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.
