Alexander the Great
My question is: Do you really think Alexander the Great would be the same, if he didn't go after his fathers tactics? Or do you think he would do it better?
I'll do the Jurnis trick and let next poster start off
Printable View
Alexander the Great
My question is: Do you really think Alexander the Great would be the same, if he didn't go after his fathers tactics? Or do you think he would do it better?
I'll do the Jurnis trick and let next poster start off
Ahhhh I think he will do the same.
Woow that was fast
Well, Im usually fast.
grrr how do you make a poll!!!!!!!! it wont let me
I think it is only allowed in certain places.
Scroll down til it says:
Allow poll (box)
how many answers: (4)
Alexander the Great was far more then a man who used one tactic to win battles.
It wasn't simply the tactic which made him a victor, it was how he deployed the tactic. Military strategy. If he hadn't had it (I wish I could remember what it was called....), then as a brilliant tactician, he would have come up with another, equally effective unit formation that he could have deployed just as successfully, perhaps more so. "A great man uses the tools he's given, to do the jobs he needs to do." That's what Alexander the Great did. But without that, I have no doubt he would still have dominated as he did.
You can't look to the past, and try to quibble about what might have been. You need to look at facts, and extract your own conclusions from them.
Philip II had already united a large part of Northern Greece before Alexander succeeded him and left him with an experienced army with advanced tactics, weapons, and seige equipment for that time period. Alexander may have been a great leader, and I am sure would have still done great things even without that, but he would not have been able to do as much as he did without the legacy his father began.
Philip II was probably one of the most effective leaders in History.
He had the very tactic that got Alexander so far so fast: assmililate, not destroy.
Hello.
Here is one of my essays that is relevant to the topic of this particular thread:
________________________________________________
Alexander III of Macedonia or, The Slave to Hubris
By Conrad Jalowski
Greatness is not achieved through the imposition of will, coercion or through processes of subjugation. Greatness consists of benevolence, friendship, sagacity and the incessant acquisition of knowledge. Therefore, greatness is not of megalomania or of the ascension of hubris as in the mold of the Macedonian conqueror but of the Aristotelian concept of megalopsychia or a "magnanimity of the soul".
Alexander III was a military genius as he won on such occasions as at the Battle of Lyginus, Battle at the Granicus River, Battle of Issus, Siege of New Tyre, Siege of Gaza, Battle of Guagamela, warfare with the Scythians and petty princelings or tetrarchs and the Battle at the Hydaspes River, however, he had many faults:
(1.) Alexander III of Macedonia was unsatisfactory in the administration of his vast domain: the eastern border [around Bactria, Ferghana, Sogdiana, Arachosia] was already devolving into chaos, and internal fissures emerged between Macedonian hegemony and subjugated cultures even before his death in Babylon on 323 B.C.E.
(2A.) Alexander III never subjugated or integrated the regions in Anatolia such as Cappadocia [The region of Cappadocia was first invested by Perdiccas for his lieutenant Eumenes of Cardia during the Diadochian Conflicts between the Separatists and Royalists in the beginning phase of the "Wars of Succession"], Bithynia, Pontus, Greater Armenia and Lazica.
(2B.) The Macedonian supply lines were stretched to great limits and were maintained only at a great cost by Antigonus I 'Monopthalmus'. The supply lines stretched from a) Macedonia Proper [Thessalonica, Amphilochia, Pella and Pelagonia], b) the Macedonian subject states such as Thessaly, Thrace, the territories of the Phocians, the lands of the Locrii, etc and c) members of the Macedonian controlled 'Amphictyonic Council' [A synhedrion or a council representation and body] through Hellespontine Phrygia and the Taurus Mountains in Anatolia and passing through key zones of administration and centers of gravity at the regions of Susa, Ecbatana and Babylon to the far reaches of Tapuria, Traxiane, Hyrcania, Bactria, Ferghana, Sogdiana, etc. In addition, the circulating network of supplies, communication and manpower had to be safeguarded from autonomous and hostile regions that were not fully under Macedonian hegemony such as:
(North of Assyria and Mesopotamia):
-------------------------------
a.) Atropatene,
b.) Adiabene,
c.) Gordyene
[Such regions were not fully integrated into a cohesive form under central Macedonian administration. Rather, such regions were a mixed conglomerate of allied and subservient states as well as autonomous and inimical tribal units and groups.]
(The Bactrian Region):
-------------------------------
a.) To safeguard supply caravans and the transport of resources from Scythian incursions,
b.) Inimical "tetrarchs" or princelings not yet fully broken or subjugated,
c.) The natural accumulation of vagrants and other dissatisfied groups.
(3.) Alexander III's chimerical or fanciful desire for the "Brotherhood of Man" or an amalgamation of Persian and Greek elements resulted in the development of tension and enmity between two separate cultures. Alexander III of Macedonia did not truly desire a harmonious synthesis of humanity but rather an encompassing domain under his autocratic/despotic rule.
(4.) Alexander III increasingly became uxorious, avaricious and was consumed by hubris and delusions of grandeur. He indulged in bacchanalian revelries and demonstrated a lack of moderation and self-restraint. The riches of the East had dulled his intellect and enflamed his senses; from the teachings of Aristotle and a desire for excellence in the Homeric tradition he became a drunken despot consumed by his vulgar passions. Alexander's delusions made him believe to be a descendent of Zeus [Jove] and the nymph Aeagina through the mortal offspring/descendents of the Olympian god such as Aeacus, Achilles, Neoptolemus, etc.
(5A.) Alexander III of Macedonia left a legacy of death and destruction in his wake: the Wars of the Diadochoi or the Epigonoi resulted in such climactic battles as Paraitacene, Gabiene, Gaza, Salamis, Rhodes, Ipsus and Corupedium in the phases of a) 322-320 B.C.E, b) 319-315 B.C.E, c) 314-311 B.C.E and d) 309-281 B.C.E. Perhaps the legacy of Alexander III was a fragmented and fissiparous or divisive realm with the successor states and other separatist realms: the Antigonid [323-146 B.C.E], the Antipatrid, the Ptolemaic [323-30 B.C.E], the Seleucid [312-63 B.C.E], the Attalid Pergamene Kingdom [281-130 B.C.E], Graeco-Bactria through the revolt of the satrap Diodotus I [250-125 B.C.E] and the Indo-Greek Kingdom [180 B.C.E-10 C.E] through the conquests of Demetrius I 'Aniketos' [180-175 B.C.E].
(5B.) In the eventual outcome, Rome claimed Macedonia [the battles of Cynoscephalae on 197 B.C.E and Pydna on 168 B.C.E and crushed the revolt led by Andriscus or the pseudo-Perseus which lasted from 149-148 B.C.E]; dissolved the Achaean Confederation with the sack of Corinth on 146 B.C.E; Pergamum of the Attalid Dynasty was left to Rome on 133 B.C.E by the last Attalid dynast in which the rebellion of Aristonicus was crushed on 130 B.C.E; Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysius of Pontus failed to defeat the Romans during the Three Mithridatic Wars; Tigranes II Eupator of Armenia submitted to the Roman Republic; the Seleucid monarchy [Arche Seleukia] was sown its dissolution by Pompey 'the Great' in which the last competing dynasts to the Seleucid throne [1. Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, 2. Seleucus Kybiosaktes, 3. Philip II Philorhomais and 4. Antiochus I of Commagene] were disgraced and disposed of; and the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Hellenistic Egypt submitted to Rome on 30 B.C.E.
(5C.) In the East, the Arsacids of Parthia took over the eastern possessions of the Seleucids and subjugated most of the former territories of the Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom such as Tapuria, Traxiane, Hyrcania, etc. Alexander III did not integrate his vast empire into a centralized and cohesive socio-political unit with a coherent outlook. Instead, he utilized the satrapial system and failed to maintain his empire from domestic turmoil and foreign incursions.
(Conclusion): Therefore, although Alexander III of Macedonia was a military genius he did not possess sound political judgment and did not harbor a coherent outlook on the required administration of his vast domain which was dissolved upon his death by the Diadochoi or Epigonoi and by foreign elements. In addition, Alexander III was despotic and inflexible and in the later phases of his Asiatic conquests he was driven by licentious passions or frenzied and furious emotions that consumed and reduced him to a senseless individual obsequious or servile to petty delusions.
All arguments have been made invalid by the application of Conrad.
Your conclusion does not make sense. If he wasn't a good leader, then why didn't his vast domain dissolve while he was in power? His successors were not great powerful leaders like he was so it caused his vast domain to dissolve.
Anyway, I think Aristotle played a greater role on Alexander being a great leader than his father ever did.
The empire was already falling apart, but because of the great victories alexander made, those werent seen. When alexander died, and his follow up failed or atleast didnt do as good as alexander, all the things that already were going bad collapsed to a crucial point.
Hans7 please read my comprehensive post for your post is petty, generalized and basic.
Alexander died rather young and with no heir since his son at that time had not even been born yet so it is rather unfair to say he failed as a ruler for having his empire divided. Besides Greece had been governed by independant city states so the idea of a structure to support a vast empire was probably pretty foreign to them. Greece was after all the birth-place of democracy.
In any case if you want to hold Alexander responsible for failing as an emperor he still achieved one thing by spreading Greek culture to the rest of the known world which lasted for another 200 years before they were absorbed by the Republic if Rome.
To Hans7:
___________________________________
According to Classical Greek tragedy and ethical theory, the greatest flaw was the sin of hubris [hybris] that in its original and mythological connotation described the hubristic individual as one who believed that they were equal to or greater than the sempiternal, omniscient and ominpotent gods. An example in Classical Greek mythology was the figure of Bellerophon who attempted to ascend to the realm of the gods [Empyrean: the heavenly realm of the incorporeal] of the Olympian Pantheon through the winged horse Pegasus. In addition, Aeschylus viewed the hubris of the Medio-Achaemenid dynasts of Persia as their downfall [Example: Darius I and Xerxes I]. Such immoderation/excess or hubris through the insatiable and voracious desire for the subjugation of others resulted in nemesis or a divine retribution with the repulsion of Persian troops and the defeat of the Persian viceroy Mardonius that resulted in the loss of Persian hegemony over Thessaly, Thessalonica, Macedonia, Thrace, etc and the humiliation of the Persian "Megas Basileus" [Great King].
Aristotle differed slightly from the earlier mythological viewpoints of hubris as a sin followed by the divine retribution from the gods. In Aristotelian tragedy/literary theory, the hamartia [The tragic flaw] is the sin/flaw of hubris. This is then followed by peripeteia [A reversal in fortune] and then by anagnorisis [A realization of the tragic flaw of hubris]. Finally, catharsis [A purgation of raw emotions] and an epiphany [A revelation] occur. Thus, the Aristotelian tragic figure though of good qualities in general and endowed with superior elements [In the domains of the intellect, heritage, prowess, etc] underwent a form of moral dilapidation [decay] and in turn would suffer a reversal of grace and fortune. Aristotle carried on the viewpoint of hubris being a sin of excess/immoderation from its mythological connotation, however, it was categorized and given a distinct character through his compilation of literary theory. In his "Nicomachean Ethics", the aim of the good and happy life [Eudaimonia] and of achieving greatness was the path of moderation. Sophrosyne [moderation] was contained between the two separate polarities of immoderation/excess: hubris or in the Aristotelian sense an emerging definition of arrogance and overvaulting pride, and pusillanimity or the state of being irresolute, cowardly and vacillating. Thus, two main endpoints arose: the concept of megalomania or "greatness" acquired through coercion, domination, subjugation, etc which Alexander III of Macedonia embodied, and megalopsychia ["A magnanimity of the soul"] which is greatness not through processes or acts of subjugation and the imposition of will but through friendship, benevolence, kindness, moderation, love, continence, the acquisition of knowledge, etc.
The dilapidation or decay of the tragic figure had two main effects upon the audience: either instilling fear and trepidation or offering a transcendence from vulgar human passions and from humanity's obsequious bondage to vice and barbarism by avoiding the flaws that led to the downfall of the tragic figure. Thus, through catharsis the audience is driven through internal turmoil and fury that results in a certain upheaval of the soul and a transitional phase that ends with either 1. An elevation and transcendence from human baseness through an emotional purgation or 2. A degradation and debasement of the human character with the futility of individual sovereignty and individual autonomy leading to a person with his innermost recesses as inchoate [Senseless, massless and formless], repellent and shrouded in the tenebrous or unshaped/unformed and to forever dwell in ignominy and defeat.
1.) In the mythological context, hubris was defined as a general means of immoderation/excess by challenging the will of the gods leading to divine retibution or nemesis;
2.) In the context of Aristotelian literary, dramatic and ethical philosophy, to be consumed by hubris was an indication of moral dilapidation and was defined as a specific kind of immoderation through pride and vainglory; and
3.) The modern, contemporary connotation of the tragic flaw is that hubris simply refers to anyone who is arrogant and conceited as opposed to a process of decay featured within Classical Greek, Roman and Renaissance literary, dramatic and aesthetical elements.
Conrad why do you underline random words and use crappy brackets all over the place. What is the point of putting [hybris] when everybody uses the word hubris? Do you copy and paste this from somewhere? Anyway, your post might be long, but that doesn't mean there is any substance in your post. You fail to understand the difference between quantity and quality. Quality is what you should be shooting for not quantity. Seriously though, change your format that you post in because it is so irritating to read.
Okay Brotherhood. Let's just forget about it. Nothing happened.
:)
I'll just remind you all to keep this civilized, please.
Thank you.
I like conrad's posts but they are too long to read:)
alexander was a cool guy he was a great leader
what makes people great leader isn't what they learnt or thought but their strong will
this will gathers people around and make them believe things and work harder for it
like Che Guevera's last words to his killer
'shoot now you will just kill a man'
or Mehmet II the Conqueror of Constantinapole(Istanbul) he started to draw plans at the age of 9
and when he was 21 while besieging
'either I take Constantinapole or it will take me'
people always would love to follow the ones that dare
Mr. Hans7, you are either ignorant or invidious of my superior intellectual abilities. In addition, I was not aware that everyone utilizes the term "hubris". I was under the impression that daily speech is vulgar and unrefined.
_________________________________________________
Here is the link to my above short piece regarding the term hubris in the Greco-Roman mythological context and in Aristotelian dramatic and aesthetical theory:
http://mynapoleonobsession.blogspot.com/2009/09/napoleon-maxim.html?showComment=1254281586191#c901920912995 9306652
Ok back to the topic now... the thread turned into a flaming centre now...
A new question:
Alexander the Great:
Do you think he would be more victorious if he DIDN'T marry a babylonian after the victory?
Maybe. But we'll never know, as he caught a fever and died.
How can you DIE of a fever? It's just a very high temperature! Unless there's something about a fever that I don't know about.....
I agree with Conrad that Alexander III of Macedon (And I of the Grecian states, and his "Hellenistic Empire") was a very flawed man.
However, if he had not been a great borrower of tactics, and had not the common sense to at least listen to his tutor (none other than Aristotle), and his father much less, he would have been an even baser general, and would not have even made it outside of the Grecian states with a big army, much less been able to control them.
He would have been assassinated promptly, and the Empire would have split anyway.
He was an incompetant person, and he was largely responsible for the crumbling of his empire in the following way:
When he conquered a kingdom, he just bowled over it and went on, instead of setting up an interim government other than the army, if even that, in place in that region.
This extreme power vacuum, unfilled even by Alexander and his toadies, caused the empire to crumble rapidly from the inside from the start...
WARNING: DOUBLE POST
I was distracted for a while (Evony, what can I say?) and took a long time in posting...
Yes, "hubris" is not used every day, but I think that the terms narcissistic, selfish, self-centered, could remotely come to mean the same thing as that word.
Let's just put the term "hubris" into layman terms:
If you are "hubristic," you have a massive and incredible ego, and your knowledge and power equal and rival that of even God (or gods).
You are selfish, incompetant, yet have the illusion that nothing is better than you, when in fact most things are.
This word is generally used to describe monarchs, nobility, and likewise, because it is usually only their egoes and selfishness, and downright foolhardiness that only this term can properly apply to these cases...
I would think that this would be at least enough for you to get by...
*AFTERTHOUGHT*
This term can also apply to us commoners, in the same way...
Just realizing... how can we say he aint alexander the great? he maybe made some mistakes, oh well... we are all human, none of us is perfect... so he aint either.
He is one of the very best commander of troops I believe. How can we say someone who has conqueurd so much and has won so many battles and is still now impressing every single one of us so much that we are still talking about him isnt great? yea maybe huge... but oh well :)
He maybe should've had appointed better persons to take care of the area he conqueurd, but easy talking for us... looking back for centuries, seeing what he did and then we come after many years with better ideas, he was in the middle of battles. When you have an enemy before you, do you stop to consider to let him live or die? You'll be dead by then...
For me he is Alexander the Great, even tough he has done many things wrong. The many more things he did right in my eyes win it over those. :)
I still make the assertion that without his father's work and knowledge, and without his tutor/s, he would have made a rather poor ruler.
I believe he is great.
Calling him incompetent is a rather harsh judgement for a man who defeated the Persian Empire which was the greatest empire of its time. Rome at that time was still in its infancy. Maybe Alexander wasn't a great ruler, but he was a conquorer, not a politician. There are only a small handful of people throughout known history that have had such an impact, and the fact that he did have a great impact is proven because here we are nearly 2500 years later still talking about it. He is also a household name. Even people who fail at history and never cracked a book in their life know of Alexander the Great.