pothos.org

Im wondering if the definition is primarily European. Pro Roman days.

Maybe the Romans were the first to call him the great. If not then if it was later European. Would Alexander have still been called Alexander The Great. If his conquests did include Europe.

if The Romans had Conquered only the Middle east outward. Would Ceasar etc be labeled great?

jasonxx wrote:Im wondering if the definition is primarily European. Pro Roman days.

Maybe the Romans were the first to call him the great. If not then if it was later European. Would Alexander have still been called Alexander The Great. If his conquests did include Europe.

if The Romans had Conquered only the Middle east outward. Would Ceasar etc be labeled great?

An interesting thought - had Alexander gone elsewhere, would he still be known as great? I think it would be very hard to say. Had he not been driven towards Asia, perhaps his dreams and ambitions would have gone elsewhere. I'm not trying to take this off topic, but if Alexander had been born to a farmer, would he still have wanted to conquer the world? Alexander was greatly influenced by the people around him - especially his parents. If Alexander had not been born as a possible heir to the Macedonian throne, maybe we wouldn't be here discussing him.

If Alexander did go in Europe, I would like to still think of him as great. Had he done the same feats, I would still respect him, regardless of where he went. Yes, the Europeans might have had biast thoughts, but his actions can't be easily disputed. Alexander wouldn't have faded, though. We must remember that great and good don't always mean the same thing. I suppose Alexander would have been great even if he went against Europe. After all, powerful Asian countries also have some respect for him. That is only my humble opinion, though.

jasonxx wrote:Im wondering if the definition is primarily European. Pro Roman days.

Maybe the Romans were the first to call him the great. If not then if it was later European. Would Alexander have still been called Alexander The Great. If his conquests did include Europe.

if The Romans had Conquered only the Middle east outward. Would Ceasar etc be labeled great?

Well, we call him "the Great" because the Romans did. Perhaps if they hadn't, he would still be "Alexander of Macedon" to us. Perhaps some later writer would have given him the soubriquet, and we would call him it now.

I think it has more to do with the legacy of the Romans than on the geographical area he conquered.

ATB

Interesting point marcus... So thereforre why were no Romans made Great?

Kenny

jasonxx wrote:Interesting point marcus... So thereforre why were no Romans made Great?

Kenny

Pompey called himself "Great" - Pompeius Magnus - and his soldiers, and everyone else in Rome, were "encouraged" to do so, too. This was Pompey's attempt to emulate himself on Alexander, of course.

Remember, also, that the Romans often celebrated their people with more specific names (can't remember whether these are the cognomens or other -nomens). One of the most famous examples would be Scipio Africanus.

It would have required the Romans to call someone "the Great"; they preferred, I suppose, to be a little more specific in their praise, rather than vague!

ATB