Alexander the Great

[Erik Mesoy]

Okay, who thinks that the conquest and partial unification of this huge area:

is unlikely to have been done by one guy, in 300 BC times, in less than ten years?

Ancient sources are generally written with an agenda of either glorifying or denigrating the man.

The five main accounts are by Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin.

* Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus and Nearchus. It is considered generally the most trustworthy source.
* Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy;
* Life of Alexander (see Parallel Lives) and two orations On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great (see Moralia), by the Greek historian and biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea in the second century, based largely on Aristobulus and especially Cleitarchus.
* Bibliotheca historia (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus [Insertion: 90 BC - 30 BC], from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Timagenes's work. The books immediately before and after, on Philip and Alexander's "Successors," throw light on Alexander's reign.
* The Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justin [Insertion: 3rd century Roman historian], which contains factual errors and is highly compressed. It is difficult in this case to understand the source, since we only have an epitome, but it is thought that also Pompeius Trogus may have limited himself to use Timagenes for his Latin history.

So the main sources are from 300 to 500 years after Alexander's death. Can we even be sure that he existed? Seems to me like the Greeks warred for a far longer period of time, gradually recruiting the peoples they conquered into their army (which explains how they could advance so far), and then afterwards setting up a Hero of the People so that they could put a name and a leader to their great conquests. The Greeks were the winners, so they could write history.
Of course, the alleged "fact" that Alexander united the greek city-states a second and a third time after his father did so a first time puts the whole venture on a very shaky basis. How does a country undergoing so many civil skirmishes (not really wars) conquer the huge swath of land seen above in such a short time? If Alexander couldn't keep order at home, surely it would have been impossible for him to keep order in an empire including Israel, Greece, India and Babylon. Makes no sense at all.

ad. di., signing off.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

In all honestly I think most ancient histroy is way off, but thats just me.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If we set the standard of proof sufficiently high, we can't be sure Napoleon existed either.

I don't see why his conquest should be particularly unlikely, however. Remember that what he did was largely taking over a preexisting empire.

And while narrative sources are largely written long after the events, coins, inscriptions, and the Babylonian chronicles are close to contemporary.

 

[Oruc]

well he didnt conquer it by himself, he had an army with him and generals

 

[Sidhe]

He did use diplomacy to conquer much of the land and to swell his armies, that and, paying his way as much as butchering those who stood against him, no it's not really that much of a stretch considering his generals were legendary and he was a genius. Having looked into the conquest of his empire a few times, I've never really had reason to doubt his status, in some countries he's practically a god, even to this day, and that's the losers, must of had some real charisma to go with that genius. Probably a once in a millenium figure, weened on fear and political intrigue, taught by Aristotle himself. Ask Sakhunder he's named for him.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I've never really had reason to doubt his status

I'm giving you one now, aren't I?

You mentioned "legendary generals". That would fit with the theory that it was several leaders, over a long period of time, rather than one super genius Ninja Pirate Mage King Warlord. I'm not averse to admitting that the Greeks produced good leaders, but who's to say that "Alexander" wasn't a god of some sort or other mythological figure that they worshipped?

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I see no reason to doubt his existence, or his accomplishments. The Nazi's managed to occupy most of Europe in only a few years time, but they had the benefits of modern technology. The Napoleonic wars lasted only a few decades, and in that time Napoleon's empire ruled continental Europe, and as far as transport was concerned, he was still limited to horses and infantry. Genghis Khan managed to conquer an even larger empire, and he lived longer than Alexander did. As for the home front, the Greek cities were crushed, and afraid of him. His father Philip had defeated them, and Alexander had defeated them twice, what would be the point of rebellion. Besides, Alexander loved Greek culture and he was fighting the Persians. The Greeks probably thought it futile to fight him, and why bother if your conqueror is enamoured with your culture and is leading an expedition to thrash your worst enemies?

 

[Sidhe]

I'm giving you one now, aren't I?

You mentioned "legendary generals". That would fit with the theory that it was several leaders, over a long period of time, rather than one super genius Ninja Pirate Mage King Warlord. I'm not averse to admitting that the Greeks produced good leaders, but who's to say that "Alexander" wasn't a god of some sort or other mythological figure that they worshipped?

No because I know how Philip of Macedon went from owning a poor vassal state to conquering Greece, read his story and much of your questions will be answered. Alexander didn't do it alone, his father did one of the hardest parts, that's why he was named Phillip the Great. And no Alexander never united greece, he merely inherited the ownership and cemented it, IIRC, his father died in a hunting accident on the eve of battle in Persia and Alexander was thrust into the limelight.

Oh and why is it impossible to keep an empire state that large under control,much of it already was centrally controlled by Persia, simply a matter of conceding satraps to those who will join with you or crushing the others. Do you have any idea how much wealth there was in the central treasury of Persepolis, Persia took 200,000 talents (about 40,000 KG's of gold, 40 tonnes of gold)in taxes per year! This buys a hell of alot of support, the loyalty is the part where charisma comes in.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Okay, who thinks that the conquest and partial unification of this huge area:

is unlikely to have been done by one guy, in 300 BC times, in less than ten years?

So the main sources are from 300 to 500 years after Alexander's death. Can we even be sure that he existed? Seems to me like the Greeks warred for a far longer period of time, gradually recruiting the peoples they conquered into their army (which explains how they could advance so far), and then afterwards setting up a Hero of the People so that they could put a name and a leader to their great conquests. The Greeks were the winners, so they could write history.
Of course, the alleged "fact" that Alexander united the greek city-states a second and a third time after his father did so a first time puts the whole venture on a very shaky basis. How does a country undergoing so many civil skirmishes (not really wars) conquer the huge swath of land seen above in such a short time? If Alexander couldn't keep order at home, surely it would have been impossible for him to keep order in an empire including Israel, Greece, India and Babylon. Makes no sense at all.

ad. di., signing off.

I'm not sure if you're being a Devil's Advocate or not, but the fact is that there's more evidence than those historians of Alexander's deeds. The ones cited on wikipedia are just the oldest SURVIVING accounts, not the only ones that have ever existed. The historians above were repeating accounts from earlier authors, many of which were first hand experiences. Also, the history is the same in all sources. There is also other evidence. We have letters preserved to and from Alexander from conquered nations. His conquests are also validated from other foreign accounts, such as India.

I don't see why his conquest is so unbelievable. The Mongols conquered an area much larger than his in a comparable amount of time, and the only benefit they had in military technology was a stirrup and a good bow.

 

[The Last Conformist]

(FYI: The Mongols' real strength was in strategy, leadership, and organization. Stirrups and composite bows were used by many of their opponents.)

 

[aneeshm]

From the Indian perspective , Alexander the so-called "Great" was actually Alexander the Barbarian , because of his atrocities in India .

 

[silver 2039]

Perhaps but his sucessors founded the Greco-Indian Empire.

 

[Sidhe]

(FYI: The Mongols' real strength was in strategy, leadership, and organization. Stirrups and composite bows were used by many of their opponents.)

We should start a thread on Ghengis Kahn and his rise to power, it's an area of history that also fascinates me. Genghis had a knack of gaining technologies and implementing them, if he needed engineers he sent his brightest men to foreign universities to learn siege warfare. Probably eclipses Alexander in that it was a singular achievement, not a father son deal.

 

[The Last Conformist]

From the Indian perspective , Alexander the so-called "Great" was actually Alexander the Barbarian , because of his atrocities in India .

In Iran, we got known as "Alexander the Demon". So what?

 

[silver 2039]

if he needed engineers he sent his brightest men to foreign universities to learn siege warfare

What universities? What he did was use Chinese seige engineers, the Mongols themselves had none. all their technology and such came from China.

 

[The Last Conformist]

They hired Korean siege experts too, actually.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What always struck me as a little weird was the direction of his conquests. He went thousands of miles to the east and south but never conquered the territory a few miles north of Macedonia. It makes sense to go where there is civilization, I suppose, but it is still a little unusual.

 

[Godwynn]

At least he could unite an area that will never be united again.

 

[MobBoss]

To the OPs initial premise I will simply point out that "truth is often stranger than fiction". Alexanders exploits are well documented from many sources from all over the area seen in the map. What he accomplished is what has immortalized him down through history.

Do I believe what he did possible? Yes. But isnt that what makes famous people famous? That they do indeed accomplish that which the rest of us find impossible to do?

 

[Elrohir]

What always struck me as a little weird was the direction of his conquests. He went thousands of miles to the east and south but never conquered the territory a few miles north of Macedonia. It makes sense to go where there is civilization, I suppose, but it is still a little unusual.

There was no honor in going to conquer the "barbarians" up north, who had comparatively little civilization. Conquering the Persians and Egyptians, though, would bring honor and a sort of vengeance for all the trouble the Greeks had had previously with the Persians.

I don't think it is too far fetched, and as historical figures go, Alexander is fairly well known. That he existed isn't really in doubt, and even what he conquered is fairly certain. To be fair, though, he didn't so much conquer the Persian Empire, fighting for every square foot, as he did kill their King, and declare himself King of Persia after him. It's a lot quicker.