For some reason the first time I saw Alexander with Aggressive I was confused...

[Breunor]

I agree with Budweiser.

I guess I do think the legion was superior, but this is a BIG debate between military historians to this date.

The phalanxes in the post Alexander period weren't as effective as they got too heqavy. The Alexander era didn't have the correct length pikes. ALexander also had superior rank depth.

Basically, the legion never fought the phalanx when at its best. (In defense of the legion, the Marian legions were also much better than those at Pydna.)

Its also important to remember that the value of formations depends on their use. It is hard for phalanxes alone to win offensively -- the more mobile legion is more flexible but can do more. On the other hand, for the role used by Alexander, to hold the position while the cavalry broke through, they were beyond compare.

And that is where we are. In straight on power, the Roman legions would have fared badly against the Spartan or Macedonain phalanx. But if the phalanx is broken or without support they are helpless.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[PelengWarrior]

hi, well a very hot debate, i see

well, Alexander was in fact a warmonger, but you know, an "educated" warmonger

He was a macedonian, the greeks used some "nations" to been their mercenaries, to protect their culture, macedonie was an example of that

the greeks werent warmongers, you know, they never managed to sustain an empire, they really never care about

regards

 

[Sahkuhnder]

hi, well a very hot debate, i see

well, Alexander was in fact a warmonger, but you know, an "educated" warmonger

He was a macedonian, the greeks used some "nations" to been their mercenaries, to protect their culture, macedonie was an example of that

the greeks werent warmongers, you know, they never managed to sustain an empire, they really never care about

regards

Being a warmonger and conquering an empire is totally different than being skilled diplomats and bureaucrats and being able to sustain one. Genghis Khan is another similar example.


Any leader that heads an army to conquer as much territory as Alexander did I think should qualify as 'Aggressive'.

 

[PelengWarrior]

yeah, but guess that the point here is if he really represents the greek civilization

Alexander was only a warmonger mercenarie

the greeks never cared about the "glory" to have a huge empire, well, at least not in that way

btw, how can i put an avatar????

 

[Sahkuhnder]

yeah, but guess that the point here is if he really represents the greek civilization

Alexander was only a warmonger mercenarie

the greeks never cared about the "glory" to have a huge empire, well, at least not in that way

btw, how can i put an avatar????

I think we are saying the same thing and really agree.

Custom avatars and titles require 30 days and 30 posts. More info here.

 

[Breunor]

I'm not sure I agree with you Peleng, sorry.

There is a big difference between 'aggressive' and militaristic. The Greeks generally DID care about their empire. However, the Greeks could rarely unify, indeed, besides the Persian invasions they really never did and even there they were constantly on the verge of going it alone.

The Athenians were VERY serious about their empire, the so called Delian League. In theory, the league supported warfare against Persia (formed in 477 BC), but in reality it was an Athenian empire, or became one. The other major members were Chios, Samnos, and Lesbos, with Delos as the treasury. They forced the city of Carystos to join the league. An early low point was when Naxos wanted to secede from the league -- the Athenians sacked the city and enslaved the inhabitants. All semblance of a league was ended in 454 when Athens moved the treasury from Delos to Athens itself.

the league worked in its original purpose best under Cimon, but he was ostracized in 461. After that, it became less anti-Persian and more anti-Spartan.

The lowest point was probably the famous Melos incident. Melos was told to join or fight -- Melos resisted, and the male citizens were put to death. Or maybe the low point was Lesbos, who revolted (yes, revolted. This was an empire). They were defeated and originally given a death sentence. It was rescinded, but 1000 leaders were put to death and the islands lands were distributed to Athenians.

The rising power of the Delian league lead to THE war, the Pelopenisian War. Sparta really didn't want war, but were essentially forced into it by their allies, especially Corinth. But Thucydidies makes it clear in the very beginning of his book, the real reason for the war was Athens' growing power. This is probably the msot famous quote from Thucydides.


Sparta, obviously the most internally militaristic state, usually avoided foreign wars when they weren't necessary. However, they also played at empire. After the defeat of Athens in the Pelopennesian War, they went into empire mode, and were probably even worse than the Athenians were. They placed Oligarchies in all of the democracies, under a Harmost. They faced endless revolt and their power was largely broken by Thebes.


The most powerful Greek city to emerge was probably neither Athens or Sparta then, it was Syracuse. They also had an empire, but again called it otherwise, controlling most of Greek Sicily. They also had to fend off Carthage, however, and their unifying force was helpful to a large degree.


So, to me, the Greeks liked their empires, but as fragmented people, they were hard to impose. The Athenians, Spartans, and Syracusans all took turns with them.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[PelengWarrior]

hmmm, ok, dont need to say "sorry", i mean, no problem

i tried to explain in simple words, and these are the facts, the greeks used their knowledge to support the more "barbaric" neighbors, they used them as bodyguards, coz the greeks actually didnt want to know nothing about boring wars , and also was a tactic to avoid an invasion from their neighbors

Athena didnt wanted join with Sparta, coz if that happened they just coulnt controll them, actually that was the best to Athenas, just pay the mercenaries

is obvious that they were concerned about their state, but not in a empire, dont confuse both

and that was the reason why the Alexander empire didnt last long, anyway the Alex empire was, is and will be named the macedonian empire, not the greek empire

Sparta and the other bodyguards states didnt get into other wars, coz the athenians werent interested in these adventures

there are speculations and speculations of why such behavior, but most agree that the reason was the nature of their culture, i mean sailors mercants, that cant organizate a foot army, but with their very good profites in the comerce the had enought money to pay mercenarie states

anyway guess that we agree to disagree, and that is always good

 

[Danghis Khan]

Hey, that is not true. We don't HATE the modern Macedonian state (FYROM).
However, it is our belief (which is neither outrageous nor without reason) that the term "Macedonia" and its derivatives should not be defining of a people who had little to no relation to the ancient people of Macedonia. We aren't saying that "Macedonia" is a term exclusive for Greek use either. But it is also not their right to call themselves Macedonians, descendants of the ancient people of Macedonia, because they are not. To me, as a Greek Citizen, a term like 'Republic of Northern Macedonia' would sound a lot less insulting. They do live in a part of what used to be the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia after all...

So let me get this straight. Alexander wasn't Greek, he was Macedonian, BUT Macedonians can't call themselves Macedonian because they aren't Macedonian according to Greeks (many of whom also claim Alexander as one of their own)?

 

[Artanis]

So let me get this straight. Alexander wasn't Greek, he was Macedonian, BUT Macedonians can't call themselves Macedonian because they aren't Macedonian according to Greeks (many of whom also claim Alexander as one of their own)?

I think he's saying that the modern "Macedonians" aren't ethnically actual Macedonians. I guess it'd be like a New Yorker without a single drop of Native American blood in his veins calling himself "Iroquois" because he lives where the Iroquois used to.

As for Alexander being Greek/not-Greek, AFAIK it was something along the lines of that the ancient Macedonians thought of themselves as Greek, but the Greek-Greeks didn't exactly agree with that assessment. I can think of a couple possible modern equivalents, but know too little about them to want to risk relating them for fear of looking like an idiot while pissing people off

 

[AndersenDK]

hey does anyone know about his proclamations of being a "god"? I faintly recall that Alexander, in one of his more crazy years, sent a bunch of letters to Greece stating he was a god and everyone should worship him...

I think its mixed together with that the egyptians thinked of him as a god. On Ceasars time there was a lot of statues of him in Alexandria, and the egyptians still thought of him as a god.

Im not really sure thats the explanation, but my best guess

EDIT: Btw, very nice subject for us who like old history..

 

[BlizzardGR]

So let me get this straight. Alexander wasn't Greek, he was Macedonian, BUT Macedonians can't call themselves Macedonian because they aren't Macedonian according to Greeks (many of whom also claim Alexander as one of their own)?

Maybe i didn't make it clear enough, but Artanis has given a clear example of what i meant. I was refering to modern citizens of FYROM.

 

[Breunor]

I think its mixed together with that the egyptians thinked of him as a god. On Ceasars time there was a lot of statues of him in Alexandria, and the egyptians still thought of him as a god.

Im not really sure thats the explanation, but my best guess

EDIT: Btw, very nice subject for us who like old history..

The incident with the Oracle of Ammon in Egypt was a key fact, but not the only one.

Plutarch reports that Alexander was not the son of Philip, but of Zeus. (Similar to many mythological figures, like Perseus, Heracles, Helen, etc.) Philip ws promoted as descended from Heracles and Olympias as being descendant from Achilles and Neoptolemus.

All of the major Greek sources talk about the incident at the temple of Ammon, where the priest 'affirmed' that Alexander was the son of Zeus.

To be honest, though, I doubt this bothered the Macedonians or Greeks as much as his adoption of Proskynesis, the Persian custom of essentially kissing the hand of the ruler. The Macedonains associated this action with divinity and more so than anything Alexander did, this angered his Macedonian power base. They were afraid he would try to deify himself.

We have coins of him with horns, probably denoting the Egyptian god Ammon. His name in Semitic languages refers to this two-horned image.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[SmokeyD]

I dont think the phalanx was outdated. Alexander used it effectively at Gaugemela. The long spears were just about the only thing that could stop chariots on flat ground and once it was moving forward the immortals could not stop it. It served as an anvil to hold the enemy while the Companion Cavalry were the hammer. The two elements together are what produced such spectacular victories which would not have been possible with out each other.

They were outdated against the Roman legions, not the Persians. However, it is probably a bit unfair to compare them directly, as the phalanx was essentially only half the tactic (the other half being, as you mentioned, the companion cavalry) while the legion was an independent functional unit that worked well with, but did not necessarily require, auxillary support.

 

[Greek Stud]

Its difficult to get people to understand Hellenic culture. You look at Alexander's aggression and assume he hated his enemies (sack of Tyre and Troy or the burning of Persepolis). This HATE, that people today once against equate to the relationship of the Greeks and the Slavs of FYROM is unfounded and there is no evidence for it. Hellenism embraces culture. That is more proof that the Slavs of FYROM do not share the values of Ancient Macedonians. The Ancient Macedonians invaded the Hellas Strait and Peloponnesos to unite the nations of City-States. Slavs today that claim to be THE MACEDONIANS have a different idealism than the Ancient Macedonians as you look at Alexander, he embrassed other cultures and forced Hellenism as the dominate role of the public. Nothing about the Slavs of FYROM say anything similar to King Philip or Alxander the Great who spoke about their links to Hellenism and Philips wife from Epidamnos (Dyrrachium) a Greek Colony that united with the Kingdom of Macedonia to give it the geostratigic advantage of being the sole regional superpower.

Ancient Macedonians and their relatives the Spartans (both of Doric descent) were at odds with the Athenian Empire (of Ionic descent) whom were trying to define the imperical standing of Hellenism in the known world. The Athenians defined themselves as the only people deserving enough to carry the name of Hellenism and thus like political parties today tried to isolate their opposition.

Alexander's role in aggression and as a cultural leader undoubtably is the foundation of Hellenism in the Ancient World.

Alexander to Egypt was a Greek from the Macedonian region just as their scriptures define the Ptolmic Kings as being Greeks from Macedonia, like Queen Cleopatra the daughter who outlived her brothers.

The Judeo-Hellenic city of Alexandria was the largest city of the 4 Hellenic Empires, but if you play-out historical scenarios that could possibly occur than other cities had a foothold. Corinth for instance was not destroyed like Athens was from the Persians. Epiros could have had an alternate history had the King of Macedonia not declare support for Hannibal but for Rome. Most Greeks/Hellenes supported Rome. If Macedonia declared support for Rome, Epiros would have become a powerhouse because of it political and geographic convenience to Magna Graecia and that it could have provided an nation wall between Macedonia and Carthage or even Macedonia and Illyria.

Pergamon grew to a size and architectual giant to compete with the glory of Athens and Alexandria. The Pontic Greeks of Paphlagonia resisted the political undertakens of the Kings of Pergamon. Pergamon, like Athens, supported Rome. The Pontic Greeks reflected to their heritage of colonialism and integration with the Thracians whom together united and defeated Phrygia. Phrygia was their regional superpower, after all the Phrygians defeated the Hittites, while the Greeks fought with Troy. The mentality of the Pontic Greeks that their heritage lead them to the militaristic dominance of the region, and intellectual greatness of the Pontic Greeks of Sinope gave them the courage to believe they could uprise against the political games in Pergamon. But because the tie Pergamon had with Alexandria, and that both cities were politically and marritally connected to Rome become the Pontic Greeks worst nightmare. From the Roman response to the Pontic Greek uprising against Pergamon's recognition of Rome as the Empirial capital of their region, the Pontic Greeks suffered a humiliated defeat in which we now remember by the Roman saying, "I came, I saw, I conquered!"

Basically, the aggressive nature of Alexander was common amoung the Ancient World and was not seen any different than the other leaders of his time. Especially Greeks recognized his guidance of aggression to be a passion for what they represented. The Ancient Greeks represented an educated people in which Ancient Civilizations name the Greeks as the land of the Wise People. Alexander asked the Greeks to educate the entire known world to be united in this idea of freedom. Freedom of unity in Hellenism, freedom of education (which today is represented as equality in material wealth), freedom of movement amoung the numerous Alexandrias of the world for trade and a unified language of Greek. No matter how many threaders try to deny the power of Hellenism as a social, cultural, political, and militaric influence still until today all the archaeological finds we keep finding are in Ancient Greek which Greeks of today still learn.

The defiance of people today against the identity of Alexander is no different than the struggles of identity people fealt within the actual Hellenistic World. But no matter how long the debate lasts, be it another 3,000 years, you will still need to learn Ancient Greek to present your factual evidence to this argument. There is nothing more defining to a culture than its language. And the Slavic Macedonians of today who label us as haters of culture even though the most brightest intellectuals of all time label us as the lovers of culture and lovers of life and freedom, their insistence to be the only heirs to Macedonism is the strongest proof that they are not like the Ancient Macedonians who wanted to unite the world and educate them in Greek.