So, who would you give the leadership of the Macedonian empire if you were Alexander in hist last hours?

[JaM]

It is problematic topic and it depends on field of view. Anyway,you need to take into consideration that most of the time, killing all these people was not the prime intention of those historical figures. for example Napoleon was not fighting to wipe out his enemies, even if its quite popular to compare him to Hitler.. he was quite far from it. If there was no Napoleon, war would happen anyway.. European Absolutist Monarchs considered war as the only possible way how to solve things, and this lead to more deaths than you can write to Napoleon (World War I, anybody?) On contrary, Napoleon initial intention was to spread French system to other countries that were still locked in absolutism, yet he didn't understood that some people are way too simple and quite too easy to manipulate to understand it (Spain, Russia)

But back to Romans and Caesar. It is not like Gauls were some kind of a peace loving community that never ever attacked anybody... no. they launched lots of attacks against Rome, and were considered a constant threat (to everybody - look at what happened to Macedonia when they underestimated Gallic threat - Ptolemy Caraunus,Macedonian King at the time of Gallatian invasion, was captured, beheaded and his head was impaled on a lance..). You never knew when there emerges another Gallic king that gets all men he can get and march south... Caesars actions were aimed at eliminating that threat once and for good. Did he went too far? probably. yet, i would say it was out of necessity, considering his previous campaigns in Gaul - He subjugated Celtic tribes one by one, took hostages to make sure they stay loyal (common practice of those days) yet, he had to face several betrayals of those tribes, some quite dangerous and close calls (they sieged all his winter camps across the Galia at once, so he could not come to help)..

If you look at that context, his later actions during Vercingetorix uprising were necessary from his point of view. it was practically the only way how to prevent Gauls to rebel again, and he succeeded in that. there were no major revolts in Galia after this...

[GenTiberius]

You don't have to believe me. That's not the point.

It's important here. It's not that I don't believe you think you would act in a such a way. It's that, being in Alexander's shoes, or any powerful man at the time, there is no chance you would support such a view.

Beneficial to whom ? Certainly not the conquered.

Beneficial in terms of trade for starters. Beneficial in terms of mixing and spreading the different cultures. Not that it was really the conqueror's job to worry about what was beneficial to the people of the region.

How do you know that I wouldn't have the same view as I have now even if I was Alexander 2000 years ago ?

Simple, you wouldn't have the same views if you were born during the 4th century. Morality is very different today than it was at the time. Honestly, it's quite silly for you to think you would have same opinion now as you would back then. You might as well claim people are the same no matter what time or place they are born in.

I think your main issue is simply a 'west vs east' one. Your previous comments imply that it's more morally acceptable for an Asian to conquer an Asian than it is for a Greek to do so.

i am using works correctely. war implies mass murder since there is a big mass of legalised murders. this is essence of war, you cannot deny it. The fact that some leader or some Law makes a murder legal does not mean it is not a murder anymore.

No, that's now how it works. War is not illegal and therefore war is not murder. It is not correct to define war as legalized murder and you are not using words correctly at all.

War -A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Murder -the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought


The thing you don't understand is that murder is illegal and war is not. While you claim to understand that difference, your comment clearly shows that you don't. We aren't viewing this from a moral perspective, but a purely legal one. Understanding the difference is essential.

Note, I didn't reply to your whole post. That is mostly because those two definitions cover it all. You don't get to change definitions to fit your liking. Your agreeing or disagreeing with the definitions based on your moral views is irrelevant.

[tigger_t]

I would give it to Ptolemy. For one I thought he was a good leader after his death considering his position. I believe Alexander and Ptolemy were rather close. I even read somewhere that there was a rumor that Ptolemy may have been his half brother( Phillip had an affair with his mother ) no way to know if that's true of course. And from what I read trusting his generals in the end was a tricky thing. Ptolemy was one of his more loyal companions. You'd have to think Alexander reflected on his blood line surviving as much as his empire considering how young he was and how much was left un done in Alexander mind.