How do you describe/explain Alexander in <= 4 sentences?

[comprocky]

Whether tomb of Alexander is in Syria or not? is not the current question.

The thing that he is not a gay or bisexual is most important.

He is the only person who could have stayed back in Persia and enjoyed all the riches there but he still prefered to move ahead and face the tragics of life.

He united all people of different races and different religion. Is that not important rather than fighting for a religion he fought for a cause of unitying people.

He didnot imposed greek culture on the conquered people. He did not looted their resources.

In battlefield many were killed by him but this is the rule of battlefield if he didnot killed them then they would have killed him. But ultimately he gave respect to their deads and the remaining survivals for the enemy camp. Is that not great.

That's the reason why he is the only emperor in the history who is praised even by the people whom he had conquered.

[Paralus]

The thing that he is not a gay or bisexual is most important.

He united all people of different races and different religion. Is that not important rather than fighting for a religion he fought for a cause of unitying people.

He didnot imposed greek culture on the conquered people. He did not looted their resources. That's the reason why he is the only emperor in the history who is praised even by the people whom he had conquered.

Right, as it seems the thread has followed the "Shatner" lead, I'd best add my quickly cobbled piece (with apologies to the Stones):

I stuck around at Pindar's town
When I saw it was a-time for rage
Killed the men sold women and child
The city I did raze

I rode a phalanx
Held Hellenic general's rank
When Greek mercenaries plead
On our sarissas they stank

Please to conquer you
You won't forget my name, oh yeah
If brotherhood confuses you
It's not the nature of my game, ah yeah

[marcus]

The thing that he is not a gay or bisexual is most important.

That might be your view, but I'm afraid it's not one that I share. Quite frankly, his sexuality is immaterial - especially if one is talking of his achievements. His sexuality had damn all to do with it, in my opinion.

He didnot imposed greek culture on the conquered people. He did not looted their resources.

Apart from the 180,000 talents of gold and silver he took from Persepolis, plus countless other stashes of wealth.

ATB

[Paralus]

Alexander was not "gay" or "bisexual". Those are modern terms, reflecting modern (Christian) mores. That you find them important (the ancient Greeks and Macedonians - self evidently - did not) indicates both your ignorance of- and the modern prejudice you bring to - the subject.

His one lifetime relationsip - outside that of his rather poisonous mother (whom he left) - was Hephaestion. He loved to no other person more than this and there is no doubt - in my mind - that it was sexual.

Marcus has already addressed the issue of the Persian silver and gold plundered by the conqueror on his anabasis. We should probably also ignore the the early trials of the London blitz - by the yet to exist Germans - which accidentaly set fire to Persepolis.

He never differentiated between the "Greeks and non-Greeks" unless they were Thebans, Tyrians or "non-Macedonians" - in which case they were settled in frontier "fort" towns mostly named "Alexandria-at-the-end-of-the-earth".

Sorry if it seems I'm not taking this as seriously as I should but, as you brought religion into it, I'm from a Judeo-Christian background and - as you may realise if you share that - idalotry is not a good look.

Your posts do not possess a good look.

[amyntoros]

Apart from the 180,000 talents of gold and silver he took from Persepolis, plus countless other stashes of wealth

Not to mention the natural resources necessary to feed a sizeable army and their followers as they traversed the lands!

I know what IGÇÖm about to say could get me into hot water because any true recognition of the nature of conquest tends to be interpreted by some as an insult to Alexander, but IGÇÖm going to continue anyway. There is a relatively small incident in the annals of AlexanderGÇÖs campaigns, but I have always wondered about the people who lived in huts buried under the snow. (Too lazy to look up an exact reference, but it was somewhere in the Sogdia/Bactria region or close by, I believe.) The Macedonians were passing through, freezing and desperate until they discovered the roofs and chimneys of these people and raided their houses, taking for themselves all the food and grain that the natives had stored to survive the winter. So what happened to these people? GÇô and IGÇÖm talking about families here, not soldiers. Were they taken prisoner and sent into slavery, or settled later in one of AlexanderGÇÖs new cities to serve the Greeks and Macedonians? Or were they left behind to simply starve to death now that their supplies were all gone?

Yes, I know AlexanderGÇÖs men had to survive and there was no other food to be found, so I wouldnGÇÖt expect him (or anyone else) to have done otherwise. However, here were a people who had offered up no resistance, yet one way or the other they suffered severely. THIS is the nature of conquest. This is the reality. One cannot take another peoplesGÇÖ land by force without causing suffering, even if it is not always intentional. Alexander wasnGÇÖt on a pilgrimage, he wasnGÇÖt on a mission of peace, he wasnGÇÖt out to GÇ£civilizeGÇ¥ the world GÇô he was there to conquer! This doesnGÇÖt mean that he canGÇÖt be admired for his many achievements and the nature of his rule, but this GÇ£benign conquestGÇ¥ theory is frustrating and nonsensical.

Best regards,

[Nicator]

1) Battlefield commander par excellence - no comparison (did have tall shoulders to stand on though)

2) A strategist "outside the box" (take out the Persian navy by land)

3) The consummate GÇ£psychologicalGÇ¥ player at court politics who could be generous and ruthless in equal measure GÇô almost like the flip of a coin.

4) Ambitious and absolutely wilful to the point of cold blooded murder GÇô GÇ£judicialGÇ¥ and otherwise GÇô when thwarted.

Something rarely noted, in addition to your insightful points, would be that Alexander was the superhero of his age. The age, I believe that was defined by him probably lasted until the fall of Rome, and possibly until the invention of gunpowder. In America, we have the comic book superhero "Superman". The visionary quality of a superhero as an icon has the power to change nations and the outcome of war, i.e...WWII in superman's case.

Also would add, that Alexander was a world changing phenomenon of the likes that we haven't seen since.

To nit-pick your point is pointless, but I'd just have to correct you with your verbiage in regards to him being a strategist. Clearly, his strategy was sound and perfect in regards to securing his flanks and meeting major geographical and political objectives. But it was Alexander's tactics that truly separated him from all others. Taking out the Persian Navy by land was a tactical decision, its results were strategic. Pushing north-east along well watered and cooler climes on the way to confront Darius was strategy (and perhaps just as militarily significant in historical context), the clever variation of the Epaminondas maneuver to engage and outmaneuver Darius was "out of the box" tactical brilliance.

That being said, I'd just like to compliment you on your little poem...very elegant!

[Aspasia]

WOW!!! Has comprocky got a slight chip on his shoulder??? Alexander who looked upon ALL HUMANS AS EQUAL- cannot NEVER be a gay-(sic). Is this a Freudian slip??

After all we're talking psychology aren't we- and "the psychological aspect of a gay....people who can't handle responsibilities ( can we get a reference here for this scientifically backed FACT).....they have characteristics of female in them such people can never be conqueror.... So it makes absolute sense that- All humans are equal (except those who are gay, have female characteristics or ARE female).

This is actually quite interesting. In Platos Symposium, we find an excellent illustration of the "upper class" attitude to "Love" at the time of Alexander or prior to. eg Pausanias- ' Common Love is genuinely "common" and undiscriminating in its effects; this is the kind of love that INFERIOR people feel (my capitals). People like this are attracted to women as much as boys, and to bodies rather than minds. ....to partners with the least intelligence....this love derives from the goddess who...is partly female and partly male in character.

'The other Love derives from the Heavenly goddess, who has nothing of the female...but only maleness....That's why those inspired with this love are drawn towards the MALE, feeling affection for what is naturally more vigorous and intelligent etc. Anyway, do we get the drift. There was, there seems, a general consensus at the time that "Love" between males was not only OK, but was to be aspired to as a higher form of love. As only males could have the type of qualities that could be truely loved.

camprocky, you do point out that homosexuality was not a "common" thing in ancient Greece. You are absolutely right..it was seen as being above common!!

[/quote]

[theaccursed]

What short descriptions/explanations do you use to explain Alexander?

The most unfortunate king in history.

[rjones2818]

TheAccursed:

That's an interesting term for him. Do you mind explaining what you meant? I can come up with at least 2 different meanings depending upon how you're using the term unfortunate.

[theaccursed]

TheAccursed:

That's an interesting term for him. Do you mind explaining what you meant? I can come up with at least 2 different meanings depending upon how you're using the term unfortunate.

I mean unfortunate as in "not favored by fortune" and "a person who suffers misfortune".

[Aspasia]

HI theaccursed. This is an interesting view point. Should a new topic be started? Was Alexander a fortunate or Unfortunate King? The way each individual views Fortune is relative etc, etc.. I always thought Alexander was favoured by fortune. How should fortune be measured in Alexanders case?

[Paralus]

I mean unfortunate as in "not favored by fortune" and "a person who suffers misfortune".

Geez theaccursed, I think that merits some discussion. In what ways unfortunate?

The ancients considered him very much Tyche's favoured son. Not sure I'd disagree with that.

[rjones2818]

It was a very interesting term to use. I can see him being unfortunate for having died at 32 (I tend to think he was murdered). If you haven't read "The Golden Vine" yet, I rate it very highly for it gives an idea as to what a world where Alexander lived until old age. It is a graphic novel, just in case.

Of course, I would say that we were unfortunate for his having died early.

[dean]

Hello,

I think that in terms of his military achievement- we can say that he was fortune's favorite- par excellence- once and again, he went to victory against unbelievable odds.
On the other hand, an image comes to mind- his men in India in rags looking all like old men- you can almost see their sad, downcast faces- I mean he claimed tens of thousands of talents in Susa after Gaugamela alone- it does seem that Alexander's pothos turned on itself.(oh my God , here I go getting all poetical) bit sad really.

Best regards,
Dean

[theaccursed]

rjones2818

HI theaccursed. This is an interesting view point. Should a new topic be started?

Hopefully not. That's what happened the last (and first) time I posted a reply in this forum. That time it was understandable, but I would prefer if it didn't become a trend.
My reply to your question was on topic. And you did ask for short descriptions, and that's exactly what you got (from me): a one sentence summary of my
opinion of Alexander. What follows, though, is not as brief.

rjones2818 and Paralus

Why "unfortunate"? Because ultimately, he got the opposite, or a distortion, of everything he ever wanted. And I'm refering here to his legacy and so called "fame" - not his deeds and "accomplishments" (it's not the ideal word) while he was still alive.

Alexander, no doubt, wanted fame...but has become infamous. He wanted, more than anything else (in my opinion) a chance to prove himself...but, by doing exactly that, ultimately only managed to prove (or add to) the greatness of pretty much everyone except himself: his army, Parmenion, the successors, his father, Olympias (and that I find horrifying)...and even his horse! (Who is, after all, still often described as having been "unusual" and "remarkable"). Even many of Alexander's opponents are still reasonably respected today. Such as, for instance, Memnon, Poros and the Tyrians. If they weren't successfull, then at least they were "brave". When Alexander, on the other hand, was "brave", he was being "reckless". And when he won, even against nearly impossible odds, he was being "lucky".

No military commander in history (and probably no person in any other field either) has ever been described as having owed his success to, simply, "luck" (and other external factors) as often Alexander. Curtius even goes so far as to say that Alexander, unlike all other people in history, even had luck under his concious control!

Under all normal circumstances (in my opinion), if someone is able to give that impression, the word that would normally be used to describe this phenomenon, is "genius". This is, ultimately (again - in my opinion), what genius in a military commander would look like - that is: nearly supernatural. But not in the case of Alexander. Apparently, with him, if he was successful, then the reason must have been some external factor - other people, "the gods" or even the supernatural ability to control "luck". And for someone like Alexander, who (in my opinion) knew from early on that he "had it" - and wanted the world to see and acknowledge this - and who proved it (or so he thought) by conquering that very same world - this is, indeed, "unfortunate".

I do think Ian Worthington's description of Alexander pretty well sums up the modern - or as some call it - "sober" - view of Alexander: a worthless soldier, a worthless commander and a worthless king. And no, not all "sober" (that is: non romantic) historians are as extreme as he is - but they're in the same ballpark. And this is - let's face it - the view of Alexander that has won. The game is over. Alexander may have been "invincible" during his lifetime, and admired by people such as Caesar and Napoleon, but after 2300 years he has, finally, been defeated - and in my opinion completely annihilated - by historians. Unlike Philip. Unlike Caesar. Unlike Hannibal.

And so I find it impossible to call Alexander "fortunate". Alexander is, in my opinion, being judged, not only by the standards of our time, but by a different standard than all other military commanders of antiquity. Where Caesar and Hannibal were "skilled", Alexander was "lucky". It's highly important to note that Alexander didn't create his army...but not that Caesar, and in fact most other commanders in history, didn't either. And: Pompey and Herod (and several others who lived after Alexander) were also called "the great". Yet, I've never seen any historian question their "greatness". There's no scholarly article titled "How great was Pompey?". There's no book titled "Herod - the ambiguity of greatness". Apparently, their "greatness" is so obvious that it's being taken for granted. Alexanders "greatness", on the other hand, is being questioned (and that's putting it mildly) not only by historians, but (and I think especially since Worthington's article) people in general with an interest in history. Furthermore: Alexander always won (while he was alive). One of the sources explains this by refering to the greatness of the army and it's "invincibility". In other words: how, with such an army, could he not have won? While I think highly of both that army and of Philip, they did fail a few times. And Caesar, too, lost a few battles - but won the wars. Hannibal, on the other hand, lost both a battle and, ultimately, the war. Yet, Philip, Caesar and Hannibal are still generally described as having been military geniuses. They, too (at least Caesar and Hannibal) slaughtered people en masse, and could be absolutely brutal (as could Philip) - but people with an interest in military history can still admire them. And in my opinion, Alexander's starting position wasn't exactly "fortunate". It's true that he had a great army. But he also had very little money, and was surrounded by nations (if that's the proper word) that wanted Macedon destroyed, and Alexander himself killed. 5 years later he was the richest and most powerful person on the planet. In the (ca.) 23 years that Philip was king, he ultimately did not create a stable empire. With a weaker successor, after his death the macedonian empire could have fallen apart.Yet, Alexander is being criticized for not having created a stable empire out of, essentially, "the world" - and in half that time - and a time where he was constantly busy fighting armies, hunting down enemies, besieging cities. I think it's unreasonable. And I think it would be considered unreasonable, had only the conqueror in question been someone else than Alexander.