Was it FORTUNATE that Alexander died young?

[amyntoros]

I picked up Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s The Philosophy of History at a yard sale not long ago and found his few thoughts (and few pages) on Alexander to be an unexpectedly Tarnian vision, full of ebullient praise. On Alexander’s conquest of Asia Hegel writes;

The grandeur and the interest of this work were proportioned to his genius – to his peculiar youthful individuality – the like of which in so beautiful a form we have not seen a second time at the head of such an undertaking. For not only were the genius of a commander, the greatest spirit, and consummate bravery united in him, but all these qualities were dignified by the beauty of his character as a man and an individual. Though his generals are devoted to him, they had been the long tried servants of his father ; and this made his position difficult ; for his greatness and youth is a humiliation to them, as inclined to regard themselves and the achievements of the past, as a complete work ; so that while their envy, as in Clitus’s case, arose to blind rage, Alexander also was excited to great violence.

Hmmm … the key words in the above as relevant to this post are beautiful form and youth. This because of the following from Hegel;

Alexander had the good fortune to die at the proper time ; i.e. it may be called good fortune, but it is rather a necessity. That he may stand before the eyes of posterity as a youth, an early death must hurry him away. Achilles, as remarked above, begins the Greek World, and his antitype Alexander concludes it : and these youths not only supply a picture of the fairest kind in their own persons, but at the same time afford a complete and perfect type of Hellenic existence.

Now, I ask you NOT to consider what it is that draws you, as an individual, to Alexander and this forum for I know that many here have different reasons. Instead, please take into account what we may call Alexander fandom in general. Does the embracing of Alexander as an icon today depend in great part on his being perennially a beautiful youth? For the writers of fan-fiction it does seem to be so. (Philip, despite his great achievements are completely ignored by this genre, but he was older, slightly lame, and disfigured by wounds. Not so desirable a protagonist methinks.) The same seems to apply to published fiction; especially Renault’s works on Alexander (including her biography) which put much emphasis on Alexander’s youth and beauty. For many people her books were their first introduction to Alexander. A professor recently said that he believes that the first work on Alexander that one reads is invariably reflected in one’s later opinions. I tend to agree with him and I think this may apply also to those most enthusiastic supporters of the recent movie who knew relatively little about Alexander before they saw the film.

Here are my questions for everyone wherein I ask you to consider the above and not look only to Alexander’s achievements, for even though they obviously have a huge role to play in why Alexander is remembered today, can they alone explain what can perhaps best be described as rock star adulation? Therefore, does the axiom “Live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse” apply to Alexander? Would he still be as admired and lauded today if he had lived to a ripe old age, less physically attractive and thereby less romantically desirable; perhaps also disfigured by wounds? In this respect, was it “fortunate” that he died when he did?

Food for thought ...

Best regards,

[jasonxx]

i think that this particular question is understandable and yet impossible to answer. Its similally impossible to Answer what Genius interprits. What it is to be in love etc etc.

I think its basically charisma and feel Charisma echoes through the centuries/ Alexander will be remembered for his swift fantastic acheivements. yet had he lived and gone on and on his reputation would have become more solidified. with age he would have in my opinion become more.
I have been a fan of Elvis since I was about 5 all through his young days to his more undignified bloated end. I cant say why I remained a fan I know he was a weak controled useless human been addicted to drugs and prostituted by the money men.
yet the mans god given tallent and charisma will make him remembered far longer than those who used him.

Liken to Alexander easy to be a fan but almost impossible to say why.

kenny

[athenas owl]

I do not know if it was "fortunate" for Alexander, but I do think it helped his reputation. “Live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse” is a very apt description....

I also think that dying so young, the "potential" left for his future is a draw...he had plans, big ones. He wasn't finished. So there is a lot of "what if" of how things would have been different. There's also the whole "fall" as many through history has seen it. Alexander never got the chance to continue and the last part of his career is remembered for some very unhappy events, like the Gedrosian, the mutinies, etc. On the other hand, perhaps he died just in time because it could have gotten worse? Who knows.

If he had managed to live long enough and conquer the west as he hoped and seen his plans for cities and "concord" come to fruition..perhaps it wouldn't have mattered that he wasn't the young lion anymore. We most likely wouldn't ever discuss the Roman empire as we know it, or the destruction of Carthage. Would Chandragupta have been able to create his own empire? Would the Jewish revolts have happened if Alexander's descendants had been as tolerant of religions? Then would Chrisitanity also sprung from that ferment? So many "what if's".

Philip was a great king, but I don't think it's neccessarily that he was older and lame. He simply didn't get the chance to burst onto Asia. If it had been him, we might be discusing his career much more in the popular imagination.

The fandom. 'Reign the Conqueror" was what got me interested.... I find the core idea that Alexander was the "devil dog of destruction", that he would destroy the world, a theme throughout it interesting (apart from the hare-brained aspects), because in a way that's exactly what he did...but a new world took it's place, something that the characters terrified of him didn't see...they only saw the destruction, not the coming rebirth.

Alexander did it because he simply had to, not for any desire to change the world, but because it's just what he was driven to do. The final battle , after the long trek turns out to be aganst himself. At the end, when is watching the young Euclid writing formulas on the pavement, Alexander was asked what he was doing and he replied that he was watching creation. Sorry about that Amyntoros..I did it anyway....

Alexander had the good fortune to die at the proper time ; i.e. it may be called good fortune, but it is rather a necessity. That he may stand before the eyes of posterity as a youth, an early death must hurry him away. Achilles, as remarked above, begins the Greek World, and his antitype Alexander concludes it : and these youths not only supply a picture of the fairest kind in their own persons, but at the same time afford a complete and perfect type of Hellenic existence.

A tad romantic for me, but I do agree here...Achilles and Alexander did bookend a kind of ancient world that ended with Alexander. Ii certainly didn't end the Hellenic world, but it altered it into a form that neither Achilles or Alexander might like. I was thinking about that the other day...Alexander was the last "hero" of the old world....

[athenas owl]

It just occurred to me...was this post deliberately posted on the anniversary of Alexander's death?

[jasonxx]

I always related 10th June as the aniversary of Alexanders death. howver i once saw a progarame that had some pice of Persian writing on a stone. It related to astrology at the time and aparently it worked out Alexander died one or 2 days either side of the 10th.

[amyntoros]

I think its basically charisma and feel Charisma echoes through the centuries/ Alexander will be remembered for his swift fantastic acheivements. yet had he lived and gone on and on his reputation would have become more solidified. with age he would have in my opinion become more.

I have been a fan of Elvis since I was about 5 all through his young days to his more undignified bloated end. I cant say why I remained a fan I know he was a weak controled useless human been addicted to drugs and prostituted by the money men.
yet the mans god given tallent and charisma will make him remembered far longer than those who used him.

Liken to Alexander easy to be a fan but almost impossible to say why.

Kenny, I feel you’ve made a very important point about charisma, although I must add that in the case of Elvis (and others of his ilk) we were bombarded with written and visual information from the very beginning – movies, TV performances, photographs and articles everywhere. This made people think that they knew him and could recognize his charisma on what seemed like a personal level. Not so with Alexander – it must be deduced from the comparatively little written information that we have. Yet we do deduce it – we do feel it and its echo throughout the centuries, as you said, which makes me question whether it arises from source writings alone or if the surviving imagery is a contributing factor.

I think it is human nature, a hardwiring if you will, to appreciate youth and beauty, and I believe it might impress on our view of Alexander more than we may realize. It’s been said often that everyone “has their own Alexander.” Isn’t a visual representation also a factor? Look at the good natured bantering on Pothos when I changed my icon. Who was it that said the image looks like a Bactrian washerwoman? Historically speaking, how Alexander looked doesn’t affect anything he did, but it does feature quite often into our discussions here.

Philip was a great king, but I don't think it's neccessarily that he was older and lame. He simply didn't get the chance to burst onto Asia. If it had been him, we might be discusing his career much more in the popular imagination.

Yes, we would be discussing Philip instead; however, hypothetically speaking, even if Philip had achieved just as much as Alexander, would he be as much an icon as Alexander is today? By that same token, if Alexander had been older and looked like Philip I’m certain we would still be discussing his career, but would anyone on the forum really care about his sexuality, whether his marriage to Roxane was a love-match or a political necessity, etc.?

A tad romantic for me, but I do agree here...Achilles and Alexander did bookend a kind of ancient world that ended with Alexander. Ii certainly didn't end the Hellenic world, but it altered it into a form that neither Achilles or Alexander might like. I was thinking about that the other day...Alexander was the last "hero" of the old world....

I tend to agree myself – sometimes there is a grain of truth in even the most romantic of historical interpretations, which Hegel’s certainly is. But yes, the military and even the cultural supremacy of Athens and mainland Greece ended more or less with Alexander; Alexandria becoming the new cultural center.

It just occurred to me...was this post deliberately posted on the anniversary of Alexander's death?

Nope – pure coincidence. I had been meaning to post on this subject for some time, but then Pothos went down …

I always related 10th June as the aniversary of Alexanders death. howver i once saw a progarame that had some pice of Persian writing on a stone. It related to astrology at the time and aparently it worked out Alexander died one or 2 days either side of the 10th.

I think Heckel (sheesh, hope I haven’t picked the wrong historian here) worked with some astronomers and the cuneiform texts and narrowed it down to the 11th. The info is on Jeanne Reames’ blog somewhere, but it was so long ago I’m not sure I could find it again.

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Yes, we would be discussing Philip instead; however, hypothetically speaking, even if Philip had achieved just as much as Alexander, would he be as much an icon as Alexander is today? By that same token, if Alexander had been older and looked like Philip, I’m certain we would still be discussing his career, but would anyone on the forum really care about his sexuality, whether his marriage to Roxane was a love-match or a political necessity, etc.?

A tad romantic for me, but I do agree here...Achilles and Alexander did bookend a kind of ancient world that ended with Alexander. Ii certainly didn't end the Hellenic world, but it altered it into a form that neither Achilles or Alexander might like. I was thinking about that the other day...Alexander was the last "hero" of the old world....

I tend to agree myself – sometimes there is a grain of truth in even the most romantic of historical interpretations, which Hegel’s certainly is. But yes, the military and even the cultural supremacy of Athens and mainland Greece ended more or less with Alexander; Alexandria becoming the new cultural center.

It just occurred to me...was this post deliberately posted on the anniversary of Alexander's death?

Nope – pure coincidence. I had been meaning to post on this subject for some time, but then Pothos went down …

Best regards,

That's true...there is and was a "golden child" aspect to Alexander. He is the one. Dying young cemented that..that and his great success. He will never grow old (like sadly Elvis did). Julius Caesar, certainly Augustus don't have that mystique...do Asian conquerors have it in their own histories..say for Genghis? I know he is revered in Mongolia and there are stories of his incredible childhood and youth...


Amazing timing, then, for your post....

[Paralus]

Philip was a great king, but I don't think it's neccessarily that he was older and lame. He simply didn't get the chance to burst onto Asia. If it had been him, we might be discusing his career much more in the popular imagination.

Yes, we would be discussing Philip instead; however, hypothetically speaking, even if Philip had achieved just as much as Alexander, would he be as much an icon as Alexander is today? By that same token, if Alexander had been older and looked like Philip I’m certain we would still be discussing his career, but would anyone on the forum really care about his sexuality, whether his marriage to Roxane was a love-match or a political necessity, etc.?

Philip was the greatest general of his age and, it might be argued, of the century. Like Alexander to his father, Philip "went to school" on what had gone before (the Theban greats) and developed his own methods and tactics as well.

It is to our everlasting loss that much of what was recorded of him did not survive. More of a pity that during his complete remaking of the Macedonian state – taking it from utter destitution to the most powerful state in Europe – most of what survives is from a city-state viewpoint. Much of his campaigning is sketchily recorded – sometimes simply alluded to – and when it is recorded (such as the final campaign against the Greeks) it is inevitably coloured with the downfall of those city states.

Philip never lived to have court historians record magnificent victories against Persian hordes but, if he had, he will no doubt have employed his own recorders of the events and his “public relations” people will seen to the fact that posterity recalled the deeds.

What often is forgotten is that much that is written of Alexander as “wunderkind” is after the fact. It is, in a sense, self-fulfilling. Because he was to go on to a “brilliant career” he was brilliant as a youth and, as a page, asked “adult questions”. He is the reason for Philip’s crushing of the Greeks at Chaeronea.

Certainly though, no one – other than some of the more prudish city-state Greeks of his time (Theopompus springs to mind) – will have remarked upon his sexuality or choice of sexual partners. Certainly we would have little problem with his homoerotic relationship with an ‘Hephaestion’. No argument will have been entered into over the political nature of a marriage to a ‘Roxane’.

There was in ancient writers, as in modern, little idolising of Philip to cloud the issues.

[jasonxx]

Paralus hail

I would pick up with the references you made with Philip and his greatness been basically erased through Alexander and his magnificent achievements. I would argue as you that philip would have had his share of Persian destruction to his list. Wether he would have gonea s far as Alexander. For me is doubtful. Philip as we know was the astute wolf and i feel would have considered Darius offer following Issus.

Im sure following issus Philip would have considered how stretched he was and just how dangerous Chasing darius could be. We can not assume philip would have used Alexanders thinking. Alexanders thought pattern to neutralise the persian fleet by land was to say the least high risk. Would Philip have thought of even doing that. Would philip have spent 7 months crushing Tyre just to prove a point.

Although alexander was Philips son and both genius we cant assume philip would make the same tactical decisions some not even tactical some would say crazy, I feel yes give philip credit but at the same time dont take away Alexanders credit. A cynical point for me and why i think Alexander complicit in philips death. Were philip to have lived Alexanders greatness would in my opinion never happened.

A final point which some people detract from Alexander is that it was philips creation that madehim great. Similar Elvis again detractors Elvis only became what he was by steeling other ideas.

I feel Elvis and Alexander were given the ingredients to make there own creations. I feel gordon Ramsey a great Chef. Yet he dont grow the onions are make the ingredients. He as Alexander and elvis Created great things from great Ingredients.

Its time with somethings credit where credit is due. Amyntos I agree with the point about Media with Presley. but i say its the guys ultimate charisma what made him. And as i said i cant defy charisma and would say it echoes through the centuries.

kenny

[jasonxx]

Charisma And Echoes

I know its crazy and how Alexander has come down and how I cant explain the secret for it.

Now i read and study history and would say catagorically say that eventually history and Archiological evidence will one day totally disprove the Bible. So lets reflect Alexander with Jesus. I cant explain why Alexander has eternal fame. And that i disbelieve in Jesus nor can I work out why he is so known based on a few sketchy books by four his followers decades later.

I have to say somethings are within and a belief syaten that we cant define nor explain,but age definately must have something to do with some people. Maralyn Monroe. james dean. Even Princess Dianna. but all 20th century peoples so is it the same. Did Alexander have the same publicity as here Icons i think not. the more we look the more impossible to work out.

[jan]

In Biblical terms, when the young die, it is like a plant, as Jesus called it, the Greenwood. A bit like pruning, as when the young are cut, the starts will grow.

It appears that the death of Alexander is also the cause of the growth of the Hellenic culture, so he too can be compared to Jesus in that way as well.

As a legendary figure, the young who die always seem to live forever, whether Alexander, Elvis, or Jim Morrison. So it goes.