pothos.org

Jona.If you consider Alexander a mass murder and commiyer of atrocities, I wonder why you are a member of a group that is dedicated to the memory and study of Alexander.Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but would you walk into a church and start slagging jesus off, we could say Jesus was a cause of mass murder with the killing that has gone on in his name and in other religions, there followers would argue that the gave us free will, but if Jesus was who he said he was, he must have the power to call back and put right all the misinterpretations that have been made by powerful men to there own ends.I agree that the Isue of Alexanders Greekness is irrelevent today, but at the same time it is relevent to us as we as Alexander studiers fully understand what the Greeks thought of Alexander.Some people say they are Greek because the share similar dialects, well the Scots share the Enlish dialect but alas are Scots and not English. RegardsKenny

"Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but would you walk into a church and start slagging jesus off, we could say Jesus was a cause of mass murder with the killing that has gone on in his name and in other religions..."There are two differences. (1) This is not a church but a place of study. We are here to study Alexander, not to praise him unconditionally.(2) Jesus never ordered executions, Alexander did. If I have counted correctly in Book 4-6 of Arrian, Alexander ordered at least six times the execution of fugitives and/or POWs (Arigaion, Massaga, Sangala, the Mallians [twice], Mousikanos, Oreitans) and Diodorus add the Sagalasseis. This was, by any standard ancient or modern, a war crime. There is simply no evidence that Jesus ever did something similar. Instead, he turned the other cheek.Jona

Hi Kenny,I'm sure that Jona is quite capable of fighting his own battles, but I do feel I have to jump in here.Acknowledging, accepting (or whatever) that Alexander had a propensity for extreme brutality, mass murder, increasing paranoia, etc. etc. etc. does not make one 'unworthy' of devoting time and intellectual energy to studying him. Indeed, some of the foremost Alexander historians have made their names and reputations on exploring the 'darker' aspects of Alexander's character and history. It doesn't even stop one from admiring Alexander (although obviously one should be careful about turning admiration into emulation - they ban video games for that sort of thing ).Above all, surely this site is far more interesting and useful if people can share and discuss different views and opinions. We get enough people sharing their views about subjects that have nothing to do with Alexander, after all; so it would be a shame if we didn't get decent debate (although hopefully with a little more intellectual backbone than the Greek/FYROM sniping) about the site's actual subject. Anyway, to equate this site with any focal point of organised religion might be flattering to Thomas and those who run the site; but it is going a bit far! On the other hand, churches and their counterparts in other religions are not universally known for their encouragement of debate about the tenets of their belief, so perhaps your analogy, as far as the thrust of your post is concerned, is not that far out ... :-)Anyway, I don't remember ever thinking that Jona doesn't admire Alexander - whether or not it's a crime to acknowledge his failings. However, that's for Jona to answer, perhaps.All the bestMarcus

HelloThis was something I would like to talk about.
I belong to another group that discusses ancient history in general and one of the members is anti-Alexander. I respect her view and yet I can't quite figure out why anyone can't read about Alexander and not be left with a sense of awe etc.etc. however I don't see it as such a big deal. I certainly don't get upset about it.And regarding the Macedonian debate- I see the site's policy as very intelligent. The debate is something that is NEVER going to be resolved to the satisfaction of everybody participating, or is it?Alexander lived in a very brutal world where terrible things happened (as unfortunately they still do today- cf massacre of Tutsi refugees.) sometimes he was responsible for the terrible things that happened- cf Thebes and I think that understanding these happenings is important too to fill in the jigsaw puzzle.
Best regards,
Dean.

Frankly, there's too much modernism in Alexander study as well as politics. Even I gotta wonder about comments comparing Hitler and Stalin to Alexander. What, because they killed people they must all be the same? Now there is a perfectly legitimate debate about whether Alexander was Macedonian or Greek in his time, emphasis on his not ours. For me the answer to that one is simple. The only thing that matters is what Alexander thought of himself and considering his ancestral claims, it is quite clear. This is less clear with the Macedonian people themselves because we tend to mix in our own modern viewpoints of what we think a particular ethnic group is or what makes them that or another. And we tend to forget who wrote the history and why. Too much emphasis is placed on source analysis and not on the why.Differing opinions be what they may, but if you can't figure out why the Greeks and Macedonians would try to claim Alexander as their own, you've missed the whole point of his story. But then again maybe that's my 'evil' American POV :-)Regards,Tre

"Frankly, there's too much modernism in Alexander study as well as politics. Even I gotta wonder about comments comparing Hitler and Stalin to Alexander."This is not how I see it. There are, in my opionion, simply two levels of analysis. As a historian, you must give a historical judgment, and modernism is wrong. For example: Alexander did A, B, and C, and his contemporaries thought X, Y, and Z about A, B, and C. For example: if all our sources agree that Alexander ordered the execution of people that had already surrendered at Massaga, we can assume that this is more or less what happened; and as a historian I can add that the ancients condemned this as well.This gives us a narrative about the past. But studying the past is, in itself, a rather useless activity. It's just one damn' thing after another. Personally, I think that establishing these facts is pointless, and I think that we need to give an ethical judgment too. You may call this metahistory. (Perhaps this word already exists and means something else, but I hope you get my idea.) It is necessary if we want history to have meaning to us. So, on the one hand, there's the historical judgment ("Nixon ordered the Watergate cover-up"); on the other hand, we are entitled to think about the past and judge it according to modern standards ("It was a scandal and is not to be repeated"). Provided that a historian makes a clear distinction between these two levels of analysis, I see no problem.Jona

I see no reason why anyone can't belong to any group discussion so long as his input aids and helps in understanding the subject.I agree that Alexander killed many people, individually and en masse. Floods, hurricanes, and other acts of nature do the same. All called acts of god.As Alexander deems himself a god, (an in my ability to recollect memories of him, I know why he thinks that way), it appears that God's will in that day and age is to take out the opposition and seed the new empire with the culture that will grow and flourish there. Whether you like it or not, weeds and flowers cannot grow along side each other.Such it was with the cities who did not submit to Alexander's will. Those who were smart, wise, and wanted to survive simply surrendered and Alexander treated them fairly. Those who showed resistance prove that the point and purpose of an army is to enforce one's will and mission. Without his army, Alexander could do nothing at all.As in all survival of the fittest, Phillip of Macedon had begun the nucleus of the army that Alexander developed, and as in the game of Risk, which if you don't yet know how to play, I suggest you learn, he acquired more and bigger forces as he won more important battles. I understand why it is that people who resisted and rejected his belief may not like him, but his will and his belief is that he was performing God's mission, and as he succeeded with such consistency, he truly became the TRUE King of Asia which is his rightfully all along. Yet, he had to prove it in defeating any and all opposition.After Persia, he takes on India, and there is dispute as to who does conquer who, as the Indians like to think that India conquered Alexander, but the reality is still that the records prove that Alexander won the battles and the war, and thus, India too.In all of war, one either surrenders to the greater or is killed. Alexander is considerably more than a genius. He is like St. Francis of Assis has said, an instrument of war. His greatness is in his ability to designate authority, to accept the system within that he has already conquered, and to add it to his own culture that he is implanting.It matters not whether he killed 6, 60, or 600 people at once; it matters that they resisted him, and should have surrendered to him. Alexander's (God's) will be done!Such is his story.

That would depend on whether one thinks judging the ancients by modern standards is at all valuable. It serves no purpose.

Mass killings, murders, torture etc etc...what else is new? If Alexander had W.of M.D. would he have used them, such a like dropping a nuclear bomb on a country and thereby annhialating thousands and thousands of people in one go? He was a warrior, and so were other people of his time (he was followed by the Romans who were very brutal). Of course there were murders (usually these were becayse of treason but a couple were moments of passionate drunkeness,unfortunately.) Times never really change. Just check out what's going on right this moment. Do we hang the tag of 'mass murderer' on the likes of today's leaders??? (come to think of it there's a couple of them out there that really should be tarred with that brush!)

Beautifully articulated Jan,It's been said many times throughout history:Kill a few people they call you a murderer, kill thousands (millions) they you a conqueror. That goes with all times.In ancient times, example had to been made for numerous reasons. If you didn't commit this act of cruelty, by modern standards, no one would have took you seriously. Alexander knew this well and so did his men.

i have just found this site oh about 6 weeks ago. i love it. i feel that i can only enter into small discussions because i don't know enough to keep up with you guys but i read am become enlightened. i love this site, think it;s smart. i makes me angry when somone puts it down. because of this site i'm reading the "nature of alexander" mary renault and will read many more books. you have great influence on alexander admirers. keep up the great work. i thank you tina rollsrite

Tina Welcome to our ilustrious group, thanks for you nice comments,continue with you reading of Alexander read many books and Im sure as we all have in this group got our own Ideas what Alexander was and what he was about, Alexanders story is endless.regardskenny

Thank you, Andrew, I appreciate your kind words. Jan

JanAre you suggesting that Alexander is a God ? Is this in the context of a god or demi-god of the Greek pantheon (like Heracles), or, if not, what sort of god ?Susan

I agree Tre. Whilst it is tempting to draw parallels with the modern world it is ultimately pointless. Where do we draw the line- people will be applying our ethical standards etc to cavemen next!Kit