"Greece wants Alexander the Great statue in Iraq"

[MathiasOfAthens]

This thread would have been HILARIOUS if the word 'Greece' in the topic title was replaced with '(FYRO)Macedonia'

lol, yeah it would have.
________
Wendie 99

[Aradan]

I find the idea of history "belonging" to anybody or anything absurdly laughable. History is just the truth of what happened in the past, and as abstract cannot be owned.

Never said anything about history belonging to anyone. Alexander himself as a person belongs to the greek nation, that's what I said.

It borrows heavily from statues of Alexander as you can see with the Cow's Lick fringe and the style of leaning on one foot.(This would no doubt be viewed by modern Greeks as "stealing" history).

No doubt indeed! I'm sure all the greeks you interrogated confessed so.


A statue is no photograph, it's meant to be exaggerating, in order to highlight the depicted person's attributes (including those that cannot be physically portrayed). It is the way those attributes are used/translated that turn the statue into a vehicle of propaganda or not.

Stavroforos: Bad move on behalf of the greek people there. Even if they did it with the best intentions (doubtful), it would only be seen as propaganda by others; well, counter-propaganda, but it's all the same in the end.

[Don in the North]

i think they should wait till they find his tomb before building a statue. might be more fitting to build a statue there(wherever it is) to commemorate his deeds

[Last Roman]

i think they should wait till they find his tomb before building a statue. might be more fitting to build a statue there(wherever it is) to commemorate his deeds

dont hold your breath

[removeduser_487563287433]

Never said anything about history belonging to anyone. Alexander himself as a person belongs to the greek nation, that's what I said.

Yeah. I don't think so at all. I can't see how it can possibly argued that you can "own" a historical figure.

[Stavroforos]

Yeah. I don't think so at all. I can't see how it can possibly argued that you can "own" a historical figure.

I agree with you that nobody "owns" a historical figure, but much of history means more to a certain group of people as it is the history which is most directly related to them.

If we're talking about Alexander, than his history is most directly related to Greeks and Greece, as he was a product of Greece and a spreader of Hellenic civilization. Yes, of course, other nations and peoples can also identify with Alexander because of his broad influece, but Greeks are the closest people historically to Alexander.

To give a more modern example, George Washington was a British colonist, but Americans naturally identify with him more than the British do.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't see why the modern Greeks or the modern Greek state can claim Alexander any more than any of his successor states.

[Stavroforos]

I don't see why the modern Greeks or the modern Greek state can claim Alexander any more than any of his successor states.

Because he came out of the same geographic region as modern Greece.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That just means Alexander came from that geographic location. It doesn't grant whatever abides at that place now automatic "ownership".

[ivan_the_terrible]

I'm no expert on Alexander's life and campaigns, but I seem to recall that after his annexation of the Messapotamia region he was welcomed as a liberator in Babylon...

In that case he would be seen as more of an anti-Persian than a pro-Western symbol... That's assuming your average Iraqi knows or cares about this...

[Romios]

That just means Alexander came from that geographic location. It doesn't grant whatever abides at that place now automatic "ownership".

Stavroforos said "related to" and you said "ownership". There is a huge difference between those to terms.

Sure Alexander is not some kind of national product to put copyrights to, but there is an undoubtful historical relation between Alexander and modern Greece, and by that i dont mean only modern Greece.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Stavroforos said "related to" and you said "ownership". There is a huge difference between those to terms.

I know. But we're discussing this:

Alexander himself as a person belongs to the greek nation, that's what I said.

Sure Alexander is not some kind of national product to put copyrights to, but there is an undoubtful historical relation between Alexander and modern Greece, and by that i dont mean only modern Greece.

But I think there is also an undoubtful historical relation between Alexander and a great deal of countries. We're pussy footing around a particular country as to not enrage some barely literate nationalists, so let's say Afghanistan as an example. I don't see the sense in placing these nations in some sort of heirarchy of relation.

[Charontas]

Well, the way I see it, it is thanks to Alexander that modern Greeks even spreak Greek.

Let's think about it, without Alexander, the Middle East wouldn't have felt the influence of Hellenism as much. And therefore, after the Roman conquests, it would have been more likely that Latin would come to be the official language of that region, because without Alexander, Greek wouldn't be widespread there.

Without an wide spread of Greek troughout that region, I would find it unlikely that Greek would have been on equal footing as Latin. If we follow our hypothesis, then mayby the Eastern Roman Empire wouldn't have adopted Greek as their primary language, because again, without Alexander conquests Greek wouldn't have been the lingua franca in the Eastern Mediterranian. Who knows, in this hypothesis, mayby the Greeks of that time would also adopt Latin, since they would refer themselves as 'Romaioi'.

So, in my eyes, the effect of Alexander deeds are still felt to this day. Modern Greece would be very different today if Alexander wasn't as ambitous as he was.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think Greece should tie themselves more the the Late Roman Empire in Constantinopolis than the squabbling bickering Greek city states.

And Charontas no about of repression on the part of the Maks could have erased the Greek Language. Its more thanks to Heraclius.
________
COACH HANDBAGS

[Aradan]

Hmm, language barrier might be the problem here.

Let's ditch this: "Alexander belongs to the greek nation as a person"
And replace it with: "Alexander was a Greek"

There you go.

And to get back on topic: Greeks are fine with that statue.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yes. Alexander had to make particular effort to make other Greeks know he was a Greek. Silly Greeks.

[Charontas]

I think Greece should tie themselves
And Charontas no about of repression on the part of the Maks could have erased the Greek Language. Its more thanks to Heraclius.

Heraclius did made the "official" shift to Greek, by adressing himself as basileus. But by then Latin was only spoken in the government and military, not by the general population.

The point I'm trying to make here is that without Alexander, the languages that would be spoken in the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire would be more diverce, and then the pressure to convert to Greek would be much less. I believe it is because the people had Greek as a common laguage, that it pressured the government to speak Greek to (it is only normal that you want to communicate with your subjects in the language that they're speaking).

If Greek wasn't as widespread, I would expect that the governement would try to implement one laguage to be spoken by all, and the logical choice would be Latin.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Heraclius did made the "official" shift to Greek, by adressing himself as basileus. But by then Latin was only spoken in the government and military, not by the general population.

The point I'm trying to make here is that without Alexander, the languages that would be spoken in the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire would be more diverce, and then the pressure to convert to Greek would be much less. I believe it is because the people had Greek as a common laguage, that it pressured the government to speak Greek to (it is only normal that you want to communicate with your subjects in the language that they're speaking).

If Greek wasn't as widespread, I would expect that the governement would try to implement one laguage to be spoken by all, and the logical choice would be Latin.

Ah I see what you mean, without Alexander the dialects would be more diverse, Attic Greek, Thessalian Greek, Peloponesian Greek, and so forth-

Good points mate.

[Charontas]

Good points mate.

And thank you for my very first rep point on TWC

[Romanos IV]

propaganda

Erecting a monument of an emperor/general/ideology/etc. is not propaganda. If it was, the British museum is full of propaganda, the Statue of Liberty is propagnada, the Tour Eiffel is propagnda, the Tower of London is propaganda. Makes no sense. If this word is your favorite, and it seems it actually is, go find another way to write again and again and again. Don't accuse Greeks, Serbians and Russians for using propaganda for all kinds of purposes, cause they use it as much as Americans, Brits and Skopjans do.

Yes. Alexander had to make particular effort to make other Greeks know he was a Greek.

Elaborate.