pothos.org

hello, my name is brian, im a composition student at roscommon high school, and i am writing a paper on alexander the great. i was wondering if perhaps some one might be of some assistance? my focus question is "what motivated alexander to conquer the world and by what means did he do so." i am having a very good time with researching the topic, but im having a rather hard time supporting my clames. i have stated im my paper that alexander was motivated because his fater king phillip left him the responsibility, he was getting revenge and liberating the conutries that were prevously taken , and that he was never satisfied (pothos)i would be very much obliged if some one were to give me some input or to direct me to any books/web sites. thank you
`brian
ps. mad props on this web site it has given me alot of information about my topic

The answer is essentially unknowable--the
sources do not allow us to "get inside"
Alexander's head. The explanations you
provided--paternal mission, revenge, liberation,
and pothos--are all given by one or more of our
historians (all secondary sources) at one point
or other in their texts. At least three--and maybe
pothos--can be securely traced to contemporary
rhetoric, either directly to Alexander or to his
apologists. That these explanations were
advanced in his name is some sort of insight,
but it doesn't get you "inside" his head..The question can, however, be turned around.
These "justifications" were more in the way of
hortatory sentiments than excuses. Ancient
Greeks did not feel a modern compuction over
war generally. Alexander did not need to justify
his actions to the UN or to Macedonian public
opinion. But if it did, it would have met with
hearty approval. Conquest wasn't something to
be ashamed of or which required special
pleading. Doing ill to your enemies was a moral
standard and profitable wars were an unmixed
good. If such a war could ALSO be revenge or
etc., well, so much the better!.Incidentally, Pothos is generally involked for
Alexander's more-than-military adventurism.
Naked imperialistic aggression for profit was all
fine and good, but there seemed no good
reason to trudge on forever through poor and
excessively hostile Indians...

In addition to the points Tim has listed there are also possibilities that Alexander, on some level, was attempting to compete/emulate/surpass the achievements of Greek Gods and Heroes. The parallels often drawn are with Herakles, Achilles and Dionysus, due to Alexander's mythological family tree being drawn from the first two named, whilst Dionysus was a popular God in Macedonia and a noted favourite of Alexander's mother Olympias.Furthermore it was possible for ancient Greeks to attain heroic status through their achievements in life. In rare cases they could even be raised to God-hood themselves; though not normally during the course of their mortal lives. There is a lot in Alexander's story to indicate that he wished to be worshipped as a God in recognition of his earthly achievements. His visit to Siwa is often mentioned and this theme gathers pace the farther Alexander travels east. This quest for divinity would be a powerful motivation for Alexander to continue his conquests as far as he could.With regards to the how he achieved them. Well you would need to consider the military and political situation that Alexander confronted. His undoubted military ability (read genius)as a leader of men, and his single minded determination to achieve his goals (being ruthless as required). The 'how' could not be considered adequately without regard to the achievements of his father Philip (whose memory he may also have been competing with!), who did much of the ground work. regards,Kit.

Again, we know that such motives--surpassing
Heracles, Dionysus and Achilles--were
ascribed to Alexander, but we can't know if they
were really his or not. Certainly Alexander had
an extraordinary "drive," which found various
explanations in antiquity, but, most scholars
would agree Alexander's *actual* psychology
must forver elude us. .Only a very very few ancient people are known to
us well enough allow something like a modern
psychological biography--Cicero and the
emperor Julian, maybe. This is party about the
lack of evidence and partly because ancient
ways of writing about psychology are, by modern
standards, quite impoverished. For Alexander
we have a lot of evidence, but it's not the right
kind. Alexander's personality and motives were
a hot topic in his own day, and contemporary
descriptions are full of bogus flattery and
baseless invective. And we don't even have
those sources, but sources *based* on them.
So, when it comes to Alexander's personality,
instead of the thing itself , we have shadows
thrown up on a wall by puppets. Help me before
I get Platonic..The thread just below this is about Alexander,
Dionysus and Heracles, so more there.

Let me add that just because we can't get into
Alexander's head doesn't mean we're *totally* at
a loss about his motivations. If ancient
descriptions of his character are suspect we
can at least rely on well-attested actions.
Alexander's actions suggest something more
than a calculating military politician. So, for
example, it's hard to understand why Alexander
visited Siwah without reference to psychology,
although it has been tried. Any number of later
events confirm this, and invite us to speculate
on his state of mind.

I believe the ancient term for the visit to Siwah would be 'public relations' Tim Some things really never do change...

Could be. Despite being Egyptian, Siwah was a
known and respected quantity in the Greek
world; it's say-so would carry weight. But--and I
confess I haven't looked at the evidence
recenty--I don't think the motivation is strong
enough for the effort and delay, nor the
message sufficiently clear and useful. How do
you see the value?

Exonerating his family from his father's death and in fact,putting Philip's death behind him. The rumor mill would have ceased (but only for a time)with the added bonus of what was certainly a planned compliment to him about being the son of a God so to speak. Alexander himself may have said nothing out of his own lips about what was said, but such places were in the business of pleasing patrons, and Alexander, not unpredictably, heard what he wanted to hear and so did those who were with him and therefore, so did the troops.The public relations campaign by Alexander is every bit as brilliant as anything else he did.