Alexander’s main achievement was usurping the throne of the Persian Empire - leaving this kingdom, incidentally, over 200 years old, to fall apart after his death.

Great? Maybe, but he's not a Cyrus nor even a Philip. These are men whose greatness derives from creating new kingdoms, not in usurping and destroying older ones.
He is often portrayed as some kind of world conqueror, but he was merely a semi-barbarian warlord who detroyed the most sophisticated state in the world at the time. Hellenistic propaganda suggests he threatened to do more than this, that he wanted to go on and conquer the world, but the reality is that he turned round at India, just beyond the area of former Persian control. World conqueror my ass! Kingdom conqueror at most, and hardly the greatest of kings.

Ooo ooo I am sooo cross.
How can you slur the megas basilieus.
Alex founded numerous cities.
He united many separate peoples both personally and posthumously.
His image became the exemplum for kingship for centuries. He provided the model for Augustus' principate.
He reformed satrapal government etc

Hang on Im getting my notes out brb

Originally posted by Peri
Ooo ooo I am sooo cross.
How can you slur the megas basilieus.
Alex founded numerous cities.
He united many separate peoples both personally and posthumously.
His image became the exemplum for kingship for centuries. He provided the model for Augustus' principate.
He reformed satrapal government etc

Hang on Im getting my notes out brb

Should I respond to that post, or wait?

:lol:

Cheers.
Ive been hunting through my notes.
My conclusion is that his main claim to greatness was through his death.
In life he was responsible for the founding of many cities all called Alexandria (not surprisingly)
In death his impact was much greater. Although his empire did not survive him and in many cases his attempts at Persian/Macedonian fusion failed spectacularly, the image of Alexander was held as the model for kingship throughout the ancient world. His successors naturally claimed a link to him and to the pantheon in order to legitimise their rule. However a homogenous society did begin to develop as Alexander had hoped. The Persian empire had been a collection of 20 satraps and assorted autonomous regions. Nevertheless under the Seleuccids,Antigonids and Ptolemys unified kingdoms emerged.

However I would say that his greatest achievement was his impact on Rome. The imagery used by Alexander and in turn his successors helped to create an iconic legitimacy for Augustus. Augustus used such imagery and art to unify the world under Rome. An achievement which I believe owes much to the work done by Alexander and his spear won empire.

Technically the great king was his official title as ruler of Persia so disputing his claims to that epithet could be seen as redundant.

Thanks for waiting Calgacus,Ive had problems with the server.

PS conquering an empire the breadth of Dareios' through the spear was pretty much an automatic qualification for godhood let alone greatness ;)

Ooo ooo I am sooo cross.

You know that was said with a grin right

Overrated? how 'bout underated- you dont aknowledge that at the very beginnig of his reign he had to re-subdue all the famous greek states, yes his primary goal-at first- was to lead a pan-hellenic(all greek) crusade agaisnt the persian empire for the the mere fact that greece had to suffer the humiliation of being invaded, despite the fact that they kick persian a$$, as for semi-barbarian yea right, recent excavations at Pella- the Macedonian capital city, and birth place of mighty Alexandros Magnos was among the most sifistocated citys in the world- riviling even Athens, Syracuse, Babylon, and Waset(Egyptian Thebes) in size and grandure, not to metion it was were many Athenian scholors, and philosophers(inclunding Aristotle, the very tutor of Alexander) sought refuge and patronage by the Macedonian nobles after Athens more or less blamed them for it fall from glory after the peloponisian war

also Alexander expanded Greek territory to the indus a place where the Persians had never truly subdued(similer to the Roman holdings in germany) and north, into direct contact with the Scythians, and west making the Greek city state of Cyrenica more or less a vassel kingdom.

oh, and about Cyrus and Phillip creating new kingdoms this is hardley the case, there had been a macedonian kingdome in some form since the time of homer, and it was the same kingdom that ruled from befor the classicle age even bagan that Phillip belonged to, ha, and Cyrus for that matter only led pre-existing civilaztions into a state a form that was much better than was previouslly had by that state, but did no creating.

Originally posted by Peri
:lol:

In life he was responsible for the founding of many cities all called Alexandria (not surprisingly)


Seleucus Nicator also founded many cities. As did Alexander's father Philip. It is hardly an attribute of greatness.

In death his impact was much greater. Although his empire did not survive him and in many cases his attempts at Persian/Macedonian fusion failed spectacularly, the image of Alexander was held as the model for kingship throughout the ancient world. His successors naturally claimed a link to him and to the pantheon in order to legitimise their rule. However a homogenous society did begin to develop as Alexander had hoped. The Persian empire had been a collection of 20 satraps and assorted autonomous regions. Nevertheless under the Seleuccids,Antigonids and Ptolemys unified kingdoms emerged.


It was the very fact that "His successors naturally claimed a link to him and to the pantheon in order to legitimise their rule" that made the "image of Alexander...the model for kingship throughout the ancient world" The needed Alexander to legitimize their rule, so they promoted him.

Much of Alexander's style of kingship is simply Persian. It seems new to us because we rely on ignorant Greek texts.

The Seleucid kingdom was no more unified that the Persian kingdom, and Egypt was one of the Satrapies.


However I would say that his greatest achievement was his impact on Rome. The imagery used by Alexander and in turn his successors helped to create an iconic legitimacy for Augustus. Augustus used such imagery and art to unify the world under Rome. An achievement which I believe owes much to the work done by Alexander and his spear won empire.

Technically the great king was his official title as ruler of Persia so disputing his claims to that epithet could be seen as redundant.

PS conquering an empire the breadth of Dareios' through the spear was pretty much an automatic qualification for godhood let alone greatness

I would give Augustus a lot more credit than Alexander.

You'll need to clarify what you mean by "imagery used by Alexander" as I am not aware of any made during his lifetime.

Conquering the Persian Empire was an achievement, but when one takes over an already established kingdom as a new king, it makes him more of a foreign usurper than a great conqueror.

Thanks for waiting Calgacus,Ive had problems with the server.

I too had similar problems :)

You know that was said with a grin right

Yes :mad:

Originally posted by Xen
Overrated? how 'bout underated- you dont aknowledge that at the very beginnig of his reign he had to re-subdue all the famous greek states, yes his primary goal-at first- was to lead a pan-hellenic(all greek) crusade agaisnt the persian empire for the the mere fact that greece had to suffer the humiliation of being invaded, despite the fact that they kick persian a$$, as for semi-barbarian yea right, recent excavations at Pella- the Macedonian capital city, and birth place of mighty Alexandros Magnos was among the most sifistocated citys in the world- riviling even Athens, Syracuse, Babylon, and Waset(Egyptian Thebes) in size and grandure, not to metion it was were many Athenian scholors, and philosophers(inclunding Aristotle, the very tutor of Alexander) sought refuge and patronage by the Macedonian nobles after Athens more or less blamed them for it fall from glory after the peloponisian war

Alexander came to power on the back of his father's achievements. Crushing a revolt is hardly an achievement unique to Alexander.

The know that Macedonian court made use of many great Greek cultural figures, like Euripides and Aristotle. But that only reflects the power of the kingdom in its surrounding world.

Oh ye, I don't know what you're reading, but Pella was nowhere even close to Athens and Syracuse in size. That's just nonsense.

Originally posted by Xen
also Alexander expanded Greek territory to the indus a place where the Persians had never truly subdued(similer to the Roman holdings in germany) and north, into direct contact with the Scythians, and west making the Greek city state of Cyrenica more or less a vassel kingdom.

Ptolemy conquered Cyrene. It had already been a vassal kingdom of the Persians at various known points.

Alexander's trip into India was both a "cowing" expedition and a takeover of the former Persian subjects on the Indus, designed to force the border states to acknowledge him as the new Persian monarch. It was not an attempt at a general conquest of India.

Originally posted by Xen
oh, and about Cyrus and Phillip creating new kingdoms this is hardley the case, there had been a macedonian kingdome in some form since the time of homer, and it was the same kingdom that ruled from befor the classicle age even bagan that Phillip belonged to, ha, and Cyrus for that matter only led pre-existing civilaztions into a state a form that was much better than was previouslly had by that state, but did no creating.

Pure ignorance :rolleyes:

Philip's Macedonia and Cyus's Persia were not just old kingdoms.

Philip took over a nation of poorly clad, backward, semi-barbaric mountain dwellers and transformed Macedonia into an urban state, three times its original size. He turned Macedonia from a little backwater, to the most powerful state in the Mediterranean.
Macedonia was the same kingdom in name only.

Cyrus started out as a Persian chieftain, who created a new kingom by unifying "Medes and Persians", conquering Anatolia, Mesopotamia and other important areas and incorporating them into this new kingdom.

Alexander simply led an army created by Philip on the "Crusade" previously organized by Philip, won three battles with the help of his generals, did some campaigns, and died. There is some evidence that Alexander relied on Parmenion for his early battlefield victories, as Philip had done for many of his.

Alexander was simply a nut-case warrior-king.

He is one of the most Overrated monarchs in history. Trying to compare him to Cyrus or Genghis Khan, as has been done on another thread, is utterlty ridiculous. It's laughable :lol:

i]Originally posted by calgacus [/i]
Seleucus Nicator also founded many cities. As did Alexander's father Philip. It is hardly an attribute of greatness.

Well it doesnt hurt in the reasons for column.
But Alex found cities over a vast area spreading his name and fame. The effect of this is to at least make people living in his empire think that he was worthy of note.

It was the very fact that "His successors naturally claimed a link to him and to the pantheon in order to legitimise their rule" that made the "image of Alexander...the model for kingship throughout the ancient world" They needed Alexander to legitimize their rule, so they promoted him.

Thats what I am saying. He was called The Great after his death in recognition not just for his achievements in life but for his impact on the world.
Power = greatness. I cant remember exactly but there is an inscription which makes the connection between power and godhood. On his death Alexander had conquered/usurped the greatest empire known. That was a phenomenal achievement. There was evidence that Alexander was not adverse to promoting himself and establishing a link to the gods. Therefore even in life he set himself apart from the average ruler.
I agree with your point but if Alex's reputation had not been so significant then it would not have been so neccessary to establish a link to him. Alex became a legend very quickly and many people had reasons to promote and enhance his reputation so they could bask in his reflected glory. It is the people who came after him who established his reputation for greatness and fixed it for posterity.
(Yes, I am very fond of the bottom up theory)


Much of Alexander's style of kingship is simply Persian. It seems new to us because we rely on ignorant Greek texts.

Yes it is because he wanted to minimise disruption. The Persian systems of government worked well. It was a rather good system for managing a large empire and for keeping the central authority strong.
There was no real need to make changes. However he did introduce reforms to cement control and reduce chance of rebellion by satrapal governors. I am also partial to this supposed attempt to create a new ruling class.
Alexander bought the world closer together. By destroying the Persian empire he facilitated the exchange of many ideas and concepts. Not all good i'll grant you but it did have a profound effect on the next few centuries.

The Seleucid kingdom was no more unified that the Persian kingdom, and Egypt was one of the Satrapies.

Sorry. I meant that the 'Hellenistic' culture became widespread and that the cultural similarity made progress in unifying people.


As a disclaimer I think that I am going to be very hard pressed to find any contemporary evidence at all of imagery actually used by Alexander since no one has found anything credible yet.

You don't seem to be arguing that Alexander was actually a great man, but rather, that he had an important legacy?

Originally posted by calgacus
You don't seem to be arguing that Alexander was actually a great man, but rather, that he had an important legacy?

I think in my first post I said that his legacy was the key to his greatness as far as I am concerned.
I dont think that he was a great man nor do I think that he was a particularly outstanding monarch. However I believe that his conquest of the Persian empire alone qualifies him for greatness by contemporary standards .
It is sad though that we reward such behaviour with adulation but that is history for you.

btw do you know where the first mention of him as The Great can be found?

No, tell me?

I wasnt in quiz mode.:lol:
I was really asking cause I thought it was worth finding out whether it is a medieval construct or whether it was someone like Plutarch or Dionysos. I have always been curious as to who gets to give monarchs their titles. Names like philopator or poliocetes are probably contemporary but 'The Great' must be given posthumously.

Aditionally I wonder who 'Greated' Cyrus II

I'll look into it. However, I know that the mediocre Antiochus the Great was named "megas" during his lifetime in imitation of Alexander.

Do you think it has anything to do with the megas basileus title of the Persian kings and then became acceptable use it in the Hellenistic period.
If Antiochos used in imitation then it must have been given to Alex fairly soon after his death.

http://www.soa.org.uk/slingshot/slforum/index.htm
go down to where it says issue 222- stright from the archeologists mouth, pella was a grand city

Philip's Macedonia and Cyus's Persia were not just old kingdoms.

Philip took over a nation of poorly clad, backward, semi-barbaric mountain dwellers and transformed Macedonia into an urban state, three times its original size. He turned Macedonia from a little backwater, to the most powerful state in the Mediterranean.
Macedonia was the same kingdom in name only.

Cyrus started out as a Persian chieftain, who created a new kingom by unifying "Medes and Persians", conquering Anatolia, Mesopotamia and other important areas and incorporating them into this new kingdom.

not my point and you know it, the point is that they did NOT CREATE(sp?) kingdoms, only expanded them

It is sad though that we reward such behaviour with adulation but that is history for you.

you call the attepmt that post conquest he left the standing satrapal government standing(for the most part) and urged his soldurs to marry persians in a attepmt to solidify peace bad?, yes conquest is not nessiasarilly the best for adoration, but looking on history you can hardlly call him even mediocre when there are presences in hisory such as hitler, or vlad the impaler

Ptolemy conquered Cyrene
not so fast, if this was the case then why did it fall seperate of egypt when it(eygpt) was conquerd by Rome? after all surlley even the ptolomaic kings would have contested it if it fell befoer eygpt, and would have fell with eygpt if it had not yet....(i'm not sure when the pentapolis region the cyrenica is in fell to rome)

pentapolis region the cyrenica

i mean pentapalos region that cyrenica is in....

WHOOPS! wrong issue, never mind the isue 222 thing, right place but wrong artricle

the correct article is at the tail end of issue 216

errr....scratch that its kinda in the middle it says its about alexanders palace.....

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-101058,00.html - this link will help as well.....

Originally posted by Xen
Ptolemy conquered Cyrene
not so fast, if this was the case then why did it fall seperate of egypt when it(eygpt) was conquerd by Rome? after all surlley even the ptolomaic kings would have contested it if it fell befoer eygpt, and would have fell with eygpt if it had not yet....(i'm not sure when the pentapolis region the cyrenica is in fell to rome)

If Alexander had conquered it, there would be the same "problem"

I can't get the article you've posted. Anyway, I hardly think that the Times would be the best source.

You can take my word for it, Pella was not even in the same league as Athens, Syracuse or Babylon as an urben center. Pella was merely royal center.

Anyway, I've forgotten, how would this make Alexander great?

Alexander is highly underrated and perhaps could not achieve greatness of the magnitude of Augustus because of his premature death.

Also, his victories were not aganst greatly weakened armies or in friendly conditions as such. Indeed in India, he lost more men to the monsoon and the mangoes( yes they caused fatal diarrhoea to the troops, a feat even elephants could not achieve;)) than to Indian soldiers. However, he sought as much as much as possible to try and treat his defeated foe as an equal and not as a beaten ruler as is testament to his humane treatment of Porus and other Indian rulers.

So I would say that while Alexander was a great conqueror, he would have also been a great ruler, but for his untimely death.

Originally posted by allhailIndia


So I would say that while Alexander was a great conqueror, he would have also been a great ruler, but for his untimely death.

Anyone could be great with that argument. Hardly Alexander though, who died a drunk in Babylon.

Forgive me for coming so late to this debate, but here is something that I posted some time ago in answer to a question by Exsanguination, which may have use in the current discussion....
.....who was the greater, Caesar or Alexander?

Three things we should remember about Alexander:-
--------------------------------------------------------------
1) He inherited the best army in the world at that time from his father Philip II, and didn't invent any new weapons, tactics or drill, but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).

2) He led this army against the largest, but also one of the worst armies in the world at that time.
(Certainly the many various horse contingents of the Persian army, composed of individually brave and skilled aristocratic nobles, were a force to be reckoned with. But the foot troops, with the exception of the Mercenary Hoplites and the few Persian Foot Guards, were little more than a vast sea of peasant levies, with no training, drill, or decent weapons)

3) He always tried to use the same tactic in all of his set-piece battles, namely the "advance in echelon, with the right flank led by himself and the Companions leading, and refuse or defend with the left". This he learnt from Philip, who learnt it from the Theban general Epaminondas.
(Although against an enemy holding a narrow pass or defile, he always tried to outflank them with his faster lighter troops, so as to fall on their flank or rear)

In short, Alexander was a military adventurer, who loved fighting battles, and craved fame and glory.
(But once he had conquered a region, he was also a good administrator.
He began to adopt Persian customs, and forced his senior Macedonian commanders to marry Persian wives in order to merge the two cultures into something new....but this failed, as after his death they all abandoned their new wives while they fought each other to gain as much of the empire as they could for themselves)


Three things we should remember about Julius Caesar:-
------------------------------------------------------------------
1) He inherited the best army in the world at that time from the Roman Senate, and didn't invent any new weapons, tactics or drill, but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).

2) He led this army against the largest, but also one of the worst armies in the world at that time; i.e the individually skilled and brave Celtic army of Gaul, which had no training, drill, or decent weapons.
But in addition, he also had to fight against the BEST army in the world; i.e. his own fellow Romans during the Civil War.
(Alexander never had to fight against another Macedonian army)

3) Caesar doesn't seem to have a 'set-piece' tactic in his battles....they were all handled differently. In fact, it is said that he used the spade as much as the sword, as can be seen in the siege and battles around Alesia in Gaul, and the trench & field works around Dyrrhachium in Greece against Pompey.

In short, Caesar was a shrewd politician, who used victory on the battlefields in Gaul as a way of gaining support and political power back in Rome, then used that support and power to crush his political rivals in the civil war.
He never created an empire....he just fought to gain control of one.


What would have happened if they had both lived longer?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Caesar, who was 56 years old. was planning a campaign against the Parthians when he was assassinated in 44 BC. Had he lived, then no doubt he would have conquered the east as well....but the emperor Trajan did actually conquer them in 117 AD, only to have the next emperor, Hadrian, give up these eastern lands because they couldn't be held.
So if Caesar had lived longer and died of old age, then I doubt if the history of the world would have been much different.

Alexander on the other hand, had he not died at the age of 33 in the year 323 BC, would no doubt have gone on seeking glory by conquering Italy and the west.....so the history of Europe, and thus the world, would have been very different.


What if they had fought against each other?
---------------------------------------------------
Obviously this is an impossible question to answer.
But, assuming that their armies were equal in size and training (and ignoring the limitations of the Macedonian pike phalanx), then I'd say it would all be down to who made the first mistake.
And I think that it would be the fiery, impatient, impetuous, glory seeker rather than the shrewd, cold, calculating, politician, who would make the first error. ;)

Originally posted by Kryten
but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).



Thanks for the post, Kryten.

Remember Parmenion, he was the one that was probably responsible for Alexander's victories in pitched battle.



BTW, I contacted Ex. about the Alexander scenario; he told me he'd handed it over to you. I tried to contact you about it, but you didn't answer. What's happening? Is it dead?

Originally posted by calgacus


Anyone could be great with that argument. Hardly Alexander though, who died a drunk in Babylon.

Excuse me but Alexander died from malaria and as for the drinking bit, Caesar and Augustus were no models of puritanical living either!:p

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Excuse me but Alexander died from malaria and as for the drinking bit

Excuse me, I didn't say how Alexander died, and, excuse me 2, no-one knows how Alexander died anyway. Malaria is one of the more unlikely theories.

Augustus was nothing like Alexander in irresponsible behaviour. I'm stunned you're using him as a model of comparison. :eek:

Originally posted by calgacus
BTW, I contacted Ex. about the Alexander scenario; he told me he'd handed it over to you. I tried to contact you about it, but you didn't answer. What's happening? Is it dead? [/B]

No, it is not dead, but still being constructed......

(Not only have I the new single figure units to make....and the multi-figure variants....but now also the tech tree....the map....the map graphics....the text dialog....and all the thousand and one other things needed to make it historically accurate!
Mongoloid Cow and Realn are helping here (http://realn.proboards15.com)....but more help would be appreciated. :) )

Getting back to the main subject, Alexander CREATED his own legend.....which is a sign of his greatness.
He made sure that the history books would not forget him.
Caesar tried to do the same....but a sequal is never as good as an original. ;)

Originally posted by Kryten


No, it is not dead, but still being constructed......

(Not only have I the new single figure units to make....and the multi-figure variants....but now also the tech tree....the map....the map graphics....the text dialog....and all the thousand and one other things needed to make it historically accurate!
Mongoloid Cow and Realn are helping here (http://realn.proboards15.com)....but more help would be appreciated. :) )



Can you open a new thread in C&C, at least directing people to that website? It's empty, you could probably recruit more help that way and get more ideas. I would do it, but you're the dude with all the info and control, and you would be the one who'd need to edit the opening post with updates. You'd also increase awareness. I'd very much like it if you did that. :)

i think calgacus, that you focus too much on the militeristic side of greatness.Yes Alexander was among the best COMMANDERS(a commander dose not necissarilly make tactical choices on the battle field, but they do define the overall stratagy used, and raise moral, but even attemptin to compare some like gengis khan and alexander is so insanley absurd i wonder what compelled you to write, after all haow can you comapare somone who attepmted to unify the classical world, treated all those whom he subjecated humanlly, and was among the most civilised men of his time to a barbarian like gengis who looted destroyed and killed nearrly everything in his path, sure he coverd more territory-i'm sure Alexander would to if he had all his important troops on horse back, but this is not the case, the case is that Alexander is among the greatest leaders in all history, he led a people who at one time were widlly dispersd and all the time in fighting into a cohessive whole-a great deal of alexanders army were hoplites from the city states of lower greece, not just the macedonian troops- and then led this whole to conqure the largest empire of the day, and begin expansion across the indus-a place to persian conqureror had set foot in victory, and won several battles, this and the fact that he attempted to easy the social tensions that were bound to come by integrating both persian and greek into one(predominantlly greek however) in the lands of persia goese to his credit as well, yet you spout on about how a subgeneral won most of his battles, and how Pella did not have apopulation as large as other city's, or how he recieved his army from his father, that(except the population part)) may be true(but i doubt the subgeneral part) but it dose not matter-military victorys by themselves are no base fro greatness-its everthing a ruler dose, integrated that decides it, and my friend, Alexander is Great.

Originally posted by Xen
i think calgacus, that you focus too much on the militeristic side of greatness.Yes Alexander was among the best COMMANDERS(a commander dose not necissarilly make tactical choices on the battle field, but they do define the overall stratagy used, and raise moral, but even attemptin to compare some like gengis khan and alexander is so insanley absurd i wonder what compelled you to write, after all haow can you comapare somone who attepmted to unify the classical world, treated all those whom he subjecated humanlly, and was among the most civilised men of his time to a barbarian like gengis who looted destroyed and killed nearrly everything in his path, sure he coverd more territory-i'm sure Alexander would to if he had all his important troops on horse back, but this is not the case, the case is that Alexander is among the greatest leaders in all history, he led a people who at one time were widlly dispersd and all the time in fighting into a cohessive whole-a great deal of alexanders army were hoplites from the city states of lower greece, not just the macedonian troops- and then led this whole to conqure the largest empire of the day, and begin expansion across the indus-a place to persian conqureror had set foot in victory, and won several battles, this and the fact that he attempted to easy the social tensions that were bound to come by integrating both persian and greek into one(predominantlly greek however) in the lands of persia goese to his credit as well, yet you spout on about how a subgeneral won most of his battles, and how Pella did not have apopulation as large as other city's, or how he recieved his army from his father, that(except the population part)) may be true(but i doubt the subgeneral part) but it dose not matter-military victorys by themselves are no base fro greatness-its everthing a ruler dose, integrated that decides it, and my friend, Alexander is Great.

I'm not really following your argument, can I ask that you present your arguments more clearly and carefully so that I can properly respond?



even attemptin to compare some like gengis khan and alexander is so insanley absurd i wonder what compelled you to write, after all haow can you comapare somone who attepmted to unify the classical world, treated all those whom he subjecated humanlly,

I hope you're joking.

Alexander massacred or enslaved the entire population of Thebes. His war crimes are not his strong point.

Alexander didn't attempt to unify the "classical world", he merely embarked on a conquest of the Persian Empire.

sorry if its a little unclear- i was writing fast(and i'm not a good typer anyway), until i have time to put it in section by section all i can say is read over again, slowlly, and try to understand the typeos....

Originally posted by calgacus
Alexander didn't attempt to unify the "classical world", he merely embarked on a conquest of the Persian Empire.

....originally, yes. But after the visit to the Oracle of Ammon in Egypt in 331BC, he considered himself a GOD, and tried to unite the people of his time into one universal culture.
This failed.....but at least he tried.

Was he humane....no.
Name me ONE world conquer who was!
But he was not as bad as many others who have tried to follow him. ;)

Originally posted by Kryten


....originally, yes. But after the visit to the Oracle of Ammon in Egypt in 331BC, he considered himself a GOD, and tried to unite the people of his time into one universal culture.
This failed.....but at least he tried.


This is another misconception. He didn't try to unite the people of his time at all. He was content even with the independence of Sparta and northern Anatolia. He merely embarked on a conquest of the former Persian Empire. His divinty indicates nothing more than either delusion or an attempt to legitimize his authority in Egypt.

What's the point of this thread if calgacus just continues to bash Alexander over the head even when just about everybody else gives Alex the thumbs up???:confused:

Originally posted by allhailIndia
What's the point of this thread if calgacus just continues to bash Alexander over the head even when just about everybody else gives Alex the thumbs up???:confused:

Well, Calgacus arrogantly thinks he knows better and is waiting to be proved wrong. ;)

Originally posted by calgacus
This is another misconception. He didn't try to unite the people of his time at all. He was content even with the independence of Sparta and northern Anatolia. He merely embarked on a conquest of the former Persian Empire. His divinty indicates nothing more than either delusion or an attempt to legitimize his authority in Egypt.

Ah, but what about his adoption of Persian dress and court ceremony?
His own Macedonian troops were very upset about this, and even went on strike several times because of it.
He didn't have to do it....he was was the conquer of Asia.
He must have chosen to do it, as well as trying to force his senior Macedonian commanders to marry Persian wives.
Why.....what was his utimate purpose?

Originally posted by calgacus


Well, Calgacus arrogantly thinks he knows better and is waiting to be proved wrong. ;)

We might as well wait for Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf to say that American tanks are on the streets of Baghdad;)

Originally posted by Kryten


Ah, but what about his adoption of Persian dress and court ceremony?
His own Macedonian troops were very upset about this, and even went on strike several times because of it.
He didn't have to do it....he was was the conquer of Asia.
He must have chosen to do it, as well as trying to force his senior Macedonian commanders to marry Persian wives.
Why.....what was his utimate purpose?

To take over the Persian Empire, not as a foreign conqueror, but as a successor. That's why he adopted Persian dress, that's why he risked alienating his Macedonian soldiers, that's why he tried to incorporate aristocratic Persians into his army, that's why he executed Bessus as a traitor, etc, etc.


BTW, Kryten, are you going to open a thread for the AtG scenario on Civfanatics? You haven't responded to my post regarding it.

i dont think Alexander wanted to be known as a sussesor because he knew that a greek marching in and conquring persia could never be haild as one, just put some real thought behind this, you are a persian, a commoner at that and all of a sudden the status que has just been turned upside down because a FORIEGNER, a greek one at that has just come in and annexed the persian empire, your home, and birthplace, could you hail him as a simple persian succesor, or a conqoror(sp?)

Well, Calgacus arrogantly thinks he knows better and is waiting to be proved wrong


the key word here is THINKS ;)

Hello again. There has sure been a lot of movement on this thread since I last looked.

As king, Alex's name goes on the winners board regardless of help he may or may not have received from his subordinate generals.
I am not an Alex basher but there are not that many good things that can be said about him whilst living. The only decent history of him is from Arrian and he is not a glowing apologist. Regardless of what else we may think of him he conquered a vast empire, a feat unparallelled. This alone qualifies him as Great.
However Calgacus' criticisms of him are valid. I am sure Calgacus is not an Alex basher but then it is not necessary to venerate his every action in order to have respect for him.

If anyone can think of other reasons that qualify him for greatness then please post them. BTW there is enough ambiguity in the evidence to argue either position regarding 'Greatness' with confidence.

Originally posted by Xen
[url]
It is sad though that we reward such behaviour with adulation but that is history for you.

you call the attepmt that post conquest he left the standing satrapal government standing(for the most part) and urged his soldurs to marry persians in a attepmt to solidify peace bad?, yes conquest is not nessiasarilly the best for adoration, but looking on history you can hardlly call him even mediocre when there are presences in hisory such as hitler, or vlad the impaler


No but Alex does not qualify for greatness as either a builder or an administrator or a thinker. He is only great through the sword . This in my view is not one of the most edifying qualification for 'Greatness'

i think you forget the fondation of several dozen alexandrias throught his empire, not jut The famous alexandria(now ishkandahairya, or a spelling similer to) in egypt

Originally posted by Xen
i think you forget the fondation of several dozen alexandrias throught his empire, not jut The famous alexandria(now ishkandahairya, or a spelling similer to) in egypt
Then perhaps you should read my first post. Although founding many cities over a vast area puts a lot of points in the 'Plus' column itis not decisive imho

no its not, but its one of the nicer things he did:)

Originally posted by Xen
i dont think Alexander wanted to be known as a sussesor because he knew that a greek marching in and conquring persia could never be haild as one, just put some real thought behind this, you are a persian, a commoner at that and all of a sudden the status que has just been turned upside down because a FORIEGNER, a greek one at that has just come in and annexed the persian empire, your home, and birthplace, could you hail him as a simple persian succesor, or a conqoror(sp?)

Greeks were the elite soldiers of the Persian Empire anyway, either levied from Ionia or recruited as mercenaries. The sight of Hellenic troops accompanying the Great King would not have been a strange one. And remember, the Persians were foreigners for most of the empire anyway; the only losers from the Alexandrian conquest were the Persians and Medes (the aristocracy), the very people that Alexander put so much effort into appeasing.

Originally posted by Peri
Hello again. There has sure been a lot of movement on this thread since I last looked.

As king, Alex's name goes on the winners board regardless of help he may or may not have received from his subordinate generals.

However Calgacus' criticisms of him are valid. I am sure Calgacus is not an Alex basher but then it is not necessary to venerate his every action in order to have respect for him.

If anyone can think of other reasons that qualify him for greatness then please post them. BTW there is enough ambiguity in the evidence to argue either position regarding 'Greatness' with confidence.

The reason I opened this thread was that I was irritated by the hyper-dogmatism surrounding the name of Alexander in the "Greatest Conqueror" thread. You're right, I'm not an Alexander basher, as is indicated in my first post; but, as a conqueror, he's not in the same league as Genghis Khan, nor even Cyrus.

Originally posted by Peri
Do you think it has anything to do with the megas basileus title of the Persian kings and then became acceptable use it in the Hellenistic period.
If Antiochos used in imitation then it must have been given to Alex fairly soon after his death.

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

The possible connection between "the Great" and "Great king" is interesting. While I'd be sceptical, I shall have to look into it. However, it may take a while, since my library is closed for Easter.

The only precedent for "great", AFAIR, is Cyrus: the first Great King.

:goodjob:

All right, I'll post (if just to give your arguments some historical merit):

Firstly, about Cyrenaica. The Pentapolis was established during the Ptolemaic Empire of the cities of Cyrene, Barca, Ptolemias, Darnis and Euhesperides. They were given to Rome as a gift in the will of one of the many Ptolemy kings.

The earliest person I know of to get the title 'the Great' was Satur I of Crete c2600BC. There are others before Cyrus too. Ramesses II of Egypt, Suppililiumas I of the Hittie Empire, Minos I of the Minoan Empire, Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon, Sargon of Akkad are but a few.

Alexander got the title from Augustus in 30BC.

Alexandria in Egypt is not the only important city he built. What about Herat, Qandahar, Ilias (One of the Troy cities), etc.

Julius Caesar could not hear the name Alexander without feeling inferior.

And do I think Alexander the Great is overrated, no. I think he is an important part of history and certainly one of the best rulers the world has had.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
The earliest person I know of to get the title 'the Great' was Satur I of Crete c2600BC. There are others before Cyrus too. Ramesses II of Egypt, Suppililiumas I of the Hittie Empire, Minos I of the Minoan Empire, Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon, Sargon of Akkad are but a few.

Alexander got the title from Augustus in 30BC.



Would you be kind enough to post the sources for these please.
Cheers.

Yes, I second that.

I don't have many sources, most of the titles I know of straight from my head.

Augustus giving Alexander the title 'the Great' at the Soma in Alexandria after defeating Cleopatra is kinda general knowledge.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
I don't have many sources, most of the titles I know of straight from my head.

Augustus giving Alexander the title 'the Great' at the Soma in Alexandria after defeating Cleopatra is kinda general knowledge.


But is that epigraphic/contemporary literary or anecdotal?
Sorry to be picky but I've become all interested in how/when rulers were 'Greated'

Alexander must have been "greated" before that, remembering the Antiochus the Great

Firstly, about Cyrenaica. The Pentapolis was established during the Ptolemaic Empire

cant be, there is a "kyrenaca" metioned in egyptian record from befor the persian conquest, allueding to the the establish ment of atleast Cyernica, the only major city in the pentapolis region in or around the the hellinc dark ages, when most of the greek colonies were founded, it was also the sorce of a major phlosophy, hedonism, during classiale times, but i'm not compleatlly sure about the exact time so it could be early hellenistic perioid

I don't know much about why Alexander was 'Greated' after so long. It is no surprise that generally the Antiochus's of the Seleucid Empire were far more egotistic and might have given themselves such titles. Augustus is the only person I know of to declare him 'the Great'.

I have read Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander, Plutarch's Life of Alexander, Diodorus Siculus' Histories and Curtius' History of Alexander and in none of these texts do they refer to Alexander as Megas ('the Great'). He is simply king, general, the Macedonian or most common of all simply Alexandros. They do call his deeds great, his throne great and his lineage (from Hercules and Achilles no less) is considered a deciding factor in his greatness. However they never refer to him as 'the Great' per se.

This excerpt is from Diodorus:
"On his father's side Alexander was a descendant of Heracles and on his mother's he could claim the blood of the Aeacids, so that from his ancestors on both sides he inherited the physical and moral qualities of greatness ."

This one from Curtius (on the succession):

"Encouraged and reassured by Perdiccas' hesitation, Meleager, one of the generals, now said: 'God forbid that Alexander's fortune and the dignity of so great a throne come upon such shoulders!"

Arrian has this to say:

"For he [Alexander] said that the kings of the Persians and Medes called themselves Great Kings without any right, since they ruled a comparatively small part of Asia."

The Alexander Romance (which is sheer praise of his feats and virtues and where at least you'd expect this title) written during the Byzantine times (or at least compiled then) also doesn't make mention of this title.

In the Bible (Old Testament), Daniel to be more precise we have the following:

"And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will. And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these."

The Koran (yes folks he's here too) calls him Zul-Qarnain which means Two-Horned One (Alexander was often associated with Dionysus and who can forget the ram horned depictions of him on coins). It mirrors the Alexander Romance in the stories it tells and makes Alexander a new age Muslim.

Now, the title �eGreat�f does appear in Athenaeus�f Deipnosphists (Banquet of Scholars/Sophists). He was around in the 3rd century AD and was of Egyptian extraction (though a Greek). Here�fs a quote:

�gAlexander the Great, after that naval victory over the Spartans and after he had fortified the Peiraeus, sacrificed a hecatomb and feasted all the Athenians.�h

This is the only case (ancient text) I have ever come across which refers to him thus. I have never heard of the �gAugustus speech in Alexandria�h and would love to know the source for such a thing.

Though the majority of sources do not call him �ethe Great�f, they do however call his deeds �egreat�f. I presume it was these sorts of comments which gave Alexander the 'great' appendage and it was used as a differentiating factor in later Alexander histories. Often enough later historians (and people in general) would give epithets to rulers to distinguish them from other similar sounding ones. Hence, Suleyman became �ethe Magnificent�f in Europe to differentiate him from other (later) Suleyman�fs. In his own country he was �ethe Lawgiver�f. This is most probably the case with Alexander too. Alexander of Macedon couldn�ft do seeing as many subsequent rulers went by this name.

Though Athenaeus is the first (earliest) to use this name in writing, I�fm sure it was around before him. There are no sources however which I know of to vouchsafe this. It was just something which was passed down to us and used as a differentiating factor. So instead of saying �gWe are talking about the King Alexander who fought Darius blah blah blah�h, they sumply used �ethe Great�f. That�fs all. There is no one in particular who bestows these titles onto others, they just form out of necessity or common usage.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for that:goodjob:

i think after all this that if one is considerd great by his peers, and those whome hold a position similar to in any age, and is still considerd great, than who are we, people who at least at this point in time have no similar experience of rule or power to argue with those who have had that power, and decide long ago his "rank"and title among kings and generals