Nice little article from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18803290
Nothing new under the sun, really. Years ago this subject was better discused by Dr Kavekh Farrokh.
I'm afraid most of that has been known for ages. Gore Vidal wrote a nice novel based on this theme in 1981 called Creation. But these days everything is drawn out of context as well as proportion. It's politically correct to bash Alexander or ancient Greek culture and to hold up falsified cuneiform texts as proof that the Persians were really human rights advocates. O tempora, o mores.
Cheers,
Aart
I found it interesting, but then my knowledge on that entire period is shaky at best. Perfect example of 'history is written by the victor'.
The whole theme that power corrupts owes a great deal to Hellenistic literary traditions, which illustrated it by selective reference to Alexander's story. Imitating Greek literature, as usual, the Romans created the absurd histories of power-crazed emperors which still infests popular culture today.
The idea that bashing barbarians was morally culpable is less common in ancient literature, though you find hints of it here and there.
QuoteHe razed Persepolis to the ground following a night of drunken excess at the goading of a Greek courtesan, ostensibly in revenge for the burning of the Acropolis by the Persian ruler Xerxes.
(:| (:| (:| (:|
Someone should have told the author that random acts of cruelty and a multitude of bad character traits were some of the most basic requirements for gaining the title "the great".
See Constatine the Great, Athanasius the Great, Charle le Magne, Iwan the Great..(or the Terrible), Peter the Great..and so on. This wasn't a title for special achievements in spreading human rights and stuff, but for the most wily, cruel and might obsessed basterd of the time.
Poor Alfred The Great doesn't really live up to that reputation then. ;D
Usual story; wait until a man's dead and then slag him off.... :D
Alexander is DEAD! :o
I know I've been out the loop recently, but when? Where? How? :'(
Kidding! ;)
:D ;D :D
Well, I wouldn't say he was the original p**s-artist, but there's a big sign on his tomb that says "no naked flames". :D
As a new member, am I allowed to say that I think Alexander WAS Great!?
Yes, I know his faults seemed to grow as he got more powerful (although was he as bad as some writers argue? I've read some who say his drinking,etc. was not to excess)
One of my armies is an Alexandrian Macedonian one and I love reading about him. So am I biased?
Wasn't Alexander one of the first to make use of what we would call tactics and make use of an all arms co-ordinated attack--rather than the slugging it out system most armies prior to Alexander seemed to use. Also, from what I've read, he was just as brilliant in small scale raids and adapting troops to the terrain and circumstances that presented itself--e.g. his use of the Hypaspists in full battle array and as lightly armed "raiders".
You may not like the guy, but I don't think you can deny his military genius.?
Just a thought
Best Wishes DaveL
As the late David Chandler said of Napoleon, "He was a great, bad man".
Quote from: DaveL on 10 March 2013, 05:39:16 PM
As a new member, am I allowed to say that I think Alexander WAS Great!?
Be our guest, DaveL! I myself never stopped reading about ancient history since grammar school and I've never been deterred by PC and other fashionable hoopla.
Cheers,
Aart
As my, admittedly limited, knowledge goes it was Phillip (his father) that made the military reforms based on his time in Thebes as a hostage.
When he returned he and Antipater reformed the Macedonian army and, with some political dealings, expanded and secured the Macedonian state. He conquered the Illyrians to provide manpower and used the Thebans own tactics to defeat them, then turned on Athens.
While Phillip was fighting Antipater taught tactics and strategy to Alexander who took to it like a natural (though as you say, the victors write history and praising your god king wins points). If it were not for the assassination of Phillip Alexander would never have ruled Macedon either, as Phillip had an older son who was becoming more aggressive and a new wife who was pure Macedonian, any son from that union would be a pure blooded Macedonian ruler.
While Alexander might have been a military genius, he was quick to anger and if any of you watch Game of Thrones, you could probably see many similarities with him and Joffrey (except that Joffrey is a moron).
It was said of 'great' later feudal kings and rulers that 'they should live among their people in great love and be dreaded'.
'Great' rulers were not for the most part humanitarians as we would understand them today.
The application of modern morals and societal mores is a real element of historical debate of course. I've always felt that you can read and understand history, but its very difficult to judge it by any standards other than those that were held at the time.
Alexander was most probably 'Great' given the context of his time, although his failure to secure dynastic succession would cast a very black cloud over that among his peers.
If he were alive today, we'd perhaps have a less glowing view of his vicious militaristic barbarism and constant war-making. He would perhaps be seen as akin to a 'rogue' organisation like the Taleban.
USA/'the West' vs. Taleban
Persia vs. Macedonia
History doesn't repeat itself but usually it rhymes...
Whatever you think of Alexander, I think you have to admit that his army in miniature is a lovely one.
I collected the AIM figures when they first came out years ago. Recently started to build them up again - can only get them from U.S.A. now.
I used to hand paint the shields using the ideas in the Osprey books. Now, years later, I don't know how I did it!!! Can't seem to reproduce them any more - so use transfers now!!!!
Happy collecting and gaming
DaveL
Quote from: DaveL on 16 March 2013, 12:44:14 PM
Whatever you think of Alexander, I think you have to admit that his army in miniature is a lovely one.
Really?
All that pastel pink? ;D