pothos.org

Hey all,I read something, which I believe was in "the soul of battle" by Victor Davis Hanson, in which he said that the only reason Alexander stands out today is because of the "business" mind set. He also said that Alexander was not mourned, and he used Epaminondas as a reference for that, saying that Epaminondas when he died was mourned by all of the Greek world, while Alexander's death barely set out a tremor. I don't know much about Epaminondas, but my guess is that he stuck around the Greek world long enough to be respected and missed, while Alexander passed like lightning through the ancient world, how could he be adequately mourned?

Before the Malian arrow found it's target Alexander piled up a hill of bodies that fell before him so the Malians briefly thought for a moment, maybe there's something to the rumor that Alexander was a god, so they kept their distance and shot arrows also using slings and spears. Alexander fought *on* to a collapse but was protected and carried to safety while the rest of his army at hand slaughtered every soldier to all including women and children. The rumor at first was the king is dead so all of his common soldiers demanded proof that he was still alive.

The main important world continued to mint his coinage over two centuries after his death, his weaponry (huge cross bows as missiles were used often by the Romans and Calvary tactics were also utilized after the small portable artillery that Philip and Alexander developed that could be mantled and dismantled quickly to name a small few. The more than a few big kahuna generals after Alexanders death thought highly of Alexander from all of the world back then up until today, case in point; You ask anyone today that knows nothing of history if they have heard of ATG and they will all say yes, this question is no different after his death as it is today.

Epaminondas pales compared to Alexander *but* Athens never produced a statesman of more unblemished integrity and patriotism, or greater capacity for organizing men and handling them on the battlefield. He was a real genius in the military art, breaking away from the conventions of the old-style Laconian drillmasters, and developing new tactics that were later perfected by Philip and Alexander. especially when he attacked fiercely with his best troops (phalanx) to the left against the Spartans at Leuctra.

Was Epaminondas a great statesmen, tactician, and so on, yes! But there's no great after his name, he conquered the Spartans when their army did not have the total man power as they did for hundreds of years before. During Epaminonda's time Greece was Greece but under Alexander the world was the known world.

Hanson makes a valid point but personally I feel his reasoning falls short compared to Alexander but of course this is just my personal view.
Regards, Andrew

I recollect the quotation, but I don't recollect who said it. It wasn't the famous Theban Epaminondas, however, because he died in 362BC. So if it was Epaminondas, it was another one.I think it's in Plutarch (but not in the Life of Alexander(?)) - will have to look it up.All the bestMarcus

Hanson is not much of a scholar on Alexander. A typically careless statement from him.