pothos.org

Hail Porthonians

We just had a series on Sky called Civilisation and war. And a statement was made towards the end of one programe about Alexander wich bears testament to his achievements. It was recorder that Alexander was the most succesful Westewrn Conquerer towards the East. Alexanders realm reached farther East than any other empire and the record stood till the advent of Gunpowder.

The programe was pretty positive and sometimes I little negative. I kinda smile when a proffesr was extoling Alexander for his acheivenct and most of all his logistical thought he finaly said Be wasnt the kind of guy to go out drinking with on a Saturday night making Reference to the Clietus affar. I can listen to these academics. they will attack Alexander his methods atrocities and state of mind but as a rule none can argue or mess about with his strategical command nore his achievemnts. Alexanders thought etc are shaded with grey areas but the facts and achivements are basicall set in stone.

Just to think this strategical and logistical genius would Struggle agains Antipater and his cronies and the Romans. I think not.

Kenny

kennyxx wrote: It was recorded that Alexander was the most succesful Western conquerer towards the East. Alexander's realm reached farther East than any other empire and the record stood till the advent of Gunpowder.

Hi Kenny,

Hmmm. I suppose they were trying to say that he went from "furthest west" to "furthest east"; because as he didn't really conquer any further east than the Persians had done previously, that comment has to be one of the dumbest. If they are discounting the Persians because they were already further east than Alexander, then I can accept it - but, to be honest, it's still a bit facile.

And, to be honest, to say "before the advent of gunpowder" is a bit disingenuous - why didn't they just say "before the British Empire"? except, of course, that they'd then have to investigate all sorts of other major issues such as improved navigation, the Dutch East India Company, etc. etc. etc. ... nope, it's still a rather empty and rather silly thing for them to have said.

Oh well - it's the sort of thing they do in TV programmes to make them more exciting, even if they don't make an awful lot of sense.


ATB

marcus wrote:Oh well - it's the sort of thing they do in TV programmes to make them more exciting, even if they don't make an awful lot of sense.

Yes - it's what they like to call a "tag line". And, I agree, bloody rediculous. The Persians had indeed been as far east and had encountered the same intractible problem: the Indians. It is debatable just how much direct control was excercised over the Indian provinces by Persia. Most likely little more that Alexander who promptly gave authority back to the locals (through a Macedonian "satrap") in his name.

And, some of those "shaded" areas are a little like a television minus power: pretty dark.

Paralus wrote: Yes - it's what they like to call a "tag line". And, I agree, bloody rediculous.

It's a bit like the habit they have on TV of saying "new evidence has come to light ..." which usually means simply that it's quite old evidence that just hasn't been discussed on TV before - a great way of hooking in viewers, with which I don't have a particular problem.

A great example was a series we had in the UK a year or so ago, called "Britain BC". In it the presenter discussed "new evidence" that suggested the Romans were actually invited over to Britain, and that some of the British chieftains were already fairly Romanised. Er ... hardly "news", that.

As I say, I don't have a problem with that - but I have more of a problem with the sort of comment we're discussing here, which is actually meaningless, but sounds darned impressive, and can all too easily hook people into misunderstanding. It's the sort of thing that leads to these Internet rumours that end up in 'good' newspapers, such as "Alexander had epilepsy" and "Alexander hated cats" ...

Cheers