Alexander the great?

[J.J]

Alexander the great?
I find it quite strange that non-Greeks love this guy, why?My ancestors were tribals living in huts in Germania and we had nothing to do with this guy or his people, yet non-Greeks treat him as though he's one of us.Was he great cuz he had had a one-tracked ambition to conquer new lands? Is that a definition of a great man?

[Kit]

I think everybody see's something worthy of admiration in Alexander the Great, and I'm sure everyone see's something different.For me; I've always been impressed by a man who ever stove to overcome any obstacle in his path and never accepted there could be a limit (indeed may not even have understood that concept!)to his ambition.The reality is that many people suffered for his ambition; but nevertheless I can't help but be in awe of his achievements. Maybe history needed an Alexander to inspire others to excel in more peaceful pursuits!? I may be a non-greek (and non-macedonian!) but as a fellow human being I can still admire his 'greatness'.Regards,Kit

[H]

Hello Kit
Do you think it was ambition or vision that drove him?
Regards
Halil

[J.J]

Granted, he was a great military commander and should be given credit for that, but in other fields he was quite feeble and weak. Don't you think? He had a short temper, was indecisive in making political/social/moral judgements, uneducated etc.To call him great is just to uplift a vain mans ego. But that's just my opinion. Greater men like Gandhi and Buddha conquered millions of people without even lifting a sword, and they never had an army at their disposal, they were humble men who never claimed the title of being "great" or seeked fame or fortune, so in my eyes they are truly one of the greatest. Then again, I think military leaders like Emperor Ashoka (of India) is even more impressive. Conquered the entire Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and then quit fighting when he had enough and turned his energy to peace, development for his people and Buddhism. There was a chinese general who said India conquered china without lifting a sword, through Buddhism.

[J.J]

I love reading about his military exploits, but to call him great when he had so many flaws in his personality is not right, I think.

[Kit]

I suppose that would depend on what definitions of ambition/vision we used?Alexander's main motivation seemed to have been a desire to match, and surpase, the achievements of his father (Phillip), and mythical ancestors such as Herakles & Achilles- possibly also Dionysus?In this respect his vision was his ambition. Forever to seek, to strive, to overcome- and leave an everlasting renown.If so, he has been very succesful and deserves his 'greatness'!regards Kit

[Kit]

J.J,You seem to be suggesting that 'greatness' is a unique quality attributable only to those who pursue peace? Morally (by today's definition of that!) you may be right. But, war is as much a part of human existence and experience as peace (to a visitor from another planet we, as a species, would almost certainly be classified as 'warlike' and 'aggressive').In the field of war, Alexander stands with a small group of leaders who deserve the term 'genius': Hannibal,Caeser,Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Nelson. My own view is that he stands at the top of that group, therefore, as an acknowledged leader in his field he deserves his title.Who we consider to be worthy of our respect depends on who we, as individuals, are. I doubt that Genghis Khan and his Mongols would have respected Buddha more than Alexander? Why should they, as a warrior race it was martial virtues that they extolled.I can appreciate the point you are making, however I have no problem myself in seeing 'greatness' in both peace & war. In his chosen field Alexander deserves the title 'the Great'.regardsKit.

[J.J]

Well the mongols did leave the peaceful Tibetans alone out of respect whilst ravishing other countries. Anyway, your view seems to be that whoever has the biggest penis is truly a great man. Fine by me. I doubt if Alexander can be compared to other great military men, as the sources about him are written by Greeks over 2,000 years ago, and hence deserve some scrutiny as to their intentions and subjectivity.

[J.J]

A true military genius would be able to conquer without the use of arms. If you compare Alexander to the military doctrines of Sun Tzu, Machiavelli or Kautilya, then he is no genius. True, he was good at using military strategy and tactics on the battlefield, but genius?

[J.J]

We just have Greek sources about his exploits, who's to know if they were true or not. Is there any proof of his exploits?

[Kit]

J.J,'I doubt if Alexander can be compared to other great military men, as the sources about him are written by Greeks over 2,000 years ago, and hence deserve some scrutiny as to their intentions and subjectivity.'A lot of the surviving sources were written by people critical of Alexander, for various reasons. Nevertheless, the facts of Alexander's achievements are rarely disputed, merely the 'why'!Our knowledge of Hannibal is largely a result of Roman (i.e the enemy)writers, yet his military record still holds up. A lot of what we know of Caeser was written by Caesar (hardly unbiased).It is interesting to note that the likes of Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon all regarded Alexander highly- and they should know.P.S- I made no comment on Alexander's genitals- whether large or small!regardsKit

[Kit]

J.J,I think a true 'political genius' would be able to conquer without recourse to arms, all the great conquerors have resorted to battle. The problem with military theorists is that they are just that- theorists! According to Von Clausewitz the direct approach to war was to defeat an enemy at his strongest point to achieve the quickest victory- Alexander always attempted this (hence he only needed three major battles).Alexander probably needed less actual battles to achieve his goals than anyone before or since, his army was an example of discipline, organisation, and the perfect combination of Infantry, Cavalry, even field artillery. He was able to fight any type of battle, over any type of terrain, and against any type of opponent; and win. Consider his campaigns in Bactria/Sogdiana, and his defeat of Illyrian and Scythian armies, the numerous sieges.Alexander fought 3 (Granicus/Issus/Gaugamela) major set piece battles to defeat Darius -compare that to the number of battles fought by Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon (and Hannibal/Napoleon were not even ultimately successful!).Then consider the timescale in which Alexander operated, the three battles named above occured between 334-331 B.C.E. Compare that to the campaigns of the other great commanders.I stand by my belief that, in the military field, Alexander was a genius deserving of the title bestowed upon him by history.We will just have to agree to disagree.regardsKit

[nick]

There are some Babylonian sources too. Check:http://www.livius.orgIt has a few good examples - referring to Alexander as "King of the World".Regards -
Nick

[nick]

Hi Kit -I would argue that Alexander's drive was not to match or surpass Philip, but to transfer the glory and fame of Persian Kings on to his own person.But this might be just an aspect of interpretation.Regards -
Nick

[ruthaki]

And anyway, what's his penis got to do with it!
He accomplished more in his 33 years than anyone else at that time had done. That's what made him
'great'.