pothos.org

Alexander 's aim was to explore the east and to discover new culture and bring Greek culture on the model of Athens, It' clearly difficult to explain it because English is not my first language But we can say that he was like christopher colombus when he reach the west Indies.
However, Alexander did not integrated all territories in His Empire so that's why after his death the Empire was quickly "desintegrated"...


Best regards.

Hello,
Archange said,

I think you are right this times are not really different from today... It was the result of a political choice and not an ideal of a "melting pot". Alexander considered him as "pure" as the king of a "pure nation"' (Macedonia) who had the mission to civilized and to regent the world with "democratic values".

Quote:
I don’t think that Alexander can be described as seeing a need for freedom from slavery and oppression.


I think That is true, Greek values and the greek society are strongly opposed to the fact that slaves get freedom... That will mean that the greek society would have been changed totally... The slaves would had had the same right that a noble in the city... see spartakus in the rome empire... there's no philosophy of freedom... Also I think that turning captives into salves was not an idea from Alexander but from Athens and the other greek cities but it' true far from the natal Macedonia, turning captives into slaves was not realistic.

It seems that now I have worked out why Kenny has started a post "pure blood doesn't exist"

Here goes fifty cents more,

I found the following on this website http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch10.htm

According to Aristotle the state should follow the same morality that applies to individuals. He believed that the state should be a moral agent. But he believed that a superior people should rule over an inferior people, just as it was better that tame animals be ruled by humans rather than allowed to run wild. The superior people, according to Aristotle, were the Greeks. Greeks, he believed had the high spirit of "the northern races" and the intelligence of "the eastern races," and as a result they had a higher civilization than others. Here was Aristotle's rationale for slavery. In his ideal society the tillers of soil would be barbarian serfs or slaves rather than citizens. He wrote that Greeks should not be slaves but that they should be slave owners. Here he got his classes and sub-classes mixed, believing that justice was served by any dull-minded individual Greek being master to the brightest of foreigners.

Thucydides writes of the fear of torture being used by the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War. And in Athens, the torture of slaves was commonly used as a source of truth for litigation. Generally, it was against the law in Athens to torture citizens.Aristotle believed in torture for eliciting truth from slaves. "Torture is a kind of evidence," he writes, "which appears trustworthy, because a sort of compulsion is attached to it." Torturing slaves for testimony was common among the Greeks. Aristotle recognized that a person being tortured might say whatever the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the torture, but he accepted it for use against foreigners and slaves - in other words, barbarians. The slave master, according to Aristotle, had reason and therefore could choose to go around the truth. A barbarian, like a simple child, would merely tell the truth.

I don't think we are going off the subject of Alexander here because Aristotle was Alexander's father in an intellectual way, so,

The view of Aristotle is that of the Greeks being something of a "master race"- with the Greeks being at the top of the tree- although obviously Alexander didn't follow through on this teaching- his "philosophy" was "extremely simple- a) if you show complete surrender then you will be allowed to carry on as you are now but under our flag-in this batch we have Ambi, king of Taxila- he welcomed Alexander unconditionally and of course Alexander and him got on like a house on fire

but b) if you show the slightest bit of resistance then you will be bulldozed and wiped off the face of the earth. There were exceptions- Musicanus found out the hard way- initially showing submission and then trying to outwit Alexander. The outcome? He was crucified in his own city.Ouch.

On the bit about the concept of "torture" Aristotle seems wise and yet once again, Alexander did his own thing. Hephaestion was ordered to torture Philotas(which I bet he did with a smile on his face)- and the idea to me seems basically of applying enough pain until the desired result is heard.

It is amazing to ponder just what effect and real influence if any Aristotle had on his pupil.

Best regards,
Dean(and I apologise if I have used up about 2MB for this post.)

Dean Hail

Indeed was the reason I started the pure blood thing. It has everything to do with Alexander. Aristotle was basically the first preacher of the so called master race and indeed Alexander knew how narrow this was to rule and I believe Aristotle had no influence on Alexanders thinking nor his life.

If he had and treated the Persians as Barbarians then he would have had more trouble than he could handle. As far as the Greek supremecy goes its total rubbish. The Greeks only ever achieved anything when the Macedonians were bossing them.

Were it not for Philips and Alexanders vision the whole Idea of Hellas would have gone no further than the Hellespont. Before Alexander the Greeks were pussy footing and back stabbing for The Great Persian kings gold. Then following the fall of Macedonian power the Greeks were getting it up the back from the Romans.

Ever since the Greeks have been on there knees through a succesion of Conquerers the Ottomans the last. Greeces glory is its staues and monuments. The peoples and armies are kinda Andy Pandy or looby loo.

If it were not for tourism and Alexanders heritage Greece would be a third world country. Without the name of Alexander the Great. Greece has no glory.

Kenny

As far as the Greek supremecy goes its total rubbish. The Greeks only ever achieved anything when the Macedonians were bossing them. Very Happy

Were it not for Philips and Alexanders vision the whole Idea of Hellas would have gone no further than the Hellespont. Before Alexander the Greeks were pussy footing and back stabbing for The Great Persian kings gold. Then following the fall of Macedonian power the Greeks were getting it up the back from the Romans.

Ever since the Greeks have been on there knees through a succesion of Conquerers the Ottomans the last. Sad Greeces glory is its staues and monuments. The peoples and armies are kinda Andy Pandy or looby loo. Shocked

If it were not for tourism and Alexanders heritage Greece would be a third world country. Rolling Eyes Without the name of Alexander the Great. Greece has no glory.

Kenny

I will give you about half a day to reconsider what you have written because you are obviously under the influence of alcohol.

Greece would be nothing without Alexander? No glory? Must i remind you that the whole western civilization is based on Greek ideas? There is not one single theory or idea that was non-Greek. The whole illumination period was based on Greek theories, and it;s representatives such as Russo,Decart and Galileo, expanded them.

Plus Alexander thought that if people recieved the same hellenic education (which he thought was the best, and it was), they could be equal.So it doesnt matter what Aristotle said.Everyone has his/ her oppinion.Not all Greeks agreed with Aristotle.

You are jumping from Alexander to the Ottoman empire.Surely you havent read about the Byzanitine empire, which from a point on became a purely Greek empire.And it lasted 1.000 years.And has many achievements in science and in other arts.

Surely you dont realise that if it werent for the Byzantine empire now half of europe could be under Ottoman occupance.Surely you dont realise that if the Greeks hadnt fought their asses off at 1940 stalling the Germans from Russia, now things could be very different in world history.I dont say it.Churcill said it.

Surely , you need to read a lot more before posting statements like these.So, either you are ignorant or just an anti-hellen, in which circumstance there is nothing that can be done about it.

Efstathios wrote:Must i remind you that the whole western civilization is based on Greek ideas? There is not one single theory or idea that was non-Greek. The whole illumination period was based on Greek theories, and it;s representatives such as Russo,Decart and Galileo, expanded them.

Well, Greek/Roman. The "Western Churches" are still dominated by the "emperor" Benedict (now, now, I'm a Roman Catholic….we'll leave the Pythons out). Much of our scientific nomenclature (not to mention legal) is Latin. And, of course, we still use concrete.

I might neither go so far as Kenny nor put it in the same way, but, had there been no Roman conquest of the Greek east, it most unlikely there will have been a Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) of which to speak. The Hellenistic kingdoms, although enjoying periods of stability – or détente – energetically eroded each other over the centuries. Indeed, it was the main factor contributing their absorption by successive Roman Consuls and their legions. First as petitioner kingdoms, then client kingdoms, then vassal kingdoms and, inevitably, battlefields of phalangite food halls for Roman Legions and their generals for whom the delights of Greek eastern smorgasbords were only bettered by triumphs larger than the Palatine hill.

Internal decay and military atrophy will have seen the Persians (Parthians) ascendant throughout much of the Greek east had not Rome intervened methinks.

Efstathios wrote:Plus Alexander thought that if people received the same Hellenic education (which he thought was the best, and it was), they could be equal. So it doesnt matter what Aristotle said. Everyone has his/ her opinion. Not all Greeks agreed with Aristotle.

True, not everyone agreed with Aristotle. The attitude was rather a prevailing one though. In as much as Alexander may or may not have agreed with his tutor, his attitude was shaped by rather more crude and practical considerations. Whilst the "education" given to those that will have received it – not all to be sure, he was unlikely to bother with those poor sods given shovels to turn same in the effort to support his Alexandrias – may have included Homer or Euripides, the vast bulk of it will have been military education in the "Macedonian manner". This, again, based on his father's policy of holding the nobility "hostage" via their sons as pages. Alexander proposed exactly this with his "successors". He was not planning to send them to the Greek version of Oxford or Yale.

As well, I find it very difficult to conceive of any Greek city state achieving what Philip and Alexander did. There was not ever any serious inclination to join together in some Panhellenic crusade to the east. None of the major city states were interested despite the whining of Isocrates; the moralising, Laconian apologia that is Xenophon's Hellenica or the grandiose posturing of Agesilaos, who, when a Persian naval nod led to a Konon Cnidus wink, blinked first and was brought back to the reality: the push of Persian silver readily became a city sate shove.

These people were the exceptions. For the rest, the city states were totally self interested and the Ionian and (in some cases, the islanders) other Greeks of Asia Minor were simply chattels to be bartered away for Persian largesse.

I concurr about the Byzantine empire.It was a continuation of the Roman empire, and later on it adopted it's own colour, and steadily became a Greek one.The last emperor, Konstantinos Palaiologos had almost nothing to do with the early ones like Julian.

Things happened as they did.We are not examining "ifs" here. Though there is a debate what would have happened if the Romans hadnt invaded Greece.Some people say that the Greeks were on some sort of decay during the last century before the Romans, and that they prefered to sit and philisophize and make scientific theories without putting them to action.This is partly right and wrong.

After the discovery of the "Anticethera mechanism" and some other things, it is clear that they have put in action some of these scientific theories.People tend to stay at the military aspects of the era, and forget that there have also lived many bright minds at the hellenistic period and up to the Roman conquest.Such as Arhimedes.He was probably one of the greatest scientists after the classical era.Among the things that he built was alledgedly the Anticethera mechanism, which as we can see today is a highly advanced astronomical-navigational istrument, the system with the mirrors that burned down the Roman ships, and Syrracusia, the largest ship ever built until the 19th century.And many other things.

If the Roman conquest hadnt occured maybe steadily there would have been an industrial or some form of it, era.The base was there.Then of course there are other aspects, like religions, Christianism, and the things that happened later, we dont know what would have happened, but anyway, the main thing is that the whole construct of todays world is back there.

Had it not been for Democritus, would Einstein or someone else have thought of and expanded the atom theory? Einstein himself said that he owed it all to Democritus.

So saying that the Greeks achieved things only under Philip and Alexander is utterly wrong.Alexander expanded to the east.His expedition and conquest has almost nothing to do with this.We are not talking about military aspects here.The "Greek supremacy" that you are talking about Kenny was in the mind.The arts, and the science.

And of course people have evolved since then.It's not fair to say that everything that there is is due to Greek ideas.But more or less the basis was there.

Have you reconsidered yet Kenny?

P.S i dont like where this is going.So i will not reply to the post again, and or other similar posts.lets keep it to the subject here.