Why is Alexander the Great considered to be on such a high plain?

[MarcoRossolini]

I've been hit recently by how much Alexander is considered to be "great" (no pun intended). I do not mean to denigrate him in any way since he surely was a superb general but I wonder at how much I see people seem to idolise him as a general compared to other Generals of the Ancient period, whilst he clearly was a masterful general, I wouldn't call him "the Greatest."
Of course no man has conquered such an empire in such a short time but at the same time, he had the complete support of Macedonia and in effect Greece at the time, he had pretty much no limits on what he could attempt to do. Whereas for a comparison, Caesar had the constraints of the Senate and the ideas of the Roman republic deeply ingrained into him and those around him, so he will have had many more problems keeping himself in the top job then Alexander had.
I've put forward this little idea so I'd like to ask what reasons why he maybe idolised as the best?

I hope I'm not coming across as too arrogant or anything, I'm here to learn as much as say what I think.

[Dick Cheney.]

I've been hit recently by how much Alexander is considered to be "great" (no pun intended).

As a human being, he was a savage. He was ready to kill in cold blood at anytime whenever he didn't get his way. This was a man who had the incredible capacity to murder someone who saved his own life as well as enslave entire populations of women and children. Besides being an obvious drunk and a spoiled brat, I'd rank him rather poor as a leader and humanitarian.

Obviously though, your inquiry is much more inclined towards his generalship, and in this regard historians do have to rank Alexander high. He was very bold, very aggressive, and very courageous, all solid attributes of a good soldier. More importantly though however, he was a winner - which is the pinnacle attribute of which we must rate our generals (well over genius). Alexander never lost a battle and was able to win against overwhelming odds. He may have been the most successful general of all-time.

I think though that his tactics and genius though, are overrated -for example, no general could ever lead on the front today at the risk of their own life- and this is because of the charisma and "heroic myth" that has enshroud his persona since ancient times to napoleon and beyond -- "the son of zeus," "achillies," "boy wonder," blahh blahh. Its all because armchair generals and "would-be alexanders" that you find on TWC have narcissistic and unfulfilled egos in my opinion.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

As a human being, he was a savage.

Why? Are you aware of his treatment over his newly conquered peoples?

He was ready to kill in cold blood at anytime whenever he didn't get his way.

Source?

This was a man who had the capacity to murder someone who saved his life

Cleitus? Any other mentions?

as well as enslave entire populations of women and children.

When?

Besides being an obvious drunk and a spoiled brat, I'd rank rank rather poor as a leader and humanitarian.

Source?

[Dick Cheney.]

Source?

Look these up yourself, here are some general terms to search for. Most of this is elementary stuff.

Drunk & Spoiled Brat - "I'm alexander and I'm going to go cry in my tent for a while because you don't love me" - common knowledge stuff, especially is his later years. Seriously look this up yourself. For instance, he was drunk when he killed Cleitus.

Bad Dude.
Alexander the Great was also known as "Alexander the Accursed" - common knowledge, search for it.

Murder & Slaver
-Sack and eslavement of Thebes, Burning of Persepolis, Crucifixion of Tyre. Again search for it

Cleitus? Any other mentions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...nder_the_Great
Of these Parmenion is the most reconizable. (which was funny because he then killed the people who did the dirty work, Cleander and Sitalces). There are also unanswered questions about Philip, but we do know that Alexander killed soldiers who mutinied.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Drunk & Spoiled Brat - "I'm alexander and I'm going to go cry in my tent for a while because you don't love me" - common knowledge stuff, especially is his later years. Seriously look this up yourself. For instance, he was drunk when he killed Cleitus.

A drunk can carve his own Empire? That's new to me. Getting drunk with friends 2 nights/year does not equal with being a drunk.

Bad Dude.
Alexander the Great was also known as "Alexander the Accursed" - common knowledge, search for it.

Haven't heard it personally.

Murder & Slaver
-Sack and eslavement of Thebes, Burning of Persepolis, Crucifixion of Tyre. Again search for it

All these moves were carefully planned and carried out and most of them had symbolic or political meanings. The Burning of Persepolis was supposed to be the revenge for the Burning of Athens during Xerxes invasion of Greece. Politically, it demonstrated that Alexander wouldn't tolerate any resistance and that rebellions would be crushed. The sack of Thebes and Tyre had the same political meaning. Alexander was neither a saint, nor he differed from any other conqueror of the era. In fact, he was liberal with his conquered peoples and if we want to be complete here, let's also mention the fact that the Queen of the Carians, Ada, was restored to power, various city states which treated Alexander friendly were allowed a certain degree of autonomy, Besus, the satrap of Babylon was allowed to remain in power of his satrapy and mind his own coins even though he had previously led the Persian armies, the Egyptians and Babylonians were allowed to worship their gods freely and retain their own, traditional laws. All these things are remarkable and show how liberal and progressive Alexander was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...nder_the_Great
Of these Parmenion is the most reconizable. (which was funny because he then killed the people who did the dirty work, Cleander and Sitalces). There are also unanswered questions about Philip, but we do know that Alexander killed soldiers who mutinied.

Aside from Cleitus murder which was a tragic incident, Parmenion and a number of other people were trialled according to the ancient Macedonian law and customs. I will quote a post of mine in a thread concerning this affair:

Philotas was proven guilty and we've got to understand how the Macedonian justice system worked. One person, usually the King, would act as the prosecutor and the Macedonian Council, made up of the most prominent Hetairoi would either adopt these accusations or drop them. In a similar case, Perdiccas, the supervisor of Alexander's heirs (Phillip and Alexander IV) accused Ptolemy of exceeding his authority in the satrapy of Egypt. Ptolemy was called in the Macedonian Council, Perdiccas acted as the prosecutor but the accusations were dropped by the other Hetairoi. In our case, Philotas was named as one of the conspirators and was thus judged by the Macedonian Council which pledged him guilty. Of course, there was another Macedonian Law, or to say it better, tradition, that if a man was pledged guilty of conspiracy, all his family (wife, parents, children, brothers, sisters) were to be put to death as well. Besides that, Parmenio had begun amassing way too much power in his hands, so, by removing also him in the process, Alexander was freed from another burden. After all, since his son was murdered, it would have been absurd to let the father live and hate Alexander for the rest of his life.

Due to the fact that Cassander grew to hate Alexander after his visit in the East, (contrary to what the Alexander movie depicts, Cassander stayed in Macedon throughout the campaign), Alexander grew uncomfortable with his family and asked Antipater to come in Babylon. Before his arrival, Alexander died. It has been speculated that Antipater and his family were also to be murdered.

All in all, nobody can say that Alexander acted beyond his power. Alexander enacted the process which had been used before and continued to be used after him. Philotas was tried and convicted according to the standard Macedonian procedures. As for Cleitus the Black murder, it was of course a tragic event, which Alexander regretted until his death.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...0#post10909240

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The main reason Alexander is seen as something uber-special is because he was Greek, and thus automatically idolized by classicists during the enlightenment. TBH he was just another king with a huge army and a weak neighbour.

[hellheaven1987]

The main reason Alexander is seen as something uber-special is because he was Greek, and thus automatically idolized by classicists during the enlightenment. TBH he was just another king with a huge army and a weak neighbour.

30k men with one week of compaign fee was hardely huge.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The main reason Alexander is seen as something uber-special is because he was Greek, and thus automatically idolized by classicists during the enlightenment. TBH he was just another king with a huge army and a weak neighbour.

This is the College of History. Not Thema Devia.

[Dick Cheney.]

A drunk can carve his own Empire? That's new to me. Getting drunk with friends 2 nights/year does not equal with being a drunk.

Clearly you never heard of Ulysses S. Grant -- not an empire builder, but a general who we can rank next to Alexander none the less.

'In the last seven years of his life, Alexander became increasingly unpredictable, megalomaniacal, and paranoid,' Professor O'Brien says. 'He was driven to extremes of behaviour, followed by intense remorse.' The New York study showed that these are all the classic symptoms of alcoholism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...c-1537664.html

The fact that Alexander's drinking habits are the subject of higher level academia proves my point that it is common knowledge that Alexander liked to drink.

Haven't heard it personally.

Alexander is also known in the Zoroastrian Middle Persian work Arda Wiraz Nāmag as "Alexander the accursed"

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...der_t47.html#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura...nder_the_Great

All these moves were carefully planned and carried out and most of them had symbolic or political meanings.

(Political Meanings) Doesn't make it right. September 11th had a political meaning too.

, let's also mention the fact that the Queen of the Carians, Ada, was restored to power, various city states which treated Alexander friendly were allowed a certain degree of autonomy, Besus, the satrap of Babylon was allowed to remain in power of his satrapy and mind his own coins even though he had previously led the Persian armies, the Egyptians and Babylonians were allowed to worship their gods freely and retain their own, traditional laws. All these things are remarkable and show how liberal and progressive Alexander was.

These moves were carefully planned and carried out and most of them had symbolic or political meanings.

See what I did there? And it shows how bias and thoughtless you are in your method and research.

he differed from any other conqueror of the era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_great

Aside from Cleitus murder which was a tragic incident, Parmenion and a number of other people were trialled according to the ancient Macedonian law and customs.

Because Alexander was the law. A king or a tyrant, take your pick. All bad dictators throughout history (sulla, the caesars, stalin, hitler, pinochet, pol pot, mao, on and on) use their powers to legally execute the political opposition and would be dissenters. Alexander was no exception to this rule, and it is always morally bankrupt -in free and democratic societies- to justify killing off your political opponents. The fact is he unjustly executed people who merely disagreed with him, including his own soldiers when they mutinied. Cletitus murder alone is enough to give him 25 to life.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

30k men is huge by ancient standards. That, and he could easily raise more. At Gaugamela he had 47 thousand.

Bear in mind that the Macedonian soldiers were professionals, available for their king to command, while Darius and his satraps had to muster their scattered bannermen (for the lack of a better word) to form any force of decent or large size (decent size being 10-20k, since >20k is already a large force). Alexander's force was an integrated single army, while the initial Persian forces he faced were:
1. Most likely smaller, due to them being the troops of provincial nobles;
2. Plagued by communication and command issues, due to their extremely varied composition and command. Look at the number of Persian nobles at Granicus, each with his own troops, and that's for a border levy.
3. Alexander was pretty free to strike deep before any imperial response came due to the delays of gathering a feudal force.

Also, since Darius's authority was pretty weak, it's likely the general response to his musters was less than active.


So to sum up:
1. Alexander was in a strong position with a large army;
2. His opposition was in no position to counter him effectively.
3. Darius III was a weak ruler and thus probably unable to raise large armies to begin with.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

30k men is huge by ancient standards. That, and he could easily raise more. At Gaugamela he had 47 thousand.

30k men is an average -if not small- number of troops for that certain time frame. The Greeks in Plataea were able to muster more than 100k troops and the battles during the Hellenistic era (Roman-Carthaginian engagements, Roman-Hellenistic Kingdoms engagements and so on) speak for themselves. Not to mention that the troops that Alexander used in his battles were barely 20k (9,000 pezhetairoi, 3,000 hypaspists, 3,600 heavy cavalry and a few thousand lights), as the other were hoplites and other allied contingents used for guard duties.

1. Most likely smaller, due to them being the troops of provincial nobles;

No, it wasn't. According to our sources and the sheer size of the Persian Empire and its population, the Persians were able to muster hundreds of thousands of troops.

2. Plagued by communication and command issues, due to their extremely varied composition and command. Look at the number of Persian nobles at Granicus, each with his own troops, and that's for a border levy.

Alexander landed in Asia and didn't have control of the seas until he captured both Phoenicia and Egypt. You think he faced less problems than the Persian Empire which was fighting in its own damn lands?

3. Alexander was pretty free to strike deep before any imperial response came due to the delays of gathering a feudal force.

No, he wasn't. This is why he was forced to give 3 large field battles, numerous sieges (Halicarnassus, Tyre to name a few). The conquest of the Persian Empire took him many years you know.

Clearly you never heard of Ulysses S. Grant -- not an empire builder, but a general who we can rank next to Alexander none the less.

No, he can't. Hannibal and Napoleon can.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...c-1537664.html

The fact that Alexander's drinking habits are the subject of higher level academia proves my point that it is common knowledge that Alexander liked to drink.

From your own source:

His theory is challenged, however, by other historians. Dr Simon Hornblower, of Oriel College, Oxford, says that many of Alexander's contemporaries thought he drank too much, but there is not enough medical evidence to prove he was an alcoholic: 'He may just have drunk through boredom.'

Added to that, most historians who've dealt with Alexander the Great such as Peter Green and N.G.L. Hammond have argued against such laughable theories. Aside from the death of Cleitus which is the primary argument for those who want to propagate against Alexander (such as you (don't think I didn't see your other thread in VV and Blatta Optima Maxima). Your source also brings the same incident up. There is absolutely no other evidence about inability of Alexander to effectively run his Empire and fight his battles. All his actions regarding this matter seem entirely logical and were made with a totally clean mind as Hammond suggests as well.

(Political Meanings) Doesn't make it right. September 11th had a political meaning too.

I don't even know how can you compare such an incident with such a difference in time frame from what we are discussing.

These moves were carefully planned and carried out and most of them had symbolic or political meanings.

They helped carve a liberal Empire which respected every tribe and religion.

See what I did there? And it shows how bias and thoughtless you are in your method and research.

We started the personal remarks? So, you basically admit that you have no evidence to counter my statements.

Because Alexander was the law. A king or a tyrant, take your pick. All bad dictators throughout history (sulla, the caesars, stalin, hitler, pinochet, pol pot, mao, on and on) use their powers to legally execute the political opposition and would be dissenters. Alexander was no exception to this rule, and it is always morally bankrupt -in free and democratic societies- to justify killing off your political opponents. The fact is he unjustly executed people who merely disagreed with him, including his own soldiers when they mutinied. Cletitus murder alone is enough to give him 25 to life.

This is nonsense. What do any of these people have to do with Alexander? What democracy? What 25 to life? This is going way off-topic.

[Dick Cheney.]

No, he can't. Hannibal and Napoleon can.

Yes he can. Hannibal and Napoleon were losers.

From your own source:

Does not dismiss what I am trying to say.. there is strong historical evidence that Alexander was prone to drunken bouts -- you may argue to what degree, but you cannot defend your original assertion that Alexander had only one or two drinks at a time.

They helped carve a liberal Empire which respected every tribe and religion.

For political purposes.

I don't even know how can you compare such an incident with such a difference in time frame from what we are discussing.

Morality transcends politics -- you may have not have liked the example I gave, but there are countless others if you would look. Slavery & Genocide for political purposes will always be wrong.

We started the personal remarks? So, you basically admit that you have no evidence to counter my statements.

I may have gotten a little off the mark there, but I am upset that you continue to defend an assumption without an objective evaluation of all the information at hand. At the university level you would get an F on your research paper.

To summarize my talking points that you challeged:

enslave entire populations of women and children.
- it happened. (Thebes, Tyre, Persepolis) Fact.

was ready to kill incold blood at anytime whenever he didn't get his way.
-it happened (Cleitius, Parmenion, Philip (debatable) mutinies) Fact.

drunk and a spoiled brat
-Cleitius, temper and tent bouts - Fact.

This is nonsense. What do any of these people have to do with Alexander? What democracy? What 25 to life? This is going way off-topic.

They are all in the same category. They were absolutely ruthless heads of state who brutally crushed any opposition to their rule. Many of them wanted to emulate Alexander and conqueror the world. Many of them shared the same personality traits. And your defense of their executions based on "legal authority" does not make them morally right --we've seen this countless times throughout history.

What democracy?! Are you for real! Democracy and rule by law first came from Greece. Again read look through all the information objectively and then come up with a conclusion.

[Nikephoros Kapatsos]

Yes he can. Hannibal and Napoleon were losers.

Hannibal and Napoleon may be losers, but they have captured the hearts/and minds of the countless.

Does not dismiss what I am trying to say.. there is strong historical evidence that Alexander was prone to drunken bouts -- you may argue to what degree, but you cannot defend your original assertion that Alexander had only one or two drinks at a time.

When someone takes alcohol one will experience the effects differently from the next person. Such was the fate of Alexandros who was easily aggravated, perhaps Cleitus on the other hand was an arse drunk. These Greeks the Statesman, Warriors, Philosophers, of course wouldn't know the consequences of drinking. Even today man become quite puzzled of the actions they have performed while drunk. Such is the results of the Symposium, when you have many minds not one the same, and get them drunk to show their true colours, it would never end up well.

enslave entire populations of women and children.
- it happened. (Thebes, Tyre, Persepolis) Fact.

Fact Thebes was an arse an knew it would be destroyed. Tyre murdered the emissaries of Alexandros, like how the citizens of Taras mistreated the Emissary from Rome, it is a just casus belli. As of Persepolis the defeated are in the hands of the Victors faith.-Fact

drunk and a spoiled brat
-Cleitius, temper and tent bouts - Fact.

When your alcohol level surpasses your state of consciousness, and IQ your surely going to do the worse of things. Your bound to end up in bouts, but especially often with Alcohol in the mix. We are all spoiled brats we are too worried about our dignity/honour, these things we call "States", we ally ourselves with those who had lived in the same place between 1-20 generations or more. Rather than our Species Wise man.-Fact

They are all in the same category. They were absolutely ruthless heads of state who brutally crushed any opposition to their rule. Many of them wanted to emulate Alexander and conqueror the world. Many of them shared the same personality traits. And your defense of their executions based on "legal authority" does not make them morally right --we've seen this countless times throughout history.

like you said

For political purposes.

What democracy?! Are you for real! Democracy and rule by law first came from Greece. Again read look through all the information objectively and then come up with a conclusion.

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.

Actually there is some proof that prior to the first democratic state in Hellas, there was a form of a Democratic Sovereignty in India.

I've been hit recently by how much Alexander is considered to be "great" (no pun intended). I do not mean to denigrate him in any way since he surely was a superb general but I wonder at how much I see people seem to idolise him as a general compared to other Generals of the Ancient period, whilst he clearly was a masterful general, I wouldn't call him "the Greatest."
Of course no man has conquered such an empire in such a short time but at the same time, he had the complete support of Macedonia and in effect Greece at the time, he had pretty much no limits on what he could attempt to do. Whereas for a comparison, Caesar had the constraints of the Senate and the ideas of the Roman republic deeply ingrained into him and those around him, so he will have had many more problems keeping himself in the top job then Alexander had.
I've put forward this little idea so I'd like to ask what reasons why he maybe idolised as the best?

I hope I'm not coming across as too arrogant or anything, I'm here to learn as much as say what I think.

Back on topic to the OP now some people consider him great, because they do. That is what you get with not having one single same mind. The same reason people idolize Ceasar, Hannibal, or Napoleon. Now someone's opinions is different, but not necessary wrong. Like how Dick Cheney name is Dick Cheney, or how he/she has a fondness over Ulysses S. Grant. Now a human isn't a savage for humans are a creation of nature, and even how brute their force is it is then apart of nature itself. Off topic winners in life please, there are only survivors

[Dick Cheney.]

Hannibal and Napoleon may be losers, but they have captured the hearts/and minds of the countless.

And they massacred people by the thousands while waging wars of conquest - this is why some of us with strong moral centers can't understand why they can be admired.

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.

And when did I say this? You completely made that up. Even so, saying it was socially acceptable to own slaves back then does not make it morally right.

Fact Thebes was an arse an knew it would be destroyed. Tyre murdered the emissaries of Alexandros, like how the citizens of Taras mistreated the Emissary from Rome, it is a just casus belli. As of Persepolis the defeated are in the hands of the Victors faith.-Fact

These are opinions. "was an arse," "casus belli," "victors faith." You are trying to justify how you feel about the facts with your opinions.

When your alcohol level surpasses your state of consciousness, and IQ your surely going to do the worse of things. Your bound to end up in bouts, but especially often with Alcohol in the mix. We are all spoiled brats we are too worried about our dignity/honour, these things we call "States", we ally ourselves with those who had lived in the same place between 1-20 generations or more. Rather than our Species Wise man.-Fact

Consuming alcohol may impair judgement, but it does not impair responsibility. For example, a drunk driver is still at fault for the destruction he causes.

Back on topic to the OP now some people consider him great, because they do. That is what you get with not having one single same mind. The same reason people idolize Ceasar, Hannibal, or Napoleon. Now someone's opinions is different, but not necessary wrong. Like how Dick Cheney name is Dick Cheney, or how he/she has a fondness over Ulysses S. Grant. Now a human isn't a savage for humans are a creation of nature, and even how brute their force is it is then apart of nature itself. Off topic winners in life please, there are only survivors

What? People make opinions. I could have told you that. Now let's examine the facts!

[Nikephoros Kapatsos]

And they massacred people by the thousands - this is why some of us with strong moral centers can't understand why they can be admired.

This is why they are known, and as of ours is unheard of.

And when did I say this? You completely made that up. Even so, saying it was okay to own slaves back then -objectively- still does not make it morally right.

Then Vladimir Lenin is made up, whom said that. This quote is to refer the inequalities of Capitalism and for the matter, how corrupt democracy has become. Don't put words in my mouth, morals and logic don't go together. Maybe one couldn't understand that that statement was quoted, made up why not analysis, and actually get into society in first person. It is however only morally unjust to you. Maybe if you had more experience of such, your response would be different.

These are opinions. "was an arse," "casus belli," "victors faith." You are trying to justify how you feel about the facts with your opinions.

Clearly you never heard of Ulysses S. Grant -- not an empire builder, but a general who we can rank next to Alexander none the less.

That is an opinion also, I am not justifying, and certainly I do not feel. The facts were they were burned, raped, pillaged, and your just trying to use it for your opinion. To prove Alexander isn't great as others, know he was.

Consuming alcohol may impair judgement, but it does not impair responsibility. For example, a drunk driver is still at fault for the destruction he causes.

One can't be too sure, when your judgement is impaired one can't be sure if he even has responsibilities.

What? People make opinions. I could have told you that. Now let's examine the facts!

Really because I was the one that told you. why examine the facts, when you assume I use my own opinion on it. The truth is facts are also based from opinions, not only can you not tolerate the opinions of other, but you put words in my own mouth. I feel very well disrespected so i haul myself from this discussion, now go on to speak with the others, whom can tolerate you, with their own opinions. Of proving to you theres are just as right as yours. This is why people without strong morals continue to do the the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

[Hobbes]

The main reason Alexander is seen as something uber-special is because he was Greek, and thus automatically idolized by classicists during the enlightenment. TBH he was just another king with a huge army and a weak neighbour.

I would love to trust your opinion on the matter, but I'd rather go with what historians all over the world agree on. Not to offend your e-education of course; I am sure wikipedia is a great place for wasting your time.

[Big War Bird]

The scale of his accomplishment is what makes him "Great" He destroyed with a small force the most powerful state of his time. To draw a clumsy modern analogy, it would be like Poncho Villa leading Mexico to conquer the USA.

[DarthShizNit]

And they massacred people by the thousands while waging wars of conquest - this is why some of us with strong moral centers can't understand why they can be admired.

As a man who loves my US Grant, im going to point out the failure of your logic here. His entire strategy for beating the Army of NV was to hurl men at it until the confederates were out of men and bullets to hurl back. It worked, and he carreid it out with conviction, but there is certainly no moral high ground in knowing that your sending thousands of men to die everyday as a matter of strat. And, being the overall commander of the Union forces, he was in overall command of something called "the march to sea". Granted, the rebs deserved it, but still, Grant was certainly not king of the mountain top by any standards, and you would be hard pressed to ever find a general who was.

[Admiral Piett]

Clearly you never heard of Ulysses S. Grant -- not an empire builder, but a general who we can rank next to Alexander none the less.

That's absolutely ludicrous. Grant, a great tactician on the scale of conquerors?

[Denny Crane!]

He also had an amazing grasp of tactics, use of troops, application of force to the appropriate point and use of the land.

And yet despite all that Manuel seems to want to convince everyone that because he had all that he can't be a douche as well, why, well because he was Greek(ish) and Manuel is Greek.

If only Rez could be persuaded to take this forum seriously and converse with people other than Conon and one or two others I'd try and get him to make a post on the matter.