Alexander's Values

[Vergina Sun]

Hello All,

I've been writing a paper about the Judgement of Paris, and as always, my mind drifted back to Alexander the Great. I've been pondering for a while about what choice Alexander would have made had the goddesses made the offer to him. Between power, knowledge, and love, I would have to guess it would either be power or knowledge. Though we can't be exact about Alexander's character and values, I do wonder if he valued knowledge over power, or the other way around.

I would like to think it would be knowledge. After all, he did learn quite a bit from Aristotle, admired Diogenes, and there's his famous quote, "I had rather excel others in the knowledge of what is excellent, than in the extent of my power and dominion." (though quotes are hard to verify). We could see his conquest of Persia for the knowledge of what would happen when two empires are brought together. Then again, others could see his campaigns for revenge or power over the Persian Empire.

I was just wondering what your thoughts on this matter are.

[Theseus]

Hi Vergina,

I think Alexander would have chosen Knowledge. I think through knowledge everything else would fall in place so he could have it all.

From what I have learned both here and through my researching it seems that Alexander thought things through before he acted. How else could he have achieved what he did?

Who knows what type of ruler he would have been if certain things hadn't been in place such as Aristotle's teachings. Alexander seemed to be a very complex person. It amazes me how he did ......all he did.

[Vergina Sun]

Knowledge would be the ideal option, in my opinion as well. He did value intelligence and wit very highly. Plus, being a great tactician would have required intelligence. And he seems to have spent a great deal of time planning. However, there were many times when he seems to have acted unwisely, or on impulse (such as the burning of Persepolis, killing of Cleitus). If he took Athena's gift of wisdom (along with even more skill in war), I wonder if he would have campaigned differently.

[Fiona]

What a good question, very interesting to think about. Tricksy things, goddesses, you have to be careful, or you might end up being made to fall in love with someone's else's wife, though I think Alexander would have seen off Agamemnon and sent him back home with his tail between his legs.
I think I agree with you and Theseus, he would have chosen knowledge. I think he'd have felt that love and power were things you earned, whereas knowledge is acquired, so why not acquire some more.
It didn't do Solomon any harm when he made this choice, in the Bible. He chose wisdom, and his God was pleased. Wisdom and knowledge are pretty close, I think.
Fiona

Hello All,

I've been writing a paper about the Judgement of Paris, and as always, my mind drifted back to Alexander the Great. I've been pondering for a while about what choice Alexander would have made had the goddesses made the offer to him. Between power, knowledge, and love, I would have to guess it would either be power or knowledge. Though we can't be exact about Alexander's character and values, I do wonder if he valued knowledge over power, or the other way around.

I would like to think it would be knowledge. After all, he did learn quite a bit from Aristotle, admired Diogenes, and there's his famous quote, "I had rather excel others in the knowledge of what is excellent, than in the extent of my power and dominion." (though quotes are hard to verify). We could see his conquest of Persia for the knowledge of what would happen when two empires are brought together. Then again, others could see his campaigns for revenge or power over the Persian Empire.

I was just wondering what your thoughts on this matter are.

[rocktupac]

I would love to think that Alexander would choose knowledge over the other choices, but this is Alexander and Romantic ideals must not enter the picture: Alexander would most definitely have picked power. Though I admire Alexander's pursuits of the unknown and love for learning, the conqueror of the Persian Empire and beyond did not set out to amass an empire of knowledge. He was born and bred in a world of war, one where the more powerful survives and thrives. His hero was Achilles, the most impressive warrior on the battlefield. Alexander would not trade everlasting renown, like his hero sought, over the acquisition of knowledge--had it simply been one or the other. He was too in love with glory and had too great an ambition to conquer the lands of the then known world to settle on knowledge. Great power came from conquest and Alexander showed an affinity for it.

As I said, I would love to think otherwise, but Alexander's quest for power and empire have to be his main characteristics. But he was a multifaceted person who is too complex to ascribe a single personality trait to. This sort of breaks the rules, but I'm sure Alexander would have found, in one way or another, to obtain power and knowledge. But that's only because he's Alexander.

[Tantalus]

Well said rocktupac!

[Efstathios]

Alexander admired philosophy and the philosophers, and said the famous phrase for Diogenes, that had he not been Alexander he would have wanted to be Diogenes. So, his primary values were those of conquest and being a king and a warrior, and maybe while being those things, he combined philosophy and other ideals too. In the way that he could of course, and that way was by trying to establish the "ισοπολιτεία", the ideal of equality among people, and reading philosophy and poetry, and spreading them to the east.

[dean]

Hello,

I think that equality wasn't really on Alexander's agenda.
It was conquest- subjugating the next town on the horizon- overpowering them- getting submission- and then moving on endlessly on.

No stopping place- and if his men hadn't turned on him- God knows where he would have ended up- China?

I think that Alexnder certainly did have some noble virtues- an enigmatic and charismatic leader- who certainly wasn't in it for the money- he was in it for the glory no matter how gory it got.

Anyway, my opinion is that his "conquests" were nothing more than a power struggle on a massive scale- he didn't want anyone else other than himself no matter what to rule thus no heir- which come to think of it, is absolutely unbelievable given the size of the empire.

Well just a few thought,
Best wishes,
Dean

[amyntoros]

I think that Alexander certainly did have some noble virtues- an enigmatic and charismatic leader- who certainly wasn't in it for the money- he was in it for the glory no matter how gory it got.

Although I mostly agree I'm not convinced that we can reduce Alexander’s motives to a single factor and I'd like to give some consideration to Alexander being also "in it for the money". For example; there's a passage in Greek Gold: Jewelry from the Age of Alexander which discusses gold deposits in the ancient world:

Pages 19-20 Among the major deposits from which the ancient world of the Eastern Mediterranean drew gold, were those in Nubia, Arabia, Bactria and Asia Minor. The meager deposits in Greece had, by Hellenistic times, already been exhausted. Although we are told there was still gold to be found in the Cyclades, Macedonia and Thrace, the fruitfulness of the two latter sites is debateable.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the swathe of Alexander's conquests through Asia Minor and Iran include all of their rich gold deposits. His empire engulfed Egypt with her Nubian sources as well. Certainly, the greatest portion of Hellenistic gold came from these conquered lands. Most of it was raw gold, but some may have come in the form of ornaments, the spoils of war, which were melted down and refashionied.

I find it interesting that "most of it was raw gold" and that there were major deposits not only in Bactria but also in Arabia, the next country to be subjugated had Alexander lived. Furthermore, the spices grown in Arabia were a very valuable commodity. Food in the Ancient World by John M. Wilkins and Shaun Hill tells us that "perfumes such as frankincense and myrrh were imported from Arabia and Africa to the Greco-Roman world" and that there was an impressive importation of perfumes and spices from Arabia, Africa, India and the Spice Islands which "seem(ed) to have developed apace after the time of Alexander through to the Roman imperial period." Had Alexander lived and (almost certainly) succeeded in his conquest of Arabia he would have controlled the entire world market in spices – a huge source of income.

Of course I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the pursuit of glory was Alexander's prime motivation, but even after taking the Persian heartland he stood to benefit substantially from his further conquests and I don't feel that this can be dismissed entirely. I think money may have been a continuing incentive. Not the primary one, but an incentive nevertheless.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Of course it was. But not for the sake of just being rich. It's one of the primary goals of a conqueror, in order to make his empire strong.

[amyntoros]

Of course it was. But not for the sake of just being rich. It's one of the primary goals of a conqueror, in order to make his empire strong.

I agree that the accumulation of wealth is one of the goals of a conqueror which is why I responded to Dean's post. However, Alexander's empire was still far too young to be described as strong, yet there are plenty of examples of ostentatious displays of his wealth, especially in the last couple of years of his life. In other words money was also being taken from the empire and spent freely rather than only being used to judiciously strengthen or expand it further. Not that I see anything intrinsically wrong with this or even with his decisions on how the money was spent. After all, Alexander had greater wealth than anyone before him. It's simply that I find myself opposed to any argument that Alexander wasn't personally interested in money. Yes he loved to conquer but I believe the evidence shows he appreciated being rich as well. In other words, I don't see it as an "either/or" situation.

Best regards,

[Semiramis]

Alexander admired philosophy and the philosophers, and said the famous phrase for Diogenes, that had he not been Alexander he would have wanted to be Diogenes. So, his primary values were those of conquest and being a king and a warrior, and maybe while being those things, he combined philosophy and other ideals too. In the way that he could of course, and that way was by trying to establish the "ισοπολιτεία", the ideal of equality among people, and reading philosophy and poetry, and spreading them to the east.

Efstathios,

What're you basing this last bit on? If Alexander's main goal for conquering "the east" was to spread poetry and philosophy, why did he bother with Greek cities like Athens? Surely they were already brimming with such things with or without Alexander's help, unlike the intellectually devoid "east"?

[Phoebus]

... why did he bother with Greek cities like Athens?

Arguments of wanting to civilize the east aside, Alexander would have known that most of his southerly neighbors would have jumped at the chance to strike at his exposed rear.

[Semiramis]

... why did he bother with Greek cities like Athens?

Arguments of wanting to civilize the east aside, Alexander would have known that most of his southerly neighbors would have jumped at the chance to strike at his exposed rear.

Of course they would have. But his rear was only exposed because he was bent on the conquest of Persia... Surely you're not suggesting self-defense as a motive for Alexander's conquest of Greece? And... something else for the "East"?

[Phoebus]

Of course not.

I'm merely saying that, having decided to invade Persia, securing his southern "flank" was a logical move for Alexander. Being familiar with the past 100 years' of history from his era, Alexander would have known that serious imperial ambitions launched from the Greek mainland had to be reconciled with the other Greek factions.

I guess what I'm saying is that Agis' revolt could have been far worse had there been no suppression/coercision of the poleis.