The Greatest Greek!

[Taphoi]

http://www.grreporter.info/statiaen.php ... dtotkifm80

http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/1213

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/a ... rent_id=21



Best wishes,

Andrew

[jan]

I'd say congratulations are in order! Quite a compliment for such an ancient one!

[Phoebus]

A lot of talk and editorials went into this show. Like others from Greece, I wondered to what degree nationalism affected popular sentiment. One of the complaints voiced by certain media personalities was that viewers seemed to be rather poorly informed when it came to other candidates for this honor.

I suppose what this really boils down to is whether "greatness" will ever be as easily recognized outside of war. Is it a matter of the sword's impact on humanity being that much more dramatic, or is that simply how we've been conditioned to understand it?

I was happy to see thinkers such as Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato rounding off the top 10, as well as Dr. Papanikolaou at #2, but some picks were just eery. Ioannis Metaxas', in particular, makes me wonder how objectively the Greeks remember even their recent past: refusing an invader is certainly a galvanizing act, but I wonder how many thought of that dictator's performance aside from what he did on 28 October 1940?

[agesilaos]

These sort of polls are always going to be biased in favour of the famous rather than the great; how else would the butcher of the Dardanelles and the genius who wanted to declare war on Stalin in 1940 been voted greatest Briton? I blame the Daily Mirror.

It would have been interesting to hear the arguments for Koloktronis and the others from the War of Independence; from here it seems like a total shambles with moments of real heroism (the Mills at Lernaia or the last stand of the Mainites[ is that right?]) tainted by archetypical infighting and factional betrayl, not ably assisted by our own philhellenes Church and the indolent Cochrane (Hastings was a true hero, though).

As for Metaxas, did n't the Russians vote for Stalin? And I seem to remember that there was a hoo-hah about not being allowed to vote for Hitler in Germany! Though that may be press dis-information.

Whether Alexander is a worthy winner depends on your view of him , I think I'd have plumped for Archimedes or Pythagoras or Homer, science, philosophy and literature being somewhat greater than killing people. The only reason I would have missed Dr Pap etc would have been my ignorance of medicine.

Wonder if they'll have an international run off to decide History's greatest human being; put your money on the Chinese entry!

[Semiramis]

Ioannis Metaxas', in particular, makes me wonder how objectively the Greeks remember even their recent past: refusing an invader is certainly a galvanizing act, but I wonder how many thought of that dictator's performance aside from what he did on 28 October 1940?

So is invading it seems. As long as its Us invading Them.

[Phoebus]

True, true.

[Fiona]

I suppose what this really boils down to is whether "greatness" will ever be as easily recognized outside of war. Is it a matter of the sword's impact on humanity being that much more dramatic, or is that simply how we've been conditioned to understand it?

Interesting question. On the face of it, so many other fields of human endeavour seem so much more worthy than greatness in war.
(The bearing and raising of children, for example, being one that seldom gets mentioned.)
My own personal feeling is that those who scratch their heads over the greatness of warriors are missing the point. It is not the concomitant killing that confers greatness, but the willingness to risk one's own life. That is the important part, I think, and the part that, deep down, we admire.
You could even argue that by that token, the aggressor is greater than the defender, because he risks his life when he doesn't have to.
A royal commander, who doesn't have to risk his life as much as his men, yet does so, not once but again and again and again? I'd have no quarrel with calling that 'greatness'.
Fiona

[rjones2818]

Success tends toward making someone popular, too. And none (or, at most, very few) were/are as successfult as Alexander.

[artemisia]

You see it too one-sided. Alexander was not only the most courageous and smart commander in field. He laid the foundations for a new world. In the Hellenistic kingdoms flourished all kinds of sciences, arts, philosophical schools and technological inventions, people from different nations came together and cold live freer than before. It was a time of intellectuality, surpassed only by our last 150 years, and this could happen only because of the lack of veneration of Mother Nature in our time. The Romans, Parthians/Sassanians, Indians, Chinese continued the heritage. I don’t know if Christianity and Islam would have developed in a world different from the Hellenistic religious liberty, but the Renaissance which freed us from the intellectually dark ages would not have come without the Greek-Roman spirit.

And this Hellenistic world was the intent of Alexander. He (and his successors) founded so many cities (with theatres, schools, libraries, hospitals etc.) existing up to today; he occupied himself with all subjects of his time, from poetry to medicine, from architecture to agriculture, sent expeditions to explore the coasts of Africa and Northern Europe and had a staff of scientists of all fields of expertise in his expedition. Aristotle would not have become the most famous philosopher and couldn’t inaugurate new sciences with his pupils without the money and material support from Alexander and his scientists.

Alexander was the inspiring example for most of the kings, commanders and managers living afterwards. Bush should have studied Alexander before invading Afghanistan and Iran.

[Paralus]

A royal commander, who doesn't have to risk his life as much as his men, yet does so, not once but again and again and again? I'd have no quarrel with calling that 'greatness'.
Fiona

What about a non-royal commander: Miltiades, Themistocles, Pericles, Epaeminindas, Pelopidas, Eumenes to name a few?

The notion that Alexander III risked his life when he didn't have to is a furphy. Alexander, like other kings (and not only Macedonian) , had little choice in the matter: if they did not lead it is unlikely they'd be accorded any respect whatsoever. The Macedonians deserted en masse to Pyrrhus at Veroia due to the percetion that he was the better warrior (amongst other reasons) just as others had already deserted to the somatophyax Lysimachos.

Macedonian kings - just like other kings of the area (Bardyllis for example) - first and foremost were kings in battle. In this Alexander is no different than those kings before (or after) him.

[Paralus]

Bush should have studied Alexander before invading Afghanistan and Iran.

Had to read to the bottom to find something I could agree with. Bush might also have studied Mark Anthony, Crassus or Trajan - they were rather pertinent lessons that might have illustrated earlier messes in Mesopotamia.

He laid the foundations for a new world. In the Hellenistic kingdoms flourished all kinds of sciences, arts, philosophical schools and technological inventions, people from different nations came together and cold live freer than before.

You have some notion of repression that existed before Alexander subdugated, by dint of sword and sarissa, the Persian empire that seems misplaced. As if the east was an art, science and philosophy free zone before the advent of the great Hellenic ambassador.

I don’t know if Christianity and Islam would have developed in a world different from the Hellenistic religious liberty,

I wasn't aware of such repression of relgious practice prior to Alexander's "liberation" and "ecumenicalising" of the east. I'd suggest that were any religion (or philosophical movement) counter to Alexander's imperial designs the leaders might have found themselves strung up.

And this Hellenistic world was the intent of Alexander.

No. Empire was the intent of Alexander. All else was a matter of how to keep it.

Aristotle would not have become the most famous philosopher

I don't feel that Aristotle owes his intellect and the products of it to Alexander.

Alexander was the inspiring example for most of the kings, commanders and managers living afterwards.

Alexander was a motif or talisman for those who jostled for power after him. His image and supposed qualities (and Philip's) were used as required. Lysimachos made much of his stature of somatophylax for example as did Kassander his connection to Philip.

[marcus]

Bush should have studied Alexander before invading Afghanistan and Iran.

I won't repeat what Paralus has already said; but I will be crass and point out that Bush never invaded Iran, much as he probably would have liked to have done. You intended to write "Iraq", of course. Having said that, it would be a typical Bush mistake to make!

ATB

[Fiona]

What about a non-royal commander: Miltiades, Themistocles, Pericles, Epaeminindas, Pelopidas, Eumenes to name a few?

Well, if you're choosing the Greatest Greek, I personally think being royal adds a certain cachet, but I realise that not everyone would think that. And fame does count too (who's Pelopidas?)
But I do like the idea of Miltiades - he's got this epic quality too, and if you didn't like royalty he makes a great champion of democracy.
And Leonidas - another candidate for greatness.
But Alexander - not just royal, not just a successful warrior, not just famous, but also young, good-looking, and charismatic - if your mind works that way, he just ticks all the boxes.

The notion that Alexander III risked his life when he didn't have to is a furphy. Alexander, like other kings (and not only Macedonian) , had little choice in the matter: if they did not lead it is unlikely they'd be accorded any respect whatsoever. The Macedonians deserted en masse to Pyrrhus at Veroia due to the percetion that he was the better warrior (amongst other reasons) just as others had already deserted to the somatophyax Lysimachos.

Macedonian kings - just like other kings of the area (Bardyllis for example) - first and foremost were kings in battle. In this Alexander is no different than those kings before (or after) him.

What's a furphy?
Seriously, though - I do see what you mean. You don't think, perhaps, that he went the extra mile with his life-risking? Even to the point of recklessness sometimes, as at Multan.
But even if he was equalled in this in every respect by other commanders, it's Alexander who's carrying the torch here for military greatness, as opposed to literary, political, medical, scientific, etc. greatness.
My point really was that the personal risk involved in being a military 'great' should be taken into consideration as well as the killing that they do, and that that is why a person might consider a warrior 'great' when compared to other famous Greeks who killed fewer people.
Fiona

[Paralus]

And fame does count too (who's Pelopidas?)

Leuktra, 371 BC (Plut. Pelopidas, 23.2-4):

But at this point Pelopidas darted forth from his position, and with his band [the Sacred Band] of three hundred on the run, came up before Cleombrotus had either extended his wing or brought it back again into its old position and closed up his line of battle, so that the Lacedaemonians were not standing in array, but moving confusedly about among each other when his onset reached them […] At this time, however, since the phalanx of Epaminondas bore down upon them alone and neglected the rest of their force, and since Pelopidas engaged them with incredible speed and boldness, their courage and skill were so confounded that there was a flight and slaughter of the Spartans such as had never before been seen

.

Ibid 32.6-7:

He [Alexander of Pherae], however, did not receive nor await the onset, but fled back to his guards and hid himself among them. The foremost of the mercenaries, coming to close quarters with Pelopidas, were beaten back by him; some also were smitten and slain; but most of them fought at longer range, thrusting their spears through his armour and covering him with wounds, until the Thessalians, in distress for his safety, ran down from the hills, when he had already fallen, and the cavalry, charging up, routed the entire phalanx of the enemy, and following on a great distance in pursuit, filled the country with their dead bodies, slaying more than three thousand of them.

Diod. 16. 80.5:

Although Alexander had the advantage by reason of his superior position, Pelopidas, eager to settle the battle by his own courage, charged Alexander himself. The ruler with a corps of picked men resisted, and a stubborn battle ensued, in the course of which Pelopidas, performing mighty deeds of valour, strewed all the ground about him with dead men, and though he brought the contest to a close, routed the enemy and won the victory, he yet lost his own life, suffering many wounds and heroically forfeiting his life.

Matinea, 362 BC (Diod. 16.86.4-87.1):

As the battle raged severely for a long time and the conflict took no turn in favour of either side, Epameinondas, conceiving that victory called for the display of his own valour also, decided to be himself the instrument to decide the issue. So he immediately took his best men, grouped them in close formation and charged into the midst of the enemy; he led his battalion in the charge and was the first to hurl his javelin, and hit the commander of the Lacedaemonians. Then, as the rest of his men also came immediately into close quarters with the foe, he slew some, threw others into a panic, and broke through the enemy phalanx. The Lacedaemonians, overawed by the prestige of Epameinondas and by the sheer weight of the contingent he led, withdrew from the battle, but the Boeotians kept pressing the attack and continually slaying any men who were in the rear rank, so that a multitude of corpses was piled up.

As for the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that Epameinondas in the fury of battle was pressing forward too eagerly, they charged him in a body. As missiles flew thick and fast about him, he dodged some, others he fended off, still others he pulled from his body and used to ward off his attackers. But while struggling heroically for the victory, he received a mortal wound in the chest.

Alexander was, in no way, unusual in leading from the front.

What is a “furphy”? Australian slang. In the present context something not quite correct or false. Its provenance goes back to WWI and “water cooler conversations” about water carts or sanitary carts….made by J Furphy.

CW Bean’s History goes with the latter.

[Efstathios]

It is simple. The show was ridiculous. There isn't only one greatest Greek. There are many that can be on number 1. Each one on his field. Socrates. What can i say? The name and things that he has taught speak for themselves. Archimedes. One of the greatest scientists in history. Alexander the great. The best military man ever. Papanikolaou, Miltiades, Kolokotronis, and the list goes on.

Alexander was voted as number 1 for two main reasons. Firstly because he is one the most intriguing and unique figures globally, for all the things he accomplished, and secondly because it is now a national matter with Skopja and all.

It was however sad to see people included on the 100 names, who shouldn't even be on 1.000.000 names. For example a modern comedian who is popular but essentially passes agendas through his shows on tv and is also a very bad example to young people. Lord Byron, the English aristocrat who came and fought and died at the battle of Messologgi at the war of independance against the Othoman turks is 1000000 times greater.

That is why shows like these are crap. Because many of the people that vote are just uneducated, and also because these shows can be tools in the hands of people who want to pass their agendas. They couldn't say no to Alexander, but instead they might have said, ok we'll give you Alexander as number 1, but we will put some names in that list that we want to promote as "great Greeks". Screw them i say. There, i said it.