Alexander and his mind

[the_accursed]

That said it is likely we share much in our views of Alexander. I do not, for instance, belong to the adulatory, hero-worshiping or philosopher-conqueror Alexander view. I do not think he was on any cultural crusade nor was he about civilising the masses of ignorant, cultural indigents of Asia. If he took Homer and Euripides with him across the Hellespont, he certainly more than balanced that with sarisa points and a thirst for conquest that exceeded their number. If he liberated the “Greeks of Asia” it was in terms defined by himself; other peoples were simply liberated from the Persians to be enrolled in the imperium Makedones or, more precisely, Alexander.

My view is rather more rational or minimalist: I believe the bloke took what he wanted and did so for largely his own purposes and gratification. He was not some ancient Hitler but neither was he an ancient Mahatma Ghandi sorely afflicted with some strange territory fetish.

On this, you will get no disagreement from me. I think the words "to the strongest", whether he actually uttered them or not, summed up his entire world view. All it took for a nation or a people to become an enemy of his, was to exist, be known by him and not yet be part of his empire. And he treated opponents, or perceived opponents, within his own ranks with the same ruthlessness. As far as spreading Greek culture was concerned, it only happened, in my opinion, as an inevitable consequence of Alexander and his soldiers simply being Macedonian. Had Alexander been Chinese, then he would have spread Chinese culture – and equally unintentionally.

I think it's ironic that so many good, compassionate people, far greater people than Alexander himself, admire him so much – this utterly ruthless and brutal person, who himself would never have felt any compassion for them, and who's entire “life work” consisted of massacres, rape and plunder. But, as with people like Julius Caesar and Napoleon, there is a glamorous aura surrounding his name today. And it seems to some people, this aura is completely irresistible, and excuses everything (and in this case, I think "excuses" is the right word).

[Phoebus]

Personally, I think the "to the strongest" episode is as much a fairy tale as any of the stories told about Alexander. But that's just me.

As for the phenomenon for "Alexander admiration"? I understand what you're getting at, but all the same I don't find it unreasonable for even well-read, well-informed individuals to look highly upon the man. It all comes down to taking his actions within the context of his time and the values it espoused.

Remember, "great" has only been popularly synonymous with "good" for only so long.

[athenas owl]

Both. I don’t see how it would make much of a difference, in this case, whether “anyone” is a historian or not.

Well, in this case, it makes a difference because the historian has a duty to get at the truth, whereas the general reader, if he or she so wishes, is at liberty to value a story for reasons other than its truthfulness - for example, if it is heart-warming, or inspirational.

It's in the sources, but then, so is so much else that isn't realistic either. I agree though that there are too many historians who treat this story as if it's history rather than myth. But do you really need historians to tell you that you should doubt a story about a boy taming a horse that's afraid of it's own shadow?

I would take a lot of convincing that a horse can't be afraid of its shadow. See this definition of a 'shadow roll' from a racing glossary:
Shadow Roll
Generally a roll of synthetic material secured over a horse's nose to prevent him from looking down and being spooked by its own shadow.

Why would such a thing exist, if horses weren't occasionally frightened by their own shadows? I bet Robin Lane Fox knows more about horses than any other historian, and he would have said if it was such a daft idea as all that.
Or maybe you're just saying that it happens, but a boy couldn't calm down a horse in that state?
Fiona

I think it gives the story a fairy tale like quality. But I also think, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, that it's odd that this fear of the shadow would then go away so quickly. And Alexander is and was well known for having done things that previously were thought impossible. So people would have expected similar stories from his childhood. And then there's the remarkable prophecy at the end of it. It may be "heart-warming" to some, but it's hardly realistic.

Horses are a persnickety bunch (like giant cats). I could actually see Alexander calming the horse. Horses do respond to personality. The same mini herd that despises my mother (the feeling is mutual) will follow me around as long as I will walk, nudging against me, snuffling in my ear. I kid you not. She threatens them with horse burger, I adore them. They know the difference. One would let my stepfather ride her till the cows came home, but would buck others she didn't like.

Mary Renault 's theory on why the horse was so averse to being ridden is worth consideration. It's early here. If you need to be reminded or don't know what it is, let me know. I'll type it in.

There aren't a ton of stories from ATG's childhood, sadly. That's some of the lost works that peeve me. So much we don't know. I can see him being stubborn enough to tame the horse and I can see him quizzing the Persians. Anyone who has had a bright 7 y/o can tell you how sometimes they can floor you with their insight and knowledge.

So I keep an open mind. At least he didn't chop down a cherry tree anbd not lie about it!.



AS for Alexander "admiration", sometimes I think that if one doesn't outright say that he was all bad, all the time then you are an "admirer".

[the_accursed]

Phoebus

Personally, I think the "to the strongest" episode is as much a fairy tale as any of the stories told about Alexander. But that's just me.

I didn't claim, though, that he uttered those words. Whether he did or not wasn't my point. He lived his life as if they were his motto.

As for the phenomenon for "Alexander admiration"? I understand what you're getting at, but all the same I don't find it unreasonable for even well-read, well-informed individuals to look highly upon the man. It all comes down to taking his actions within the context of his time and the values it espoused.

Remember, "great" has only been popularly synonymous with "good" for only so long.

I don't think this is the way admiration works. That is, within the context of the time period (and general values of that time period) of the admired person. People simply admire other people, in my opinion, because there are things about these other people they find admirable. Julius Caesar seems to have admired Alexander. But then Julius Caesar would have agreed that the world belonged to “the strongest”. Mary Renault, on the other hand, was a humane person, and so I doubt that she shared this opinion. Yet she still admired Alexander. And I believe that the attraction was and is the glamour that has come to surround Alexander's name. And the irony is, this glamour comes from one thing only: Alexander having been “the strongest”.

Athenas owl

Horses are a persnickety bunch (like giant cats). I could actually see Alexander calming the horse. Horses do respond to personality. The same mini herd that despises my mother (the feeling is mutual) will follow me around as long as I will walk, nudging against me, snuffling in my ear. I kid you not. She threatens them with horse burger, I adore them. They know the difference. One would let my stepfather ride her till the cows came home, but would buck others she didn't like.

Mary Renault 's theory on why the horse was so averse to being ridden is worth consideration. It's early here. If you need to be reminded or don't know what it is, let me know. I'll type it in.

There aren't a ton of stories from ATG's childhood, sadly. That's some of the lost works that peeve me. So much we don't know. I can see him being stubborn enough to tame the horse and I can see him quizzing the Persians. Anyone who has had a bright 7 y/o can tell you how sometimes they can floor you with their insight and knowledge.

So I keep an open mind. At least he didn't chop down a cherry tree anbd not lie about it!.

I can see Alexander “calming a horse”. I can't see him calming a horse to such a degree that a alleged fear of its own shadow would suddenly disappear, apparently forever. Nor do I believe that Philip was a prophet.

AS for Alexander "admiration", sometimes I think that if one doesn't outright say that he was all bad, all the time then you are an "admirer".

I wouldn't say that he was "bad all the time” though. More like 2/3 of the time. He had to sleep, after all.

[Phoebus]

I didn't claim, though, that he uttered those words. Whether he did or not wasn't my point. He lived his life as if they were his motto.

I know. I was just stating my opinion concerning the story.

I don't think this is the way admiration works. That is, within the context of the time period (and general values of that time period) of the admired person.

I think that admiration (or denigration) of a person that doesn't take into context his times and values is, generally, uninformed. If someone doesn't take into account Alexander's potential for brutality and the death he brought to, say, various Indian peoples, then I think their opinion of him is incomplete. Such a person may as well admire Hitler. Similarly, if someone defines Alexander primarily by that same potential for violence without taking into consideration the standards of his time, or the other facets of his persona, their comprehension of the man is incomplete; their criticism is not very fair.

People simply admire other people, in my opinion, because there are things about these other people they find admirable. Julius Caesar seems to have admired Alexander. But then Julius Caesar would have agreed that the world belonged to “the strongest”. Mary Renault, on the other hand, was a humane person, and so I doubt that she shared this opinion. Yet she still admired Alexander. And I believe that the attraction was and is the glamour that has come to surround Alexander's name. And the irony is, this glamour comes from one thing only: Alexander having been “the strongest”.

I fail to see how this proves that either Julius Caesar, Mary Renault, or any number of well-read, educated individuals can't admire Alexander while taking into consideration his life as a whole.

[the_accursed]

I think that admiration (or denigration) of a person that doesn't take into context his times and values is, generally, uninformed. If someone doesn't take into account Alexander's potential for brutality and the death he brought to, say, various Indian peoples, then I think their opinion of him is incomplete. Such a person may as well admire Hitler. Similarly, if someone defines Alexander primarily by that same potential for violence without taking into consideration the standards of his time, or the other facets of his persona, their comprehension of the man is incomplete; their criticism is not very fair.

In my opinion, it's one thing to not criticize, say, a famous ancient cannibal for having been a cannibal, knowing that that person grew up and lived in a culture where cannibalism was considered normal, and quite another to also actually admire the cannibal in question, and refer to the “standards of his time” to justify this admiration. I'm not saying that Alexander necessarily has to be loathed. But I fail to see what any modern, humane person could possibly find admirable about him.

I fail to see how this proves that either Julius Caesar, Mary Renault, or any number of well-read, educated individuals can't admire Alexander while taking into consideration his life as a whole.

My point is that it's understandable that people in the past have admired Alexander, as many of them, such as Julius Caesar, shared his (from a modern perspective) inhumane values. But I doubt that this is also true for most of Alexander's admirers today – yet they still admire him. I think it's illogical, but believe it's the glamour, rather than the things he did to achieve this glamour, that attracts many of them to him. The glamour is ultimately the only thing that truly sets “Alexander the great” apart from the many other brutal conquerors in history, who aren't as admired today as Alexander is.

[Semiramis]

I've wondered about why people in the modern day "admire" Alexander on this forum before. I also qualified that I can understand why Romans would bestow the title "great" on him as they openly professed their admiration of violent conquest. If you take a close look at that great Roman monument Trajan's column, it's a celebration of orgiastic violence in the name of empire.

So, it's incredibly puzzling for me that people who would never openly espouse wars of conquest would profess admiration for a man whose claim to fame is being very good at organized violence and terrorizing people with the threat of violence. Surely we agree that these were his two primary modes of subjugating people - as much as we go on about Homeric ideals or Macedonian warrior culture or Hellenic civilization? No one would give a rat's behind about his battle plans, mummy and daddy issues, boyfriends/wives/eunuchs, friends, religiosity etc. if he hadn't been very good at killing people.

This point is always countered by the argument that his "detractors" are not taking "his times and values" into consideration. I notice that this argument only comes into being when people are "criticizing" him but not when people are gushing their praise and admiration upon him. Positive judgments are still value judgments.

I'm also not in agreement that "Hellenic values" universally called for conquest and war. From my readings, to start a war, one had to show that they were the aggrieved party, indicating that open wars of aggression were not acceptable. About imperialism and conquest, there's more than enough Greek condemnation of Persia on these matters. It seems many viewed the Persian Great Kings as despots and the subjects as mere slaves.

In his lifetime, Alexander was far from popular in the Greek cities, some of which resisted his advances and mocked his pretensions to godhead. In Persia, his legend survives as "Alexander the Accursed". In India, his name often brought one of two responses - resistance or flight. So, what are these "values and judgments" of his time that Alexander fulfills so wonderfully? Even the Iliad starts with a Shepherd longing to go home, away from the "glory" of battle.

[amyntoros]

I've wondered about why people in the modern day "admire" Alexander on this forum before. I also qualified that I can understand why Romans would bestow the title "great" on him as they openly professed their admiration of violent conquest. If you take a close look at that great Roman monument Trajan's column, it's a celebration of orgiastic violence in the name of empire.

So, it's incredibly puzzling for me that people who would never openly espouse wars of conquest would profess admiration for a man whose claim to fame is being very good at organized violence and terrorizing people with the threat of violence. Surely we agree that these were his two primary modes of subjugating people - as much as we go on about Homeric ideals or Macedonian warrior culture or Hellenic civilization? No one would give a rat's behind about his battle plans, mummy and daddy issues, boyfriends/wives/eunuchs, friends, religiosity etc. if he hadn't been very good at killing people.

I think to understand why people may find things to admire in Alexander we each need to examine their views on him and not our own. Certainly I've never seen someone express their admiration as being based solely on his military conquests. As far as admiration and the "glamour of Alexander" (as discussed by the-accursed) is concerned, we should probably look to the mythos and the somewhat fairy-tale features of the histories - most of which can be heartily debated but not ALL of which is untrue. Note that I'm not expressing my own views via the compilation of the following list, but am indicating reasons why many people may find admirable qualities in Alexander. From my recollection I would say that following feature strongly: he was young, beautiful, and died at an early age, possibly by another's hand; he treated women with respect; he married for love; he loved his horse and his dog; he gave people the opportunity to surrender and often returned them to their former status when they complied; he accumulated great wealth but shared it freely with his friends; he was loved by his men; highly intelligent, he was educated by one of the greatest philosophers of all time; he was endowed with a pothos; he was cultured as shown by his love of poetry, the theater, and the arts; and most of all – his purpose in conquest was to spread Greek culture to the rest of the world! (There are probably many more attributes that I could add to the list, but that's all I can think of on the spur of the moment.)

Anyone coming to the study or debate of Alexander whose views are based on the above may have read Mary Renault as their first introduction to Alexander. Perhaps they saw only the movie, or based much of their opinion on Plutarch, especially his "On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander". Maybe they read Tarn when they were young and found him convincing. There are lots of reasons why a person may initially form one view of Alexander and someone else the antithesis.

This point is always countered by the argument that his "detractors" are not taking "his times and values" into consideration. I notice that this argument only comes into being when people are "criticizing" him but not when people are gushing their praise and admiration upon him. Positive judgments are still value judgments.

The above may arise because some of the "admirable" qualities in Alexander are based on values which are the same then and now. Demonstrated brilliance, trust in friends (and others), generosity, falling in love, loving animals; love of culture, etc. – all these are qualities which stand the test of time. Not that we don't offer arguments against the historical accuracy of any of the above – the current thread on Alexander and Roxane is a recent example – but Alexander's "times and values" do not usually come into consideration. However when they do and the person posting has an anachronistic view it is usually pointed out. This happens whether the member is an admirer or a criticizer of Alexander (see end of my post on my use of these two bold-faced words).

I'm also not in agreement that "Hellenic values" universally called for conquest and war. From my readings, to start a war, one had to show that they were the aggrieved party, indicating that open wars of aggression were not acceptable. About imperialism and conquest, there's more than enough Greek condemnation of Persia on these matters. It seems many viewed the Persian Great Kings as despots and the subjects as mere slaves.

Hence the reason that Alexander gave for his campaign - to avenge the Greeks for Persian atrocities! No matter whether Alexander may have had ulterior motives, he was smart enough to color it differently for the Greeks and for this I admire him (and his father ... and Isocates ). Not that the Greeks hadn't done similar amongst themselves. There was a seemingly constant shifting between who was seen as the aggressor and who claimed to be the aggrieved and they weren't immune to doing some spin doctoring of their own to justify war, IMO. Of course, most city states were not imperialists and although probably suspicious of Alexander's intent - perhaps even from the beginning - they really weren't in much of a position to do anything about it. Who but the Spartans – another monarchy – had the nerve to say "No. We're not going to avenge Greece against the Persians"?

I feel I should add one more comment here for our general membership. There was a time some years ago that I defended a new member who dared to be critical of Alexander. I recall saying that one didn't have to like Alexander to discuss him on Pothos. I think the situation may be reversing, at least on this thread. I want members who find any aspect of Alexander admirable to feel that their contributions are also encouraged. Some of us may use the sources to tear into their arguments, but it should never be implied that it is wrong to admire him for certain reasons. I'm also in agreement with Athenas-Owl that there's a sense that, if one doesn't outright say that he was all bad, all the time then you are an "admirer". This should not be and I wouldn't want to see people labeled (or feel that they are being labeled) simply because they don't agree with something that is said. However, if one looks at the direction of this thread the discussion is becoming about whether (and why) one is an admirer or a criticizer of Alexander. Pothos members certainly do not fall into only these two opposite camps. As I've said before, there is no black and white, no right and wrong when it comes to discussion of Alexander. Think shades of grey ... shades of grey

Best regards,

[Fiona]

I don't think this is the way admiration works. That is, within the context of the time period (and general values of that time period) of the admired person. People simply admire other people, in my opinion, because there are things about these other people they find admirable. Julius Caesar seems to have admired Alexander. But then Julius Caesar would have agreed that the world belonged to “the strongest”. Mary Renault, on the other hand, was a humane person, and so I doubt that she shared this opinion. Yet she still admired Alexander. And I believe that the attraction was and is the glamour that has come to surround Alexander's name. And the irony is, this glamour comes from one thing only: Alexander having been “the strongest”.

I wish that Mary Renault was here to answer this, but as she is not, and buoyed up by the encouragement of others who are too shy/nervous to post here, I will try.
I think you are right about the glamour. Alexander had star quality. He had youth, looks and charisma. This attracts people who are capable of admiring other people - those who have no problem admitting than someone else is better than they will ever be.
(May I just ask you something? Is there any one human being you can say you truly and wholeheartedly admire?)
The glamour, however does not, IMO, come from his having been the strongest. He could have lost every battle and died in penury, and I would still love him.
Why?
Easy, if I borrow Robin Lane Fox's words - "He did not believe in impossibility; man could do anything, and he nearly proved it."
You will see that so far, the admiration is of his person and his character, his personality. His achievements simply don't come into it. His acts do matter, of course, but only insofar as they illuminate the person.
Personally, I admire his acts too, because he followed his heart and did outrageous things, whether extremely good or extremely bad. Time and again he risked all to do this, and above all, he laid his own life on the line every time.
Fiona

[Fiona]

I think that admiration (or denigration) of a person that doesn't take into context his times and values is, generally, uninformed. If someone doesn't take into account Alexander's potential for brutality and the death he brought to, say, various Indian peoples, then I think their opinion of him is incomplete. Such a person may as well admire Hitler. Similarly, if someone defines Alexander primarily by that same potential for violence without taking into consideration the standards of his time, or the other facets of his persona, their comprehension of the man is incomplete; their criticism is not very fair.

Sheesh, Phoebus, Hitler's going a bit far. Hitler was a politician who never risked his own life like Alexander did. I think we've been here before with the brutality in India, and I have to say I think it's a bit patronising to the Indians to single them out for pity, as if they were incapable of defending themselves. They got invaded, and kudos to them for trying to chuck the invader out. They failed, but I'm not going to blame the invader for it. It would be very nice if everyone stayed home and minded their own business, but that's not the way the world has ever operated.

I think there's a bit more to be said on the 'standards of his time', because I don't think this has been stressed enough, or in the right way. (In general, I mean - not singling your post out at all)
Today, we generally have no problem seeing the whole of mankind as 'us'. Only animals are 'them' - and even that distinction is being blurred by the more extreme animal liberationists. Perhaps if aliens invaded, they would be 'them'.
In Alexander's youth, the people of your own city-state were 'us' and other Greek city-states were 'them'. By the end of his life, not only were other Greeks no longer 'them', but even Persians weren't. But to expect him to have extended that even to the Indian tribes is expecting too much advance in one man's lifetime. To him - to all Greeks - Indians would still have been 'them' - in other words, not much different to animals, and certainly not worth worrying about.
The deaths in India are often used as an example of Alexander's brutality, to which the usual defence is that he lived in a brutal time. My point is rather that he probably didn't see them as fully human, and therefore killing them wasn't (to him) brutal, any more than slaughtering animals at the hunt would have been.
If anyone doesn't believe me, let him/her reflect that in the nineteenth century, there were educated men and women who still questioned whether black people had souls.
Fiona

[Fiona]

So, it's incredibly puzzling for me that people who would never openly espouse wars of conquest would profess admiration for a man whose claim to fame is being very good at organized violence and terrorizing people with the threat of violence.

Well, people might not go so far as openly espousing wars of conquest, but they might not see them as such a shocking thing that anyone who indulges them is by that very fact rendered inadmirable. These things happen. They've always happened, they probably always will happen. Courage, daring, and self-sacrifice are admirable whether found in invader or defender, don't you think?

Surely we agree that these were his two primary modes of subjugating people - as much as we go on about Homeric ideals or Macedonian warrior culture or Hellenic civilization? No one would give a rat's behind about his battle plans, mummy and daddy issues, boyfriends/wives/eunuchs, friends, religiosity etc. if he hadn't been very good at killing people.

'Course they would. He could have been totally hopeless at it, but so long as he'd failed with the same pzazz he succeeded with, you bet people would still be interested. And they'd speak of him respectfully, too.

This point is always countered by the argument that his "detractors" are not taking "his times and values" into consideration. I notice that this argument only comes into being when people are "criticizing" him but not when people are gushing their praise and admiration upon him. Positive judgments are still value judgments.

Gushing? OK, fair enough - but how about this. I've heard that some people admire Napoleon. I don't, myself - I admit he was a great general, and his life and times are worth studying, but I certainly don't admire him. And I wouldn't waste a minute of my life on a forum dedicated to discussing him.

Fiona

[Fiona]

Anyone coming to the study or debate of Alexander whose views are based on the above may have read Mary Renault as their first introduction to Alexander. Perhaps they saw only the movie, or based much of their opinion on Plutarch, especially his "On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander". Maybe they read Tarn when they were young and found him convincing. There are lots of reasons why a person may initially form one view of Alexander and someone else the antithesis.

That's very kindly phrased, amyntoros, and so was your generous list which I just snipped for brevity, but isn't the underlying implication here - with that word 'initially' - that you think that only people who don't know very much can admire Alexander?
I've noticed this before, on other threads - a kind of 'Poor dears, once they've read as much as we have, they'll know better' attitude.

I feel I should add one more comment here for our general membership. There was a time some years ago that I defended a new member who dared to be critical of Alexander. I recall saying that one didn't have to like Alexander to discuss him on Pothos. I think the situation may be reversing, at least on this thread. I want members who find any aspect of Alexander admirable to feel that their contributions are also encouraged.

I think you are right that the situation is reversing. It makes me sad to think of friends who dare not post admiring comments for fear of the pasting they would get. Am I braver, or just dafter? I don't know. It is good to see you say that contributions should be encouraged.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Hi Amyntoros,

As usual I agree with most things in your post. Just a few things to add. My first introduction to Alexander was Robin Lane Fox and Mary Renault for fiction. I greatly admire RLF's work for its detail, original take on the ancient sources and the wonderful almost novelistic writing style. But at the same time, his tendency to slip into hero worship and apologia in places was jarring for me even in the first reading.

Renault's trilogy shouldn't be judged using the same criteria because she was, after all, writing fiction. I adore both Renault and Oliver Stone's sweet, sensitive, tender Alexander(s) but it's hard for me to imagine, for example, Alexander crying after the battle of Gaugamela. Maybe after his first skirmishes in his mid-teens, but he was a hardened veteran by the time he reached that battle. But again, that doesn't take away from the book or movie.

I really don't like placing people into camps of "admirers" and "criticizers". History would become inaccurately simplistic, and not to mention exceedingly dull, if we had to judge every character in it and label them "heroes" or "villains". However, I don't think pointing out the obvious place of violence in Alexander's career should have one labeled as a "criticizer". The reason why I (and perhaps some others) feel the need to do that once in a while is that we need to put things into context when discussing Alexander. He was first and foremost a conqueror. His "generosity" to Persian women or satraps took place in the midst of bloody wars and sometimes total chaos for the conquered. Mentioning this is not "denigrating" to him. In fact, I imagine that not mentioning this "achievement" of his would annoy Alexander greatly, if the coinage commemorating his victories is anything to go by. As much as I'm fascinated by historical figures like Alexander, I don't like the idea of using the glamour associated with the Alexander myth to ignore or dismiss the suffering that is caused by wars of aggression and conquest.

Regarding war propaganda - I was wondering about the nature of the Greek war propaganda and what it might tell us about the "values" of Greek societies (as much as any such generalization can have meaning). There seemed to be a need to justify aggressive war by shrouding it with a "legitimate" cause. Whether the Greeks or Persians actually believed Alexander or Phillip's reasons, I can't say for sure. But the degree of resistance in the Greek cities indicates to me that the Greeks didn't buy the story about their ancestors being avenged. Of course, Athens itself had its pseudo-empire, complete with the emulation of Persian gift-giving ceremonies, while decrying Persia's ambitions. So, the professed morals of the historians and philosophers they study didn't (don't?) necessarily guide the action of the leaders.

But the point of bringing it all up is to indicate that Greek war propaganda was different from the declarations of say Elamite, Roman or Spanish Conquistadors in that wars of aggression and conquest could not be openly declared. So, the idea that imperialism was a "value" that Alexander would have grown up with could be questioned. There's a thread Efstathios has started recently where this would be quite an appropriate discussion.

Take care

PS. Hm... Isn't this all a bit rich coming from someone whose screen name is a conqueror Alexander himself may have hero-worshiped?

[amyntoros]

Anyone coming to the study or debate of Alexander whose views are based on the above may have read Mary Renault as their first introduction to Alexander. Perhaps they saw only the movie, or based much of their opinion on Plutarch, especially his "On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander". Maybe they read Tarn when they were young and found him convincing. There are lots of reasons why a person may initially form one view of Alexander and someone else the antithesis.

That's very kindly phrased, amyntoros, and so was your generous list which I just snipped for brevity, but isn't the underlying implication here - with that word 'initially' - that you think that only people who don't know very much can admire Alexander?
I've noticed this before, on other threads - a kind of 'Poor dears, once they've read as much as we have, they'll know better' attitude.

Ah, I understand how you may have thought I was implying such, but that was not really my intent. Yes, I was explaining about people who may not know very much about the historical Alexander, but that doesn't mean I think they are the only people who can admire him. I suppose by addressing the term "admirer" I ended up focusing on an extreme. And let's be honest - total and unconditional admiration can sometimes be as frustrating to encounter as complete, unequivocal hostility! Personally, I think that there are many things to admire about Alexander and yet I find some things apalling even though I am aware of the historical context. But the fact remains that I am utterly fascinated by the man - why else would I have remained active on the forum for these years? And the same applies, IMO, to those at both ends of the extreme and everyone in the middle, to one degree or another. Love him or hate him, no one can say that Pothos members are indifferent.

Best regards,

[amyntoros]

Renault's trilogy shouldn't be judged using the same criteria because she was, after all, writing fiction. I adore both Renault and Oliver Stone's sweet, sensitive, tender Alexander(s) but it's hard for me to imagine, for example, Alexander crying after the battle of Gaugamela. Maybe after his first skirmishes in his mid-teens, but he was a hardened veteran by the time he reached that battle. But again, that doesn't take away from the book or movie.

I wasn't thinking of Renault’s fiction only, but had forgotten that many who discovered Alexander through her fiction probably did not go on to read her biography. I have to say this here – I absolutely LOVE her Nature of Alexander! Not that I agree with everything that she wrote – far from it, in fact – but her skill in convincing the reader that her Alexander is the truth is absolutely astonishing. I hate to use the word "manipulation" because I'm sure she believed every word that she wrote, but nevertheless it's the word that comes most often to mind when I read her book. If I were ever to write a book on Alexander (unlikely in the extreme!) I would want to do a thorough historiographical examination of The Nature of Alexander. And I would love every minute spent.

I really don't like placing people into camps of "admirers" and "criticizers". History would become inaccurately simplistic, and not to mention exceedingly dull, if we had to judge every character in it and label them "heroes" or "villains". However, I don't think pointing out the obvious place of violence in Alexander's career should have one labeled as a "criticizer". The reason why I (and perhaps some others) feel the need to do that once in a while is that we need to put things into context when discussing Alexander. He was first and foremost a conqueror. His "generosity" to Persian women or satraps took place in the midst of bloody wars and sometimes total chaos for the conquered. Mentioning this is not "denigrating" to him. In fact, I imagine that not mentioning this "achievement" of his would annoy Alexander greatly, if the coinage commemorating his victories is anything to go by. As much as I'm fascinated by historical figures like Alexander, I don't like the idea of using the glamour associated with the Alexander myth to ignore or dismiss the suffering that is caused by wars of aggression and conquest.

I agree, but as I said in my post above to Fiona, both extremes (or camps) can be frustrating to encounter when their views are delivered as absolutes. I think that's when the focus of a debate shifts from whatever is being discussed to Alexander=good versus Alexander=bad. The fact is, he was neither … and yet both. Like the rest of us, he was simply human. An exceptional human, it seems, or we wouldn't be avidly discussing him over two thousand years later! But human nevertheless ...

Regarding war propaganda - I was wondering about the nature of the Greek war propaganda and what it might tell us about the "values" of Greek societies (as much as any such generalization can have meaning). There seemed to be a need to justify aggressive war by shrouding it with a "legitimate" cause. Whether the Greeks or Persians actually believed Alexander or Phillip's reasons, I can't say for sure. But the degree of resistance in the Greek cities indicates to me that the Greeks didn't buy the story about their ancestors being avenged. Of course, Athens itself had its pseudo-empire, complete with the emulation of Persian gift-giving ceremonies, while decrying Persia's ambitions. So, the professed morals of the historians and philosophers they study didn't (don't?) necessarily guide the action of the leaders.

But the point of bringing it all up is to indicate that Greek war propaganda was different from the declarations of say Elamite, Roman or Spanish Conquistadors in that wars of aggression and conquest could not be openly declared. So, the idea that imperialism was a "value" that Alexander would have grown up with could be questioned. There's a thread Efstathios has started recently where this would be quite an appropriate discussion.

Interesting thought, although my contribution would/will be brief. I don't see Alexander as being limited by what we think of as "Greek" or "Hellenic" values. Although there were some similarities between Macedonia and the city states there was one striking difference. Macedonia was a monarchy and Philip certainly practiced a form of imperialism. I'm sure Alexander would have grown up with that "value".

Best regards,