Seems to me that the only thing that "Alexander The Great" achieved in the long term is killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, destroying some supposedly legendary beautiful cities, and then dieing at a young age without naming a legitimate heir, some speculate of poisoning. Everything he conquered just sort of went to Hell with no real leader.

What do YOU think?

I dunno. He did SOME great things -- Alexandria, for example.

Obviously the definition of "great" has changed much since those days.

Hahaha, Gendanken's post was deleted. Now I get to explain greatness.

Alexander spread Greek thought all over the Mediterranean and the Middle East. He essentially gave the world democracy, Aristotelian science, philosophy, Socrates; all the stuff that defines Western thought.

When he died, his territory went to his general's, not everything went to hell. Asia Minor was broken up into several chunks, each ruled by a Greek. The Greek rulers instituted your typical Greek stuff, until the Romans invaded several centuries later.

After the fall of Rome and subsequent dark ages, there was a "rediscovery" of Greek literature, thought and science. This rediscovery would not have been possible without the Arabs and Muslims in Asia Minor who had retained the Greek works since Alexander came through.

And they all lived happily ever after.

What...the fuck?
My post was erased.

Was I ugly?
No.
Did I curse, whine, or blaspheme? No.
*sniff sniff*
I smell fish. A goofy, silly fish.


Hahaha, Gendanken's post was deleted. Now I get to explain greatness.

Why, pray tell, was it erased?
And why, pray tell, would you wait until I'm gone in order to post?
I fail to see any valid reason for it being erased:

"Gee I don't know, I wonder where our world would be if Greece kept all her treasures to herself- democracy, science- all distributed by the Macedonians to the rest of the western world.
A Persian king who, I think, had enjoyed ruling the world without contest was put in his place by a boy in his twenties.
Granted, the qualifier 'great' is a modern term given by anemic historians to men they secretly masturbate to and its absurd to believe he really was a son of Zeus- still"

Where is the offense?

And why, pray tell, would you wait until I'm gone in order to post?
Yeah what a fucking conspiracy....
Nah, me posting just to agree with you seemed awefully sycophantic and redundant. But then your post disappeared. So I was all like "cool," and she was like "cool", and it was pretty sweet.
Maybe it was the name calling before and after your stuff?

Maybe it was the name calling before and after your stuff?
Hardly.

Comparing one's 'accoplishments' to a bowel movement? Its name-calling only if the person in question is actually insulted as one.
How many get away with so much around here, and I say this or that and I'm either banned or sent some cheeky pm about getting along with the kiddies.

I realize its immature to point, but its far more immature to assume peoiple can't regulate their own feelings over the internet. Internet.

Gendanken, everything you write cracks me up. You're like a pissed off machine gun on a hairtrigger. Aaah. So funny.

- Hyena

Pardon?

Pardon?

Aw nothing. I meant no offense, really.

Is anybody going to acknowledge the greatness of Alexandria? Granted, the master:slave ratio was preposterous, but then, all those intellectuals meetings in the streets, the multiculturalism, the knowledge, the library -- the library! I think it was humanity's pinnacle, pretty much. And Alexander set it up. Now THAT is vision.

"Gee I don't know, I wonder where our world would be if Greece kept all her treasures to herself- democracy, science- all distributed by the Macedonians to the rest of the western world.
A Persian king who, I think, had enjoyed ruling the world without contest was put in his place by a boy in his twenties.
Granted, the qualifier 'great' is a modern term given by anemic historians to men they secretly masturbate to and its absurd to believe he really was a son of Zeus- still"



If this what you exactly wrote, i find no reason for its deletion.

Gee I don't know
This part sounds rude and sarcastic. Like she's better than the thread starter.
That's not on. I'm glad it was deleted.

Alexander the Great is my favourite historical figure and my hero. I think he's one of the greatest men that have ever lived. All my deepest respect to him.

Seems to me that the only thing that "Alexander The Great" achieved in the long term is killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, destroying some supposedly legendary beautiful cities, and then dieing at a young age without naming a legitimate heir, some speculate of poisoning. Everything he conquered just sort of went to Hell with no real leader.



Are you on acid?

Check out this link

http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/

Seems to me that Alexander the great achieved both the death of many people, as Frisbinator said, and also teh founding of a city or two that proved of great value to his descendents. Isnt history wonderful? It embodies such a unification of opposites. Not all bad is always bad, not all good is always good. Change within limits is the only constant. Integration within the boundaries of life.

But great doesn't mean good or bad, it's very subjective. Great means that a person has achieved something that no other or few others have achieved and Alexander the Great conquered almost all of the then known civilized world and beyond, bravly fighting in the front lines and expanding the influence of his culture and civilization. No man has ever done the same even living a 100 years, but Alexander did that barely reaching 30. Even Julius Caesar was envious and jelous (don't remember the exact quote). I think he was the greatest man for his people that has ever lived.

But also, my more narrow personal reaction when reading "the campaigns of Alexander" by Arrian, was that he was a barking lunatic homicidal maniac who loved killing people.

I see nothing wrong with that.
Could a friendly pacifist ever do what Alexander did? Nah, the friendly pacifist rotted his life picking apples and paying taxes.

For glory, fame and immortality!

If you like. But I'd rather you didnt trample over my apple trees.

Was Napoleon great? Napoleon is the guy Alexander most reminds me of except that Alexander was more successful.

I can't judge whether the conquests were beneficial because I don;t know what would have developed had the conquests not taken place.

The semi-Greek inhabitants of the of the Roman East Mediterranean were the people who turned a Jewish sect into a new religion. I was told that pagan was a Greek word meaning "hick" or backwards traditionalst country dweller.

Was Napoleon great? Napoleon is the guy Alexander most reminds me of except that Alexander was more successful.

Was Napoleon great? He was definitely charismatic and a conqueror. But, he can't really be compared to Alexander, can he? What Alexander was amazing. He was a prototype. No one before him had consolidated the known world in the same way that he did. His conquest, as has been said already, spread the greek culture throughout the known world. Napoleon spread nothing but the idea of his own greatness.

Now, did Alexander mean to spread Greek culture as he did? Did he mean to do anything more than that which Napoleon himself did? Probably not. But, the fact is that he did and history is what it is.

So, in this Alexander is great because of luck. He was born into a time that was primitive and open to the spreading of a prototype culture.

Would he be great if he lived in the modern (or Napoleon's) world? I'm sure he would have been a conqueror. And many would also call him great. But, he wouldn't be great in exactly the same way, would he?


What of Genghis Khan? Was he great? He was also a brutal conqueror. And yet, did he really spread any new ideas from his culture? No. In fact, he actually took ideas from the cultures which he conquered. But, without Genghis Khan pushing the visigoths and vandals and the other germanic tribes west, the world would be a different place indeed. Genghis Khan was a bug in the ear of an established order. Whereas Alexander was an imbuing of order into a chaotic system. Napoleon was just a power hungry midget who mostly left the world the same as he found it. He sullied the french a bit. The french fresh from their democratic revolution so quickly and easily placed themselves under shackles once more. So, in my mind, I see Napoleon as France's reminder of the perils of arrogance. The perils of making men into gods.

Leto II in Frank Herbert's Dune books served a similar function, but he did it for 3500 years and did it with an iron fist. A perpetual reminder that man is man and not a sheep. We need no gods. Greatness is a title bestowed on man by man. But, it is not godhood.

And remember the warning to Caesar, beware the ides of March.

Avatar:

No man has ever done the same even living a 100 years, but Alexander did that barely reaching 30.
Not even Bill Gates?

Khan and Attila were just as brutal and Constantine and Marcus Aurealus were just as educated.

But we don't call either of these four 'the great' for the simple reason that it never occurred to them to have the scribes tag "the great" on to their names.
Alexander, on the other hand, sought to immortalize his intellectual vanity by demanding his being called 'the great'

Stalin’s real name is Djugashvili, which he promptly changed to Stalin once gaining power.
Wonder why.

Neither of these men- Attila, Alexander, Khan, Hitler, Molotov or Stalin were great, the stories are.
They were simply clever enough to feed on their neighbors and use their stupidity against them.
Granted he contributed his worth, but so have all senators and governors whose names we've forgotten because they were non-descript.
I myself am guilty of this romance (Napoleon is fucking sexy).

Invert:

So, in this Alexander is great because of luck. He was born into a time that was primitive and open to the spreading of a prototype culture.
Pretty much.
Regan stood in front of an already crumbling wall and demanded Gorbichev to bring the wall down!!
GRRRR!
And we look back in history and attribute the breaking of the Soviets to Reagen.

Its like praising the "amazing strength" of someone that killed off a pansy crippled with AIDS.


Would he be great if he lived in the modern (or Napoleon's) world? I'm sure he would have been a conqueror. And many would also call him great. But, he wouldn't be great in exactly the same way, would he?
He'd have to be a lot more competent considering how secularism and cynics have become fashion statements.

I say Caligula was great :D Vlad the Impaler is my personal favorite, and he was trully great although songs of his deeds aren't sung.

The reason why Alexander the great is worthy of being a role model is that he managed to conquer a vast amount of land in a short period of time; which required skills in strategy and keeping the army happy enough. Few leaders are able to do that.

I thought Alexander was from Macedonia... is that area greek?

I thought Alexander was from Macedonia... is that area greek?

Alexander's father conquered Greece, ain't it? Macedonia basically parasitized Greek culture and then Alexander spread it to the world.

Michael Jackson has been called great; the greatest, in fact.

Besides, the History Channel has some thing on the man for all those who like to slander men after they have died.. cowards.

http://www.historychannel.com/alexander/

Especially when the slandering is "he killed people" :rolleyes:
He probably committed some "hate crimes" too, he probably said something that was "sexist", he might have even called a black person a black person instead of an "african greek".
You know, I doubt he even recycled. Great my ass.

It is hard to judge historic titles using contemporary values.

Exactly my point.
And to add; I think it shows how blatantly frivolous contemporary values are.

Well, if your take it simply as he conquered a whole lot of land, being that it hurt alot of people, you still have to say that what he did was extrodinary. It took a powerful character to be the figure head of such a crusade.

Hitler inflicted much suffering through the exploitation of a vulnerable people. His vision was great, but not good. Like wise with many men who have power and thier accomplishments, good or bad, can be measured based upon the precedent put forth by other leaders before thier time.

To a certain extent, you absolutely have to judge people by the relatively unenlightened standards of their era.

By the standards of the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia -- from which those of Greece, Persia, and the rest of the Levant, Europe, and the Middle East descended -- and the ancient civilization of Cushitic Egypt, Alexander's violence was not exceptional. I doubt very much that he killed "millions" of people. Eurasia was not the overcrowded landmass that it is today courtesy of modern medicine, increased life expectancy, and decreased infant mortality. A million people would have filled up two or three entire countries. Alexander killed warriors who fought against him and rulers who refused to bow to him, but like any wise leader he accepted the surrender of farmers and merchants who would make his conquered lands prosper. Slavery was a fact of life. Alexander practiced it. Sorry, that doesn't distinguish him from anybody else back then.

On the plus side, what Alexander did accomplish was to create the second-largest civilization on Earth. China was of course the largest, as it has always been. (I'm just assuming that India at that time wasn't as big as the Greek Empire, but I really don't know for sure.) A large civilization meant peace, order, and prosperity. The surplus granted by that prosperity, along with large scale division of labor allowed culture to fluorish.

The Sumerians and Babylonians invented the civilization that became Europe, the Mideast, and the Americas, and has infiltrated much of the rest of the world. But the Greeks took it to a higher level. There's no telling where we would be today if Alexander hadn't unified that vast area of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Perhaps we'd all be speaking Chinese or Hindi.

Sure, Alexander unified lands....until he died. Afterwards, the land naturally seperated into twelve (?) different provinces.

Check out these portraits of Alexander. Some of them remind me of Eminem, as wierd as that sounds. Who do you think he looks like?

http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/

SouthStar:

Michael Jackson has been called great; the greatest, in fact.

Besides, the History Channel has some thing on the man for all those who like to slander men after they have died.. cowards.

Who is 'slandering'?

They're building him up into a diva because there is a movie to promote.
They did this with Arthur.
And William Wallace.
And any other 'historical' figure that's going to be starring in some Spielberg film weeks from now.
Schindler was an asshole, but softened down into a pretty asshole for some movie appealing to Jews.

Alexander had boyfriends (common in the Mediterranean world), was nerdy, greedy, and vain, and his father was gay. These are all in the history books.
Where is the slander?

Was Napoleon great? He was definitely charismatic and a conqueror. But, he can't really be compared to Alexander, can he? What Alexander was amazing. He was a prototype. No one before him had consolidated the known world in the same way that he did..

The empire was how many times larger than the largest previous Persian empire?





His conquest, as has been said already, spread the greek culture throughout the known world. Napoleon spread nothing but the idea of his own greatness.

So, in this Alexander is great because of luck. He was born into a time that was primitive and open to the spreading of a prototype culture.

....... Whereas Alexander was an imbuing of order into a chaotic system. Napoleon was just a power hungry midget who mostly left the world the same as he found it.

I am not so sure that the peoples that he defeated were culturely inferior to the Greeks. I don't think those lands were in chaos before Alexander arrived.

Greek became the language of comerce and culture through out much of the world but what does that tell us? English has become the language of commerce and culture through out much of the world now.

Napoleon was too short lived of a phenomena to leave the French language as the language of commerce. Had Alexander's successors not been able to maintain their empires then Alexander would have been barely more significant than Napoleon.

Alexander's father was not gay. Maybe he had a boy or two from time to time, but that was not considered gay back then. What WAS considered gay was men whom ONLY fraternized with other men. This was looked down upon and thought to be caused by some sort of disease.

Believe it or not, there was some concern when Alexander was an early teenager, cause all that he would do was hang around this one boy, and their relationship entailed kissing. Phillip II (his father) hired a bunch of high class prostitutes to sway his decisions.

I got the first part from a book about homosexuals. Got the second part from the history channel special.

Especially when the slandering is "he killed people" :rolleyes:
He probably committed some "hate crimes" too, he probably said something that was "sexist", he might have even called a black person a black person instead of an "african greek".
You know, I doubt he even recycled. Great my ass.

He had accomplished greater conquests than any before him and influenced the spread of Hellenism - all before dying at the age of 32. That makes him one of the greatest generals of all time and a remarkable personality of antiquity.

Did I mention he preached peace and love for all the world?

SouthStar:

Who is 'slandering'?

They're building him up into a diva because there is a movie to promote.
They did this with Arthur.
And William Wallace.
And any other 'historical' figure that's going to be starring in some Spielberg film weeks from now.
Schindler was an asshole, but softened down into a pretty asshole for some movie appealing to Jews.

Alexander had boyfriends (common in the Mediterranean world), was nerdy, greedy, and vain, and his father was gay. These are all in the history books.
Where is the slander?

Well I don't see what his father being gay has anything to do with Alexander's own greatness but people keep bringing it up..

How does a classical education and education under Aristotle classify as nerdy? [i]quote]one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits[/quote] It seems from his military record that he was no bookwork but maybe you mean it in another sense. As for having boyfriends, he had several wives too so at least he was keeping a "healthy" balance.. ;)

Fisbrinator:

Alexander's father was not gay. Maybe he had a boy or two from time to time, but that was not considered gay back then. What WAS considered gay was men whom ONLY fraternized with other men. This was looked down upon and thought to be caused by some sort of disease.

Read,
n.
A homosexual, especially male, (AHD)

We're speaking in modern terms, so both Alex and his father were gays.
As for men only fraternizing with only men being "penalized" in early Greece (eros)- Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, Hesiod and Homer and practially every last sketch on a classical wall would shut you right up.

Homosexuality began to transmute into a 'condition' in the Hellensitic age, when female beauty replaced the male's, and escalated into fullblown disease with Christiany.
Burn them all.

Southstar:

Well I don't see what his father being gay has anything to do with Alexander's own greatness but people keep bringing it up..

You still haven't pointed out the slander.


How does a classical education and education under Aristotle classify as nerdy
Compared to the rugged imbecility of a Visigoth, tres nerdy.

And even if he was gay, a gay person can not be great? You sound like a bunch of overchristianized rednecks.

And even if he was gay, a gay person can not be great? You sound like a bunch of overchristianized rednecks.

Never once said gays could not be 'Great'.
The man was "Great" becuase his vanity chose the title, when he wasn't.
My point.

But why the homosexual issue is even discussed in this thread?
And I didn't even mention your name, Geological-centre-Earth

Hey, one of my pet points- that "gay" is a word with a perfectly good pedigree and history, that has been unfairly hijacked as both a celebratory label and a pejorative label. Give us the word back as it was you bastards.

Frisbinator: Alexander's father was not gay. Maybe he had a boy or two from time to time, but that was not considered gay back then. What WAS considered gay was men whom ONLY fraternized with other men. This was looked down upon and thought to be caused by some sort of disease.

Believe it or not, there was some concern when Alexander was an early teenager, cause all that he would do was hang around this one boy, and their relationship entailed kissing. Phillip II (his father) hired a bunch of high class prostitutes to sway his decisions.

I got the first part from a book about homosexuals. Got the second part from the history channel special.
*************
M*W: I haven't see the movie (I don't even know if it's out yet), but I was in B&N one time and picked up a book titled something like "Gay People in History." It was quite entertaining, but I learned that say in Caesar's time, it was quite common for men to have young boy toys as it was not considered adultery. It was only adultery if they had sex with the opposite sex, someone other than their wives. Anyhoo, those 'marriages' were not made of personal choices but of parental matchmaking, so I doubt there was any real love in those pre-arranged marriages. Marriage was one thing, but sexual pleasure was another. How sad it would have been to be a young boy in those days, but I do not judge. I wish I could remember who else was in that book. You may know the one I'm talking about

I have a problem with the movie, if they show Alexander loving women I’m soo going to be very piss off! Alexander was a homosexual, sure he did have to do several political marriages, but the love of his life was Hephaestion (Alax’s second in command), when Hephaestion died it drove Alax into a drunken stupor and Alax died within that year. Now if the movie making media can’t accept Alax’s homosexuality, it means a serious homophobe problem here when we have to censor history of homosexuality!

To put it correctly Greek culture was bisexual and pedophilic at the time, they accepted and encouraged sex with the same sex and sex with children, at least amongst man, I don’t know what they let women do sexually.

^^ History Channel also as 'A History of Sex' program that will answer for you..

The man was "Great" becuase his vanity chose the title, when he wasn't.

Yes, Alexander did claim to be a god. But whether he decided on the title of 'the Great' is unclear. So how does it matter? Every great man is narcissistic. Nietzche was the epitomy of narcissism. Does that mean he wasn't great? The wisest great men conceal their vanity. I wish you could bring it down to my level and qualify your "point". Or are you too good for that?


That any man clever enough to show others he can kill with impunity is powerful enough to have "The Great" tied on to his name.

Great. So if I'm sneaky and lucky enough to murder you out of spite, I would be Great. I hope you're being sarcastic - it has trouble coming through text. Alexander had, like many powerful leaders, the power of life or death over his followers. If your statement is serious, it is irrelevant. History doesn't describe him as a despot, however.

If you're serious, my guess is that you read too much Nietzche and take some of his statements too seriously. Nietzche was not God. Think for yourself.


Comes forth the defender of honour who himself has no point other than to say that another has no point.

As Socrates said, "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".

Bad Christian:

So how does it matter?
Read the thread title.
Then the premise.


Every great man is narcissistic. Nietzche was the epitomy of narcissism. Does that mean he wasn't great? The wisest great men conceal their vanity. I wish you could bring it down to my level and qualify your "point". Or are you too good for that?
So you're saying here that one can only be wise, powerful, great even if humble enough to keep quiet?

That somehow arrogance disqualifies the position.
That somehow the type B personality defines power, the way bloodtypes define anantomy.
Right?

Since you bring him up, and I know why- Freidrich's got chapters titled "Why I am so Wise" and "...so Clever" and "Why I Write Such Good Books" throughout Ecco Homo.


Great. So if I'm sneaky and lucky enough to murder you out of spite, I would be Great. I hope you're being sarcastic - it has trouble coming through text.
Not at all.

Stop anyone on the street.
Ask them who invented the traffic signal, or the pistons in their engine, or the computer their chubby little fingers type into.
None of them know.
But say either Hitler or Stalin or Castro.
These men were immortalized by fear.

That you can do this is not great- beating the neigborhood kids down to submission is harldy great, they're kids.
Hitler considered his people like children- now imagine him going around thinking he's great.
Imagine the world speaking about him as we do Alexander- that's like saying a mother is great for changing a diaper.
That he was or was not a despot is irrelevant- we're discussing here why it is the man was baptized with "The Great".
Caligula becomes a household word while Claudius fades in obscurity.
Hmmmm....


If you're serious, my guess is that you read too much Nietzche and take some of his statements too seriously. Nietzche was not God. Think for yourself.

Foul ball.

I read waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to many Steele and Higgins Clarke novels and plus, I'm a hairy lesbo.

You've succeeded in confusing the hell out of me. Which one of us is obtuse?


So you're saying here that one can only be wise, powerful, great even if humble enough to keep quiet?

Nope. That's not what I said. I believe that the most powerful don't feel the need to boast. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. One can be proud and boast and still be great, it just reflects insecurity. Isn't that obvious? Nobody takes people who proclaim their own greatness seriously. That doesn't mean they aren't great, powerful people. It just slightly diminishes their greatness.


That somehow the type B personality defines power, the way bloodtypes define anantomy.

Nope. The greatest lead with respect. Examine the leadership styles of Alexander(the Great), Julius Caesar, Octavius, or any other great leader and you'll find that their followers didn't follow them because they were forced to but because they loved, respected, and trusted them.


That you can do this is not great- beating the neigborhood kids down to submission is harldy great, they're kids.

Comparing Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire to me beating up little kids down the street is pretty terrible. Alexander destroyed an empire larger than his against terrible odds. Can you understand that?


Caligula becomes a household word while Claudius fades in obscurity.

Wtf? Caligula is infamous. Alexander is famous. How are you drawing these parrellels? What's wrong with you?

Bad Christian:

You've succeeded in confusing the hell out of me. Which one of us is obtuse?

Simpler sentences, then.
People remember the spectacular.
This means that in order to make it to the language, so that people like you will remember Caesar or Octavius or Alexander but not Morgan or Babbage a man would (usually) have to forge his reputation not in love or respect but in fear.
Spectacle.

You used those names like nouns and adjectives- they live through the ages as words not because they brought aqueducts and reform but because people feared them enough to immortalize them.
Babbage would have made it to the language if he killed a few people, is my point.
Or gotten the spectacular press coverage that Einstein did.

Nope. That's not what I said
You didn't have to say it.
A women flexing her cleavage at you doesn't have to say she wants to fuck.

Nope. The greatest lead with respect. Examine the leadership styles of Alexander(the Great), Julius Caesar, Octavius, or any other great leader and you'll find that their followers didn't follow them because they were forced to but because they loved, respected, and trusted them.

Look, I understand what you're saying- he Hellenized a good chunk of the world and enriched it with what it meant to be human years and years before the Humanists, I'm not denying his achievements. My initial post.

But these men are "loved" and "respected" and "trusted" the way a lamb would a lion.
This is the only relation possible between the powerful and the weak.

Get it now?



I believe that the most powerful don't feel the need to boast. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. One can be proud and boast and still be great, it just reflects insecurity. Isn't that obvious?
You can be proud and boast all you want- think of a prison.
The most powerful men in there are those that have killed or will kill.

Let a man accomplish a neat trick for making razors from spoons or something as useful, and he’d still be a pussy and treated as one.
But let him “accomplish” the simple act of killing a prison guard and watch him become an elite.


Wtf? Caligula is infamous. Alexander is famous. How are you drawing these parrellels? What's wrong with you?
Anyone with power over men's lives is infamous, you idiot.
That's what makes them infamous.
Not their intellect or contributions.
Study the word.

Had the man not been a tyrant, which he was, he could never have forced the "Great" into the history books.

Going off the History Channel's catch phrase: They Didn't Call Him Alexander the Timid.

----
How far Alexander would have succeeded in the difficult task of coordinating his vast dominions, had he lived, is hard to determine. The only link between the many units that went to make up an empire more disparate than that of the Habsburgs, and far larger, was his own person; and his death came before he could tackle this problem.

What had so far held it all together was his own dynamic personality. He combined an iron will and ability to drive himself and his men to the utmost with a supple and flexible mind; he knew when to draw back and change his policy, though he did this reluctantly. He was imaginative and not without romantic impulses; figures like Achilles, Heracles, and Dionysus were often in his mind, and the salutation at the oracle of Amon clearly influenced his thoughts and ambitions ever afterward. He was swift in anger, and under the strain of his long campaigns this side of his character grew more pronounced. Ruthless and self-willed, he had increasing recourse to terror, showing no hesitation in eliminating men whom he had ceased to trust, either with or without the pretense of a fair trial. Years after his death, Cassander, son of Antipater, a regent of the Macedonian Empire under Alexander, could not pass his statue at Delphi without shuddering. Yet he maintained the loyalty of his men, who followed him to the Hyphasis without complaining and continued to believe in him throughout all hardships. Only when his whim would have taken them still farther into unknown India did he fail to get his way.

As a general Alexander is among the greatest the world has known. He showed unusual versatility both in the combination of different arms and in adapting his tactics to the challenge of enemies who commanded novel forms of warfare—the Śaka nomads, the Indian hill tribes, or Porus with his elephants. His strategy was skillful and imaginative, and he knew how to exploit the chances that arise in every battle and may be decisive for victory or defeat; he also drew the last advantage from victory by relentless pursuit. His use of cavalry was so effective that he rarely had to fall back upon his infantry to deliver the crushing blow.

Alexander's short reign marks a decisive moment in the history of Europe and Asia. His expedition and his own personal interest in scientific investigation brought many advances in the knowledge of geography and natural history. His career led to the moving of the great centres of civilization eastward and initiated the new age of the Greek territorial monarchies; it spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Middle East and created, if not politically at least economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Gibraltar to the Punjab, open to trade and social intercourse and with a considerable overlay of common civilization and the Greek koinē as a lingua franca. It is not untrue to say that the Roman Empire, the spread of Christianity as a world religion, and the long centuries of Byzantium were all in some degree the fruits of Alexander's achievement.

- Encyclopaedia Britannica
-------------


ALL THAT before the age of 33. Compare that to your measly lives and bow down.

ALL THAT before the age of 33. Compare that to your measly lives and bow down.
He did not 'bow down' before anyone, for that reason alone he could be called 'the great'.

Alexander was both great and not so great at the same time. He was one of the greatest military leaders in history who's feats will not soon be duplicated. However once he was through fighting he didn't really know what to do with himself, was a drunk and not very good at governing. As for the homosexual tendancies, it was normal for the times. Greek men loved other men and boys. However if woman loved woman it was considered vile and unnatural. A person was not considered homosexual unless they only saught romantic relationships with the same sex. It was fairly normal at the time for a man to be married and still have a man or boy on the side. Men would court boys the same way they would a woman. Men would wait outside of schools, gyms and places the boys would be and scout out the best looking ones. They would go to the father and ask his permission, sometimes persuading him with money if the family had little. He would then shower the boy with lavish gifts and show him how to be successful and show him the ways of Greek men. Greeks were obsessed with perfection in the physical body. The teenage years was when a man was considered to look his best and many of the youths were dumped for younger, better looking men. Such a thing may have led to the death of Phillip of Macedonia. One theory was that his bodyguard was once his lover who had fallen out of favor when Phillip took interest in a younger man causing the bodyguard to kill him in a fit of rage. There were also theories that Alexander and Olympia plotted to kill him after his marriage to Cleopatra and a male heir they had, which would have been king instead of Alexander so there are all sorts of speculation. I really hope they don't show Phillip messing with a man in the movie, that would ruin my fascination with Val Kilmer.

Alexander was both great and not so great at the same time.

Debating about whether someone is 'great' or not is futile. The definition of 'great' is almost as vague as 'good'. I believe that Alexander was great because of the Greek knowledge that he spread throughout Asia, and all that he accomplished. Gedanken believes that Alexander wasn't great because he killed people and ruled through power, not love(?). He asserted himself and killed people. He was, in some ways, a despot(as most leaders are). Whether or not that is great depends on what you believe shows greatness.

I've come to believe that the mark of leadership is the ability to push people to do things they don't want to, whether it's conquering the world, picking up trash, loving all people, or slaughtering millions of Jews.


This means that in order to make it to the language, so that people like you will remember Caesar or Octavius or Alexander but not Morgan or Babbage a man would (usually) have to forge his reputation not in love or respect but in fear.

EH? What about Socrates, Cicero, Jesus, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, or hell, Nietzche?

Sorry, you're hugely confused. The reason Babbage wasn't rembered was:

1) He didn't influence his followers/readers enough(Nietzche).
2) He didn't gain true, devoted followers(Jesus).
3) He didn't truly accomplish that much(Alexander/Octavius).

It has something to do with greatness, but just because you're well-remembered doesn't mean you're great. There is a difference between fame and infamy.

Gendanken,

Some men's names become remembered not through fear but through everyday use. John Crapper, for instance.

I think it's interesting that Stone omitted the story of the Gordean Knot from his movie. It kind of pissed me off, since it's one of my favorite stories. You know, whoever can untie this knot will rule the world, and Alexander unties it with one blow from his sword. A simple solution to a complex problem.

Cartoon Network put Alexander into a cartoon sci-fi setting. It sucked. Anyone remember what it is called?

Polrean,
Time Squad?

madanthonywayne,
I don't think they can shove every story about Alaxander the great into a movie.

I've been given a spanking and must repost my origninal post without insluts.
*&%^#(*&%^*)&#^%)*&#^(*&%^#)&*(^%)*&#^)*%&^)#*&^%)*&#^)*&%^

Therefore:


Some men's names become remembered not through fear but through everyday use. John Crapper, for instance
But we're talking of leadership.

Pussy emperors with bad knees that people like him and her and them go around calling 'great' because of the stories prescribed to the scholars.

Look at this thing:

ALL THAT before the age of 33. Compare that to your measly lives and bow down.
(He just quoted the Encyclopedia.)

To wit- Ivan the Terrible was hardly terrible, Stalin was hardly made of steel.

Bad Muslim:

EH? What about Socrates, Cicero, Jesus, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, or hell, Nietzche?

Good point.
But.

Dude.
I said fear because I'm being dragged into explaining why it is something like Alexander is considered 'great'.
Tad anal, no?

In a foul mood and I hate you all.

Typing, catharsis. Durant, a better writer than I am and wanting to give up my craft, read today and thought of thread so courtesy of his Mansions:

"
Far more offensive are the university historians who devote whole lifetimes to proving that small things are great, and write monographs as pedantic and useless as doctorate theses in philosophy. Watch them prowling about the libraries; they bury themselves in specialist minutanie and apply themselves with the patience of ants to piling up facts for the sake of facts. They lose themselves in documents and statistics and demonstrate laboriously and tediously the indisputable truth of unimportant things- they are like the biologists who kill an insect, preserve it in alcohol, slit it open at leisure, dissect its digestive tract, and think they are studying life."


In other words, history suffers from disease of all speculations: it generalizes too readily, it exaggerates an idea, and is usually written by romantic men in love with their subjects and living through them vicariously.

Plato and Socrates doing 69.
My point stands, end of story.

Alright, I'd like to take the time to reply to each of you individually, but I'd really rather not because that would take way too long. So, I'll stick to just talking a bit about what I think of Alexander.

I love him. He had his flaws, of course, and he did things I disagree with completely. But he was also very kind, and very respectful of other cultures. He was also very loyal to his friends and people he loved. When Hephaestion, his best friend and most likely his lover, died, he cried about it for days and then drank himself to death out of depression.

Some people like to talk about him like he was a heartless killer. He killed, yes, but tons of people have killed and we don't think poorly of them for it. To me, it's more about reasons for killing and whether or not they did so respectfully and without huge amounts of excess just for the sake of it. Alexander shouldn't have wanted to conquer the world, but if you're going to try for it, I think his way is the way to go. Sure, his empire didn't last long after his death. Some people attribute this to him not having an heir, but first of all he did have one son, Alexander IV, who wasn't yet born at the time of Alexander's death and was eventually ******** at a young age, and second of all I don't think having an heir made a difference. His men may have respected him, the people he conquered may have respected him, but I doubt they would have respected a child just for being his son. People still would have squabbled over it, and Alexander's son probably would have wound up dead not long after Alexander, even had be born in time for Alexander's death.

Since this is a post, not a book, I won't go on any longer. But my point is, people need to look at all the facts when they talk about Alexander. Not just the good (I care about him greatly, but despite and because of that I want people to know the truth about him, even if it's ugly at times), certainly not just the bad because people who do that are just looking for something to complain about and not really finding out many of the facts at all.

Pleasant learning.

Numerous posts deleted as off-topic.

Alexander was one of the, if not the, greatest person that ever lived. People have to remember that it was the Romans that called him "great" , among the greeks he was known as the "invincible". No other man in history can put forward such a fantastic life as he. The worlds only loss is that he died so young, which paved the way for the romans to come into play, which we know how they ruled and controled.

Alexander respected other cultures and religions. He built cities and made them stable and sucessfull for centuries and millenia to come.

He wasnt a mass murderer, he just wouldnt tolerate anyone that decieved him, or cities that wouldnt acknowledge him as their protector as opossed to persia. I dont think there is anything wrong with that, on the other hand i think most of western society now could use a principle like that now , to remember how fortunate they are for being in the position they are today.

All in all, i believe nobody can truly say Alexander is anything but Great.

The trouble with poofs is that they are attention-seekers. They want to rush around shouting "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I simply exquisite!" That's why so many of them are attracted to the theatre, etc. I rather imagine Alexander was like that. He just had to show off how brave he was. Having had luck on his side a few times and survived in battle, he began to think himself godlike - and put on so convincing an act that others came to believe him. Nothing succeeds like success! He must have become even more insufferable.

There was nothing else for it. He just had to go on killing more and more tens of thousands of people. And founding more cities. Simply anything to be the centre of attention! I wonder if he had a funny voice. :)

This rediscovery would not have been possible without the Arabs and Muslims in Asia Minor who had retained the Greek works since Alexander came through.While the empire may have fell from it's lofty heights = Rome the city didn't "fall". It stayed the eternal city.

Also, Greeks pretty much remained Greek - didn't they? Surely when the Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire (namely Greece and Alexandria) it was there that they "rediscovered" Greek Philosophy? It seems odd we say "rediscovered". Why? Wouldn't it had remained there anyway?

Also, as Romans were intimately familiar with Greek philosophy (speaking Greek was all but mandatory for the Aristocratic class as well as lessons in math, astrology, etc..)

I don't understand - Why was it that Greek Philosophy was preserved by invading Muslims and not Greeks and Romans? That's always puzzled me? I've often thought perhaps it was because of the serious rise of Xiandom or that the impact the Arabs had has been way overstated.

Any ideas?
Michael

As to Alexander he hoped to Unite the known world and to it bring Greek culture - which he considered vastely superior (to even his own Macedonian culture). Aristotle was his tutor so I'm sure he had some hand in Alex's thinking.

He was considered Great because he was never beaten in battle and conquered such huge swaths of land and people. He was able to adapt militarily and he founded many new cities. If he hadn't been poisoned by either Persians, Arabs or his own Generals - who knows what other things he'd have accomplished? Did you know Alexander is revered as a Muslim in the Qur'an - a book written by another people in another place 1000 years after his death- That's how much of a force he was in his short time on Earth.

Michael

Muaha!
I remember this thread. Wish I could remember the stuff that Goofyfish had a hemmorhage about...
I think I might have been temp banned calling goofy an idiot in my reasons for deleting a post in this thread as a matter of fact.
Ah.
Good times.
The man was a tad trigger happy at times.

I wonder why he came back a month after the thread was finished to edit further?


Tad anal, no?

Yes.
Perhaps more than a 'tad'.


Ask them who invented the traffic signal...

Heh.
Ironic.

It would appear that I was incorrect... it wasn't Garrett Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Morgan) (although he did invent a traffic signal, (and not only this, but to add further to the irony, he invented a hair straightening preparation... Muaha!!!))

Anyway, according to wikipedia, the first traffic signal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#History) was invented by one JP Knight in London, England.

I wonder if he was great?
Certainly has a powerful name.
Like Max Steele or Harvey Wallbanger...



The trouble with poofs is that they are attention-seekers. They want to rush around shouting "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I simply exquisite!" That's why so many of them are attracted to the theatre, etc.

Interesting.
I should think that most poofs need no arm waving or flailing about to attract attention to themselves. Something in their very nature draws one's eyes to them.

Some poofs I know seem to be more visible when they attempt to hide. By hiding, they draw even more attention to themselves. A sort of reverse "Look at me!" effect.

Nothing wrong with poofs though. Some of my best friends have poofs.

I dunno. He did SOME great things -- Alexandria, for example.

Which one? He named over a dozen cities Alexandria.

What do YOU think?
I think that he was a man who wanted to badly outdo his father, who had achieved so much. He was obsessed with conquest and war, but fell far short when it came to administration. He was simply a conquering machine, but he never set up an infrastructure or central bureaucracy extensive enough to maintain the massive empire. On top of that, his extravagances sapped the state of money, and his expansive urge to make war led to the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. He was a maniac, a sadistic psychopath who got off on conflict, war, and battle. He had a nearly insatiable bloodlust, which ultimately lost him his empire.
Of course, the cultural impact, whether for better or worse, cannot be understated. His conquests brought Hellenistic culture and ideas to the far-flung territories of the Persian Empire and to the many warring states in India. The foundation of his many Alexandrias marked the beginning of a new era for city-planning and municipal architecture, and established at least one of them as the nucleus of a kingdom that would flourish, even through the Roman age.

Did anyone mention that before Alexander, there was Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great, Xerxes the Great, and all these dudes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_The_Great

And don't forget Lo-Thar of the Hill People.

http://img.snlarc.jt.org/arc/char/MiMy-Lothar.jpg