Alexander the Great is Overrated!!!

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[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

 

[Pangur Bán]

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?

 

[Peri]

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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Peri


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

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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

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

 

[Peri]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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

 

[Peri]

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?

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, tell me?

 

[Peri]

I wasnt in quiz mode.
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

 

[Pangur Bán]

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

 

[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.

 

[Xen]

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

 

[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)