the army to be just wonderful. Happy now?

The entire argument here is GÇô tiresome as it may be GÇô that one should cease applying a critical eye to the expansion of Macedonian imperialism under Alexander. Any critical GÇô as opposed to fawning GÇô assessment of Alexander's reign results in a view that is "unfortunate".

That - is bullshit.

[cynisca]

Oh dear...
I think some should take the names of the Diadochi while battling this one out...

Hanson hasn't only written about Alexander in his articles. In the book "Carnage and culture" he compares him with Hitler.

I haven't read the articles or book in question....but how can Alexander be compared to somebody like Hitler who was trying to destroy the Jews and produce an 'Aryan' ruling race, when Alexander was trying to assimilate the Persians and Greeks into one hopefully happy family...
Did Hitler put any of those poor Jews in positions of leadership and trust or encourage his generals to marry the women...no he damn well did not....
Excuse me while I steam and boil over...... grrrrrh
regards
Cynisca

[rjones2818]

Amnytoros wrote:

theaccursed
Quote:
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.


rjones2818
Quote:
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.


These are such generalizations that once again I am asking for supporting documentation. Who are these "many, if not allGÇ¥ academics that see Alexander as GÇ£at best, a mad, delusional, paranoid drunkGÇ¥ etc?

I think the answer can be summed up here (though Paralus may or may not be an academic - I don't know):

Paralus wrote:

amyntoros wrote:
... yet all he was really presenting was information from the Persian perspective. Why did this cause such consternation and antipathy on Pothos? If cuneiform evidence indicates that Darius was not a coward and was not deserted by his men, how could this possibly reflect badly on Alexander? Surely it adds to AlexanderGÇÖs reputation and not the other way around? How does bringing us a different and more positive perspective of the Persian enemy translate into a hostile attitude towards Alexander?



Because, Amyntoros, it flies in the face of a record written by the victor. Don't dare attempt to indicate that Alexander may have taken the field against a reasonably efficient Persian army GÇô at either Issus or Gaugamela numbering anything less that 500,000. History is not allowed to be written GÇô much less recorded GÇô by the loser, even if they may seem to have a better handle on things.

The entire argument here is GÇô tiresome as it may be GÇô that one should cease applying a critical eye to the expansion of Macedonian imperialism under Alexander. Any critical GÇô as opposed to fawning GÇô assessment of Alexander's reign results in a view that is "unfortunate".

Piffle. The man was a conqueror with a genius for battlefield tactics. He was wilful to the extent of murder GÇô collectively (Tyre) or personally(list them hereGǪ.) GÇô and possessed the money management skills of Ronald Biggs.

I've no problem with the Ronald Biggs point (not knowing who he is). I do have problems with the 'murder' point. I don't say that those things can't be considered as such (although I think its a long stretch), but I think stating them as 'truth' when they are at best supported by only some of the evidence (and yes, I don't consider the sacking of a city and killing of the military age men as murder even though I would abhor to see such a practice return to modern combat although it seems to be part of it anyway) since it is (in my view) applying our morals to another time. I have problems with the stating of the sizes of the Persian armies as being <500,000 as the only reasonable possiblity (I've seen estimates that Issus was an even battle and that Gaurgamela was at best 2 to 1 for the Persians (I don't have the sources in front of me)).

The stating of any of these is, at best, informed conjecture and should be stated as such. I haven't found any evidence in my readings that any of these questions have been settled, and it seems to me that much of the modern scholarship/writings seem to think that they have been.

Perhaps I'm wrong and the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries will lay to rest all questions about the great king Alexandros. Somhow, I doubt it.

[amyntoros]

Hanson hasn't only written about Alexander in his articles. In the book "Carnage and culture" he compares him with Hitler. Guy MacLean Rogers mentions this comparison in his book, and also a comparison by Bosworth with Cortez. The MacLean Rogers book, by the way, would probably not even have been written had it not been for Worthington's article. You seem to believe Worthington hasn't been influential. I believe his article, probably more than his biography, has had quite a bit of impact. The Prevas book I've avoided so far. You, on the other hand, I presume have read it (since it's on your list), so perhaps you can enlighten me regarding his views. From what I've read about it, he seems to be almost as extreme as Worthington.

Umm, more likely the Maclean Rogers book wouldn't have been published if it were not for the movie! Same goes for the Prevas book - which is rather biased in some respects, but in an amusing sort of way (I roared with laughter at some of his statements). I don't think it was all bad and I know of a couple of people who like it, but it didn't do anything to reshape my thinking or offer me anything new about Alexander. However, impact wise, neither of these books are particularly important (and I do recall some questionable scholarship). They were published to tie in with the attention Alexander garnered because of the movie and were aimed at the general population, and I firmly believe they will have little or no effect on the future of Alexander scholarship. As to whether the authors were influenced by Hanson or Worthington, I really don't know. You would have to ask them yourself; however, I rather suspect they'd be displeased by the association, preferring to profess that their views are their own.

The academic world isn't like the fashion business with new trends arising every year. If and when it moves in a new direction, it moves quite slowly and hesitantly. Professors who teach graduate classes in Alexander don't assign the most recent publications just because they ARE the newest books. They teach what they know and support this with the books which they believe have made important contributions to our knowledge. If a new book is acclaimed and respected by most academics then, yes, it will find its way into some college curriculum and may influence a new generation of teachers and Alexander scholars. But, as in the case of Worthington, a sensationalist study or article done merely to be provocative isn't going to be included in every university course just because the author alone thinks his work is important. Neither is the current crop of bandwagon books. Furthermore, the academics that organize seminars and continue to write and publish their own books and articles are unlikely to swiftly change direction because of Hanson, Maclean Rogers, Prevas and the like.

And btw, and still somewhat relevant to the above, you said this in a previous post:

Has Milns, Druon, Wepman or Williams written anything about Alexander that has had any real impact, and that is still relevant today?

Well, you selected these four from a very eclectic listing of books - William's bio merely demonstrates the attitudes towards Alexander at the beginning of the last century, and Wepman's book is directed at the general public and even children rather than the academic world. I probably shouldn't have included Druon's work as my faltering memory failed to remind me that it's a work of fiction! (Sorry about that.) However, Milns is still quite relevant today as he obviously had a great impact on Peter Green. A close examination of the two books will show many similarities between them - certain paragraphs are very close indeed - and Green makes frequent reference to Milns' work. So Milns is an example of a writer that DID have an impact on at least one of the next generation of scholars and is therefore still relevant today. And that's how it works. I just don't see the sensationalism of the new crop of books having the same effect. Even if, at the outside chance, they impressed one or two future Alexanderphiles, there's still the rest of the academic world and its influence to consider. There'll always be one or two outsiders, but this isn't a trend that's going to overwhelm the study of Alexander. However, and I must add this: I see absolutely no problem with the many realistic studies where Alexander is neither demonized nor idealized - and I do see this as the current direction.

And for the record: I think there's nothing that can be said about Alexander, or about any other historical figure, that is out of bounds or should not be allowed. I've never said so, nor suggested it. There's quite a step between thinking that a certain criticism is unfair, which is what I've said, to thinking that people should not be allowed to voice such criticism at all.

I'm afraid that your previous comment didn't read that way to me. You implied that Alexander would not have wanted the kind of fame that involved considering whether he was behind the murder of his father. I interpreted it to mean that you didn't think the subject should be raised. It appears to be a misunderstanding and I'm very pleased to know that you consider no subject out of bounds. Unless it's against the forum rules, of course.

Best regards,

[theaccursed]

Hello Amyntoros

While I still think Alexander's reputation is, to be frank, shit, and quite...no, I'm not saying that word again - you've kind of convinced me it's not quite as down the drain as I have thought. I have no doubt Alexander would still have been very troubled had he had that peek into the future that he himself wanted, to find out how people would speak of him, but, if he then also had got to read your post (and, well, had understood it), he might not have gone for the rope after all.

And Paralus, if you read this:

I'm sorry this discussion got so bloody. Perhaps suggesting that you should be sent back in time to be butchered by macedonians (together with certain historians) was, ultimately, not such a wonderful way to introduce myself in this forum - or such a nice thing to say.

And you're perhaps right in that I should have been more clear about how I feel about Alexander and his "accomplishments" - apart from him being...well, you know what.

I think Alexander had one great talent: killing people. He was an excellent soldier and an excellent commander...but that's what it all boils down to. Beyond this, he had no great talents that I know of. Was he "just wonderful"? Well, not to his opponents. Nor to some of his generals. Or, in fact, to anyone he believed stood in his way. Was he a "hero"? Sure - in the Homeric sense (that is, where you can kill your own children and still be considered heroic). But the days of the Homeric heroes are long gone. Most people today are far greater than Alexander in the one way that truly matters (to me, at least): compassion with other living beings. While I personally don't think "hero worship" is of any good, or that it has a future, I think there are many historical figures who are far more suitable as heroes today - such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Raoul Wallenberg. Compared to these people, Alexander was a midget.

You may have perceived me as quite ambivalent on this subject, and that's because I am ambivalent. I'm a pacifist with a chip on my shoulder the size of Hindu Kush, who feels sorry for the 2300 year old corpse of a warrior king. It's...complicated. But a feeling that Alexander was such a "wounderful person" has nothing to do with it.

I don't think I'm going to write anything more in this forum. I really can't take the stress, and nor do I want to cause it in others. I'm sorry if I have darkened your skies, Paralus.
I hope there are no hard feelings.

[amyntoros]

I don't think I'm going to write anything more in this forum. I really can't take the stress, and nor do I want to cause it in others.

No! Please don't leave us! I'm sorry that you've found the debates stressful, but you've certainly not caused me any stress and I hope it doesn't appear so in my posts. It isn't always easy explaining one's self on the internet; written words can lead to misinterpretation when the intent behind them isn't fully understood, but I personally value your contributions and respect your point of view. Ambivalence about Alexander is most understandable and I would hope that participation on Pothos might help clarify your feelings somewhat. On the other hand, we certainly don't expect everyone to share the same feelings and attitudes about the man. The forum would be a very boring place if that were to happen.

Stay with us please - and don't let any of us get to you! I really enjoy the time that I spend on Pothos and would like everyone else to feel the same, no matter what their viewpoint.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Please Don't Go....

I'm sorry this discussion got so bloody. Perhaps suggesting that you should be sent back in time to be butchered by macedonians (together with certain historians) was, ultimately, not such a wonderful way to introduce myself in this forum - or such a nice thing to say.

Well, it was certainly one of the more interesting ways of doing so I'll credit. I must say I did wonder at the time what possibly I might have done to this fellow bearing the nom de plume theaccursed.

As for the discussion becoming "bloody", for blood to spill over a discussion of Macedonian imperialism, it always requires a Clietus for every Alexander. Disclosure: I no longer teach due to severe shortening of that never too long string of patience the gods saw fit to provide me.

Please don't read a lack of posting on the site since my last wading into the fray as disinterest, or worse, Paralus picking up his key board and departing in a hissy fit. Far from the truth. Much work, many bloody boring meetings and a wife and children leaving for a week's holiday up the coast without said Paralus due to work commitments. I was going too butGǪ..

I don't think I'm going to write anything more in this forum. I really can't take the stress, and nor do I want to cause it in others. I'm sorry if I have darkened your skies, Paralus.

If you follow through on that notion, I will have the shits. Stress my arse GÇô that's what working hours are for.

I've soccer to get the youngest to before they head off to Port Macquarie for a week. More when I get back and have the time.

[theaccursed]

Hello Amyntoros and Paralus. Thanks for the encouragement. And thanks for that link, Paralus. It did give me a chuckle. Still, these discussions do get to me in a way that I can't easily shake off when I turn off the computer (which is kind of typical for me - by now, I ought to know better). Under such circumstances, it's probably best if I, at the very least, stay away from here for awhile. But Amyntoros: you've been very helpful. You have, to a certain extent, changed my perspective regarding Alexander of Macedon. He doesn't seem as "accursed" to me now as he did before. Thank you.
And Paralus: there's was certainly nothing you'd done to me. I just felt a bit of frustration towards certain historians, and threw you - the Bosworth of this forum - in there among them. That was unfair to you - and to that other Bosworth, too.

[Paralus]

And Paralus: there's was certainly nothing you'd done to me. I just felt a bit of frustration towards certain historians, and threw you - the Bosworth of this forum - in there among them. That was unfair to you - and to that other Bosworth, too.

The "Bosworth of this forum"! I feel the need to retire outright whilst at the top. It can only go downhill from here. I'm not at all certain as to how AB "Brian" Bosworth might see that comparison.

I know what you mean about the discussions "getting to you", I don't think you're alone there either. But, if you must, make sure you at least lurk. At least we may post something that'll switch you from lurk status....