How is Alexander the great viewed in the West?

[Dachs]

He most certainly didn't conquer the civilized world; the Pelopennese, Italy, Chorasmia, most of India, and China all lay outside his grasp. He gave up on India, in fact.

chorasmia "civilized" and gaul not? this poster must be a steppe[lover]

As for his military campaigns, he would often take rather long breaks during his war with the Persian Empire to do things like massacre Phoenecians and visit some mystic in Siwa. Alexander recklessly refused to build a fleet to defeat the Persian navy, instead boasting that he would defeat it by land, and had the Persians' Ionian admiral's (can't remember his name for my life) plan to land an army with shiploads of gold in Greece, gain allies, and take Alex's empire from behind been implemented, he could've been stopped or defeated.

oh, memnon's alleged plan

assuming that the ostensible mercenary force would've actually managed to get across (dubiously likely), its potential support was...mmm...not great

athens would've been horribly split between demosthenes - badly discredited after chaironeia and the sack of thebes - and "everybody who was afraid of a rerun of 480"; the only other potential ally was sparta, and they rose up anyway historically only to get humiliatingly smacked down by antipatros

anyway, so they potentially solidify everybody's ties with the maks PLUS they have to deal with antipatros and the home army PLUS all of the other troops that alex didn't levy on his way out PLUS they have to deal with all of the troops that memnon just avoided in anatolia like the argives in karia and antigonos monophthalmos' entire freaking army

GUARANTEED SUCCESS CLEARLY ALEX WAS JUST A LUCKY BASTARD NOT A GREAT GENERAL FOR NOT DEALING WITH THIS EVENTUALITY

 

[Masada]

in short yes. he should have. and i'm always offended that he didn't consider roman intervention.

or aliens.

 

[Archbob]

Perhaps the 2nd greatest conquerer of all time behind Gheghis Khan.

 

[Kyriakos]

Speaking of aliens, Dachs (and others) have you ever come across any strange passages in the description of Alexander's battles and sieges that speak of anything that can be by any stretch of the imagination attributed to weird phenomena?
I ask not because i believe in it, but since i have heard people (who i am sure are no historians) claim such things.

 

[Dachs]

What do you mean by "weird phenomena"?

 

[Masada]

methinks as a jump-off point for a story.

 

[Phrossack]

chorasmia "civilized" and gaul not? this poster must be a steppe[lover]

oh, memnon's alleged plan

assuming that the ostensible mercenary force would've actually managed to get across (dubiously likely), its potential support was...mmm...not great

athens would've been horribly split between demosthenes - badly discredited after chaironeia and the sack of thebes - and "everybody who was afraid of a rerun of 480"; the only other potential ally was sparta, and they rose up anyway historically only to get humiliatingly smacked down by antipatros

anyway, so they potentially solidify everybody's ties with the maks PLUS they have to deal with antipatros and the home army PLUS all of the other troops that alex didn't levy on his way out PLUS they have to deal with all of the troops that memnon just avoided in anatolia like the argives in karia and antigonos monophthalmos' entire freaking army

GUARANTEED SUCCESS CLEARLY ALEX WAS JUST A LUCKY BASTARD NOT A GREAT GENERAL FOR NOT DEALING WITH THIS EVENTUALITY

Chorasmia is most definitely not steppe. It's always been rather settled and agrarian. You know, Gurganj, Merv, Samarkand... though the definition of Chorasmia/Khwarezm/Mawarannahr is a bit blurry. And yes, I forgot the Gauls, just as I left out North Africa, Sicily, Iberia, SE Asia, Tibet, etc.

And as for Memnon, I'm not saying he could've destroyed the Macedonian empire. However, by opening up two fronts, he could've caused some trouble, and with a victory, Memnon could have won more allies. I never said Alex was a crappy general. He was excellent. However, Alexander wasn't the god of war everyone makes him out to be, what with that march back from India, and it would have saved him some trouble if he'd bothered to get a good fleet. Sheesh.

I'd rank Khalid ibn al-Walid and Timur above him, but that's not to say he was bad.

 

[Dachs]

Chorasmia is most definitely not steppe. It's always been rather settled and agrarian. You know, Gurganj, Merv, Samarkand... though the definition of Chorasmia/Khwarezm/Mawarannahr is a bit blurry. And yes, I forgot the Gauls, just as I left out North Africa, Sicily, Iberia, SE Asia, Tibet, etc.

in the context of the hellenistic period, 'chorasmia' usually refers more to the area immediately around the modern aral sea; marakanda is in sogdiane and antiocheia-margiane is in, ah, margiane

from your willingness to mention gurganj and the rather large extent of your xvarazm, it seems as though you are anachronistically discussing the region from the point of view of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

anyway it's all irrelevant since the region is pretty self-evidently part of the great eurasian steppe regardless of the fact that there are key oasis-cities dotting it

And as for Memnon, I'm not saying he could've destroyed the Macedonian empire. However, by opening up two fronts, he could've caused some trouble, and with a victory, Memnon could have won more allies.

since military skill most often consists of the ability to take advantage of the mistakes one's opponent makes, that's not particularly damning

makedonia certainly had a fleet, but it was utterly dwarfed by the iranian one, and building it up even more would take a great deal of time, manpower, cash, and resources; a fleet large enough to counter achaemenid sea power might have required more rowers and marines than filled the ranks of the united league army at the outset of the campaign in 334

furthermore, such a use of manpower would have been utterly useless to alexander upon leaving the levant for mesopotamia; while it's not clear that this featured in his thought processes, ultimately it was a good use of time and resources to not waste them on building an enormous navy

alexander clearly did not ignore the use of seapower, because when there was no danger of running into overwhelming enemy naval power that would have annihilated the fleet (e.g. on the indos or in the gulf) he made use of it to support his troops, and he oversaw a massive augmentation of makedonian naval power once he got back from his anabasis such that the makedonian fleet neatly annihilated the fleets of the greek allies off amorgos in the lamian war

I never said Alex was a crappy general. He was excellent. However, Alexander wasn't the god of war everyone makes him out to be, what with that march back from India, and it would have saved him some trouble if he'd bothered to get a good fleet. Sheesh.

the problem here with this stuff about people saying alexander was a 'god of war' is that it is based on a phantom; just like how, say, tk claims that the forum is full of 'pro-byzzies' when in reality the number of such is mostly confined to a couple of loud but marginal greek nationalists that most people would be well served to ignore anyway

it is the correction of a false impression that, it would seem, does not in fact exist

ignoring obvious greek nationalism, about half the people in this thread seem to have an opinion of alexander as a vague 'military genius' (a quite reasonable definition) and the other half talk about things like 'overrated' and 'mass murderer' and whatnot

Dead, gay, possible (but not really) Greek who got alot of people killed.

He was a guy who conquered the world, was probably a huge megalomaniac and very gay, kind of insane, brilliant general.

He was a thug who tried to outshine Achilles by doing worse things than Achilles did.

People mistake him as Greek when he was actually Macedonian, and they think of him as the guy who conquered India when he only conquered part of it.

As for Alex, I've never understood what was so great about him.

How is he viewed? Where I am, as the greatest military leader of all time.

That said I've always thought of him as Greek as much as anything else, (by and large for the reasons Dachs outlined) a damn good general and an interesting character, but I was swayed at an early age by TV programmes on him such as the excellent Michael Wood series.

 

[Kyriakos]

:\ Hey "it is a very good omen to protect your country" as the ancients said :\

That said, i resent being belittled to the point of a "greek nationalist", which surely is not meaning much, much less should it be used to realistically define anyone.

In fact if i was not of the view that i am only the second largely active Greek person in this forum, i would have just assumed you did not mean me, but have it your way.

 

[Dachs]

dude, asking you about greek history and expecting anything close to an objective opinion, or even a subjective one that isn't really all that distorted, is like asking me about american history and expecting the same

 

[christos200]

ignoring obvious greek nationalism

Anyone called for greek nationalist?

Well for me Alexander was a great generar, i dont care if he was gay or not, and the third greatest greek. But at his last years he went insane.

 

[Kyriakos]

dude, asking you about greek history and expecting anything close to an objective opinion, or even a subjective one that isn't really all that distorted, is like asking me about american history and expecting the same

Not really true, since i have no problem accepting that i do not know many things about history. I doubt you are that familiar with philosophy and literature either, but you can have an opinion too. And whereas history may be closer to a hard science than philosophy, i am sure you understand that point of view plays a great role in it as well, as is evidenced by most (if not all) history books around.

 

[Masada]

Eh, that's kind of the point. You don't know enough about history to give an informed opinion and even if you did the point would likely be distorted by bias. That isn't to say that Greeks are more biased than anyone else, Dachs himself admits he's an American nationalist and that that has an impact on his objectivity. I'd have a similar problem with Australia, despite not being Australian, for the simple fact that I went through its education system and as a consequence picked up some of its biases. My schizoid responses to the Australian genocide debate are a pretty good example. On the one hand I enjoy pointing out what happened purely to rile white people and show my solidarity as a fellow Antipodean native, on the other hand I still find it hard to admit that what happened constituted a genocide. Granted, in the legalistic sense - of a deliberate, systematic attempt to wipe out a group - it falls short, but at heart I know it was genocidal. That might sound strange, and it is, but I suppose at least I'm aware of my own limitations. Gaining that awareness isn't as easy at it might seem. I'm probably still horribly biased in other things. I know I don't trust government (though in fairness there's good reason for that).

 

[classical_hero]

I would say what we did to the native population was definitely the darkest stain on Australian history, but calling it genocide is absurd. Also the "Stolen Generation" was neither stolen nor a generation, but is a topic for another discussion.

About Alexander, there will be some who view him the same way as I do. Basically he was a man used by God to fulfil his purpose. It was because of Alexander that there was a common language that spread, the Greek language that made communication so much easier than earlier in history.

 

[chegel]

About Alexander, there will be some who view him the same way as I do. Basically he was a man used by God to fulfil his purpose. It was because of Alexander that there was a common language that spread, the Greek language that made communication so much easier than earlier in history.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Was this the same god?

 

[Phrossack]

Spoiler :

in the context of the hellenistic period, 'chorasmia' usually refers more to the area immediately around the modern aral sea; marakanda is in sogdiane and antiocheia-margiane is in, ah, margiane

from your willingness to mention gurganj and the rather large extent of your xvarazm, it seems as though you are anachronistically discussing the region from the point of view of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

anyway it's all irrelevant since the region is pretty self-evidently part of the great eurasian steppe regardless of the fact that there are key oasis-cities dotting it

since military skill most often consists of the ability to take advantage of the mistakes one's opponent makes, that's not particularly damning

makedonia certainly had a fleet, but it was utterly dwarfed by the iranian one, and building it up even more would take a great deal of time, manpower, cash, and resources; a fleet large enough to counter achaemenid sea power might have required more rowers and marines than filled the ranks of the united league army at the outset of the campaign in 334

furthermore, such a use of manpower would have been utterly useless to alexander upon leaving the levant for mesopotamia; while it's not clear that this featured in his thought processes, ultimately it was a good use of time and resources to not waste them on building an enormous navy

alexander clearly did not ignore the use of seapower, because when there was no danger of running into overwhelming enemy naval power that would have annihilated the fleet (e.g. on the indos or in the gulf) he made use of it to support his troops, and he oversaw a massive augmentation of makedonian naval power once he got back from his anabasis such that the makedonian fleet neatly annihilated the fleets of the greek allies off amorgos in the lamian war

the problem here with this stuff about people saying alexander was a 'god of war' is that it is based on a phantom; just like how, say, tk claims that the forum is full of 'pro-byzzies' when in reality the number of such is mostly confined to a couple of loud but marginal greek nationalists that most people would be well served to ignore anyway

it is the correction of a false impression that, it would seem, does not in fact exist

ignoring obvious greek nationalism, about half the people in this thread seem to have an opinion of alexander as a vague 'military genius' (a quite reasonable definition) and the other half talk about things like 'overrated' and 'mass murderer' and whatnot

Gurganj wasn't founded in the 12th century. More like 6th or 5th century BC. And it's a bit odd lumping deserts, farmland, and desert with grassland.
http://www.annualreviews.org/na101/...5110/production/images/medium/an390469.f1.gif

The whole "Alexander was no god of war" rant wasn't based on the opinions of this board, but on the general perception of him in the West. He's routinely ranked as one of the best, if not the best, generals of all time. I'd move him down a few places after Khalid, Timur, and maybe Temuujin or Subutai. Again, this is not to say he was bad, and I regularly wonder how such a puny country such as Macedon/Greece could muster more and/or better soldiers than the huge Achaemenid Empire.

 

[Dachs]

Gurganj wasn't founded in the 12th century. More like 6th or 5th century BC. And it's a bit odd lumping deserts, farmland, and desert with grassland.
http://www.annualreviews.org/na101/...5110/production/images/medium/an390469.f1.gif

that's the most ambitious dating of gurganj by a coupla centuries at least

irrelevancies, of course; steppe[lover]gery is a generalized term, and considering that your four favorite generals are three mongols and an arab, you fit it to a t

the argument is pretty nonsensical and pointless; why are you contesting an obviously pejorative label on its own merits?

The whole "Alexander was no god of war" rant wasn't based on the opinions of this board, but on the general perception of him in the West. He's routinely ranked as one of the best, if not the best, generals of all time. I'd move him down a few places after Khalid, Timur, and maybe Temuujin or Subutai.

since such things are not only subjective but subjective in a way that's virtually impossible to mutually agree upon (especially since the relevant men are in no way comparable unlike say grant and lee) your argument makes no sense

 

[innonimatu]

Again, this is not to say he was bad, and I regularly wonder how such a puny country such as Macedon/Greece could muster more and/or better soldiers than the huge Achaemenid Empire.

And the achaemenids had been subsidizing that training for a long time!

 

[Phrossack]

that's the most ambitious dating of gurganj by a coupla centuries at least

irrelevancies, of course; steppe[lover]gery is a generalized term, and considering that your four favorite generals are three mongols and an arab, you fit it to a t

the argument is pretty nonsensical and pointless; why are you contesting an obviously pejorative label on its own merits?

since such things are not only subjective but subjective in a way that's virtually impossible to mutually agree upon (especially since the relevant men are in no way comparable unlike say grant and lee) your argument makes no sense

Nonsense. I'm simply responding to a silly insult you threw at me for no apparent reason. A true steppe whatever-the-hell-you-call-it would be screeching about Turkic nationalism and how the Mongols were the best warriors EVARRR (they weren't). Timur wasn't Mongol, being rather Turko-Persian, not from the steppe, and constantly at war with the nomadic steppe peoples (he was himself from the "sown"). And an Arab general (one whom I put there for winning almost every one of dozens of battles, routinely crushing armies of greater numbers and equipment with little difficulty) doesn't exactly fit in with the whole "this idiot loves the steppe" label.

 

[Dachs]

Nonsense. I'm simply responding to a silly insult you threw at me for no apparent reason. A true steppe whatever-the-hell-you-call-it would be screeching about Turkic nationalism and how the Mongols were the best warriors EVARRR (they weren't).

you're arguing with me about the definition of a nonstandard insult that i used?

Timur wasn't Mongol, being rather Turko-Persian, not from the steppe, and constantly at war with the nomadic steppe peoples (he was himself from the "sown"). And an Arab general (one whom I put there for winning almost every one of dozens of battles, routinely crushing armies of greater numbers and equipment with little difficulty) doesn't exactly fit in with the whole "this idiot loves the steppe" label.

have to admit, didn't think you were an idiot before, but this over-defensiveness and nitpicking isn't doing you any favors

let me demonstrate for you

like many things, steppe[lover]gery is on a sliding scale; there are turan-obsessed morons from sivas who keep copies of the ruhnama under their collective pillows and there are scholarly personalities who can converse on crap like the code of mandukhai or the campaigns of esen in the ordos

much like that, there is a sliding scale of traitors, from actual frothing-at-the-mouth lynch-mob-organizing fanatics to typical internet dilettantes and the people who make the bcs suck

your decision to read 'worshiper at the holy church of turkmenbashi' for 'steppe[lover]' is therefore incomprehensible to me

anyway, not gonna have more of an argument about this pointless garbage, back to alexander, unless that topic has exhausted itself