This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones
* Foul or inappropriate language
Efstathios wrote:Athenas owl, we cannot make these kind of assumptions, simply because he was living in another era.
Paralus is right, I was being whimsical...I wish i had a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon.
However, Alexander was no fan of Democracy, don't you think, except when it suited his policy? That isn't a "judgment", just something that is...er..was.
And certainly, seriously, I think that ATG the strategist would have approved of Obama's campaign strategy. Afterall, one ambitious underdog who won against the odds could admire the disciplined machine that led another underdog to victory.
People, you know that in history we cannot make such assumptions simply because there are no ifs. Alexander was born in another era, and was raised with other values. The only assumption that we can make here is what would Alexander think if he was in a time captule and saw our time. He would have to take into consideration today's values and the current situations, and then he would probably think that his dream of a true globalization is not what we see today. He wouldnt have liked the modern warfare, and surely he wouldnt have liked that his Macedonia is now being claimed by slavic population that wasnt even there in his time. Yes, i had to say that.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
Come on... People are constantly going on about Alexander's motives, values, passions etc on this forum and elsewhere. How can we possibly assume that authors or posters from the modern day aren't influenced by their values when they talk about Alexander's "dreams" of globalization, fusing East and West, unity of mankind, multicultural empire, so on and so forth. It's not like the man wrote a diary spelling it all out. There is sometimes precious little in historical records to back up the justifying rhetoric that often accompanies accounts of Alexander's wars and conquests.
As for your slavic comment - if you would like to think that Alexander would've cared about modern day petty nationalistic squabbles in the Balkans, you're most welcome to do so. But it might help to remind ourselves that the modern concept of the nation state didn't exist for thousands of years after Alexander's death. Who is to say that all modern day Greeks only have ancestors from the populations that lived in the Classical times? Much has happened since. Migration and other empires have left their cultural and genetic marks in that bustling region. I personally don't really have a problem with people claiming pride in the history of their land, regardless of "racial" background. But I also understand that the whole reflected glory business doesn't really work logically.
Semiramis wrote:But it might help to remind ourselves that the modern concept of the nation state didn't exist for thousands of years after Alexander's death.
No, Stathi, you didn't. It meant absolutely nothing to the Greeks and Macedonians of the time - and that's what matters.
Efstathios wrote:... and then he would probably think that his dream of a true globalization is not what we see today.
And we will disagree again: this is rubbish. Alexander, to mind, cannot ever be shown to have had a true “globalization” policy unless it was global conquest. The “policy of fusion” is – largely – a modern twisting of source material to that end. The view of the “philosopher in arms” is the product of Plutarch’s rhetorical treatise On the Fortune of Alexander, drafted for equally rhetorical purposes.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
I was thinking of the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century as the beginning of nation states as we understand them today. What are your thoughts on this?
Semiramis wrote:I was thinking of the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century as the beginning of nation states as we understand them today. What are your thoughts on this?
I was thinking earlier, in terms of the growth of feelings of national identity in Medieval Europe - most particularly in England, but to some extent in France, during the 14th century.
With my characteristic pedantry and a certain facetiousness, what I was really doing was calling into question at what point hundreds of years become "thousands" of years - if it's less than 2,000 years, then can we really say "thousands"?
Michael, the only way for Alexander to have achieved globalization back at those days was through conquest. The question here is if the Opis' speech reflects the truth. Do you think that he only cared for conquering, or maybe he wanted to also pursue a true globalization throughout his campaign?
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
Efstathios wrote:Michael, the only way for Alexander to have achieved globalization back at those days was through conquest. The question here is if the Opis' speech reflects the truth. Do you think that he only cared for conquering, or maybe he wanted to also pursue a true globalization throughout his campaign?
He, he Stathi: just me being me.
The Opis speech reflects the "truth" indeed; just which "truth"? And yes, if you mean "globalisation" through conquest, that is what Alexander was all about. One empire under the Macedonian son: Alexander.
If I can kick myself into gear I mean to post something on Alexander's supposed policy of "fusion" under Amyntoros' Opis weddings thread. As for now though, since I've just finished playing removalist for a mate (gods I hurt), I'm going to lay in a hot bath to remove the aches and then take Salaminia (Mrs Paralus) and the two Paralettes to the Rhinedorf restaurant for dinner. I can, perhaps, believe I'm in Freiburg (Germany) a week before meeting you in Athens back almost two years.
The most difficult thing will be to choose a decent red to go with me. Pity I can't track down that marveloous Macedonian red I had in that Delphi restaurant.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Jan wrote:I was merely quoting the horoscope reading as it is for anyone who is born with that configuration...at least it tipped me off to the fact that MSNBC and MSN are well aware of what I meant when I wrote that statement as I got immediate feedback. I had no idea that a post at Pothos would result in that bit of information...
Ohhhhhh! Well, that clears it up. You're welcome.
Paralus, of course I'm still eating souvlaki.
To revert to the off-topic subject of American politics, I have to say it got much MUCH more tolerable on Nov. 4...
1971 years... Almost 2000... Certainly more than 1000...
Regarding the mass weddings... It's worth a mention that all the weddings were between the men of the conquering nation and the women of the conquered. Not a single one the other way around. Patriarchy being what it is, this can hardly be considered a move to show the Persians as equals. Any "fusion" was very much on Alexander's terms. I was going to say Macedonian, but seeing that many of these marriages didn't last, I doubt most of the Macedonian men were terribly keen, let alone the Persian women. The decision of course, was made unilaterally by Alexander. Just to clarify, I know marriages among nobles were mostly for political purposes, whether in Macedonia or Persia. But in this case, the Persian noblemen had little say in this matter. It's entirely possible that the Persians were further reminded of their conquered status at these weddings, rather than being inspired by a new-found sense of universal brotherhood.
Semiramis wrote:Regarding the mass weddings... It's worth a mention that all the weddings were between the men of the conquering nation and the women of the conquered. Not a single one the other way around ... Any "fusion" was very much on Alexander's terms ... It's entirely possible that the Persians were further reminded of their conquered status at these weddings, rather than being inspired by a new-found sense of universal brotherhood.
Precisely.
The notion of “fusion” is not something that really stands a close scrutiny. That last observation is quite to the point really.
I was planning to revisit this on one of the Opis threads but feel that Semiramis’ arch observations may well be better followed up on its own thread.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Jan wrote:I was merely quoting the horoscope reading as it is for anyone who is born with that configuration...at least it tipped me off to the fact that MSNBC and MSN are well aware of what I meant when I wrote that statement as I got immediate feedback. I had no idea that a post at Pothos would result in that bit of information...
Ohhhhhh! Well, that clears it up. You're welcome.
Paralus, of course I'm still eating souvlaki.
As I see above.
I enjoyed your travel blog.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
