View Poll Results: Alexander? Great or Bait without his fathers tactics?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Alexander the Great

    15 50.00%
  • Alexander the Bait

    5 16.67%
  • Alexander the Ordinary

    10 33.33%
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: DEBATE: Alexander the Great

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Some place in England.
    Posts
    5,677

    Default

    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.....

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    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...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    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
    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...
    Last edited by Cosmic Fury; 04-04-2010 at 02:12 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my old shoebox
    Posts
    601

    Default

    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.
    ''Just a small guy standing between giants.''

    ''Only 1 man in a thousand is an leader, the other 999 follow woman.''

    http://bbs.evony.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=137439&dateline=12685  80799

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Somewhere You're Not!
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK View Post
    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.....
    A fever could be potentially deadly with another pre-existing medical problem.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    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.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurnis View Post
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jurnis View Post
    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...
    caught in the act milord

    time to be banhammered for double posting

    Alexander the Great prolly liked fat chicks, so he wins, nuff said
    OH MAH GAWD I R DURMB HURP DURP


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    765

    Default

    I believe he is great.

  9. #39

    Default

    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.
    Killing people never solves anything but it keeps them out of your hair while you think of an alternative.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    They see me lurkin', they hatin'.
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mormy View Post
    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.
    True, Julius Caesar was also a conqueror. And it is the conquerors who is also remembered.

    Achilles ~ Alexander ~ Caesar ~ Charlemagne (not very famous) ~ William Wallace ~ Henry V ~ Napoleon.

    About all of you have hears about atleast three of those
    ProLurker

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •