Mentor

[Athanasios]

Companions,How much do we know of the relation Aristotle had with Alexander? How much of an influence did he have on him? Yes, Alexander aspired to greatness (as a philosopher), but was he of the same school of thought? We know, for example, that Alexander slept with a personal edited copy of the Iliad. Why were Aristotle's notes so valued?Regards,
Atha

[marcus]

I've wondered the same thing myself, and I *think* the answer is that we don't really know. We do know that Alexander had correspondence with Aristotle during the campaigns (if Plutarch is to be believed), and similarly we know that Aristotle had a correspondence with Hephaestion.Unfortunately, I'm not really good on Aristotelean philosophy - tried reading Politics a couple of years ago and gave up after about 20-30 pages. I fear I might have to leave it up to others to give a better answer!ATBMarcus

[marcus]

I've wondered the same thing myself, and I *think* the answer is that we don't really know. We do know that Alexander had correspondence with Aristotle during the campaigns (if Plutarch is to be believed), and similarly we know that Aristotle had a correspondence with Hephaestion.Unfortunately, I'm not really good on Aristotelean philosophy - tried reading Politics a couple of years ago and gave up after about 20-30 pages. I fear I might have to leave it up to others to give a better answer!ATBMarcus

[Efstathios]

Aristotle surely had an impact on Alexander but not on all things.And especially not to the way he concieved his vision about the world. One of the main reasons for Alexander's big love for the greek civilization was the influence by Aristotle.Alexander grew surrounded by greek culture,theatres,art,e.t.c.But Aristotle brought him closer to the insights of philosophy,theatre and sciences. While on Asia Alexander made sure that the greek civilization would spread in every place that he conquered.He built theatres and he brought actors from greece,and especially from Athens.Many people that stayed behind to populate his newly built Alexandrias helped in that matter. Also,his behaviour towards the southern greeks was influenced by his love for greece and what Aristotle taught him.He did not harm Athens,although the Athenians kept revolting against him,and he didnt harm Sparta either.He respected these cities with the great history.The incident with Thebes was just a sad parenthesis. But Aristotle couldnt influence him in one thing.In how he formed his vision about uniting all the nations he had conquered.He percieved a world where people would be equal,providing they had proper education (greek education).Where each man would consider the earth as his home.Aristotle generally had a little idea about persians and the other foreign civilizations and he considered them barbarians (with a negative meaning). But surely he must have admired Alexander in his effort to unite the world under the greek civilization and values.Aristotle was a bright man,and his oppinion about persians being primitive may have been only based on the fact that they didnt have proper education.Maybe he indeed concured with Alexander in the fact that proper greek education would "civilise" these people.But we cant be sure. The essence of this matter is that Alexander formed his own vision,but his vision was based on greek culture.Meaning that surely he wanted to unite the world and make people equal,but under greek education and values,as he considered them to be the best for people. Η ΙΣΧΥΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ

[Efstathios]

Aristotle surely had an impact on Alexander but not on all things.And especially not to the way he concieved his vision about the world. One of the main reasons for Alexander's big love for the greek civilization was the influence by Aristotle.Alexander grew surrounded by greek culture,theatres,art,e.t.c.But Aristotle brought him closer to the insights of philosophy,theatre and sciences. While on Asia Alexander made sure that the greek civilization would spread in every place that he conquered.He built theatres and he brought actors from greece,and especially from Athens.Many people that stayed behind to populate his newly built Alexandrias helped in that matter. Also,his behaviour towards the southern greeks was influenced by his love for greece and what Aristotle taught him.He did not harm Athens,although the Athenians kept revolting against him,and he didnt harm Sparta either.He respected these cities with the great history.The incident with Thebes was just a sad parenthesis. But Aristotle couldnt influence him in one thing.In how he formed his vision about uniting all the nations he had conquered.He percieved a world where people would be equal,providing they had proper education (greek education).Where each man would consider the earth as his home.Aristotle generally had a little idea about persians and the other foreign civilizations and he considered them barbarians (with a negative meaning). But surely he must have admired Alexander in his effort to unite the world under the greek civilization and values.Aristotle was a bright man,and his oppinion about persians being primitive may have been only based on the fact that they didnt have proper education.Maybe he indeed concured with Alexander in the fact that proper greek education would "civilise" these people.But we cant be sure. The essence of this matter is that Alexander formed his own vision,but his vision was based on greek culture.Meaning that surely he wanted to unite the world and make people equal,but under greek education and values,as he considered them to be the best for people. Η ΙΣΧΥΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ

[Paralus]

Aristotle most certainly did have an impact on Alexander. He was, of course, one of his tutors between the ages of thirteen and sixteen. What he was taught, well we really have no idea. He was evidently taught more than simply Greek culture whilst enjoying the "Idyll of Mieza". Enough to act as Macedonian King in his father's absence. As Badian observes: "were it not attested (Aristotle's tutelage of Alexander), there would be nothing in the future career of either man to enable us to guess the association, although it would be clear enough that Alexander had an excellent Greek teacher."It is far too easy to cede the fact that Philip's engagement of Aristotle was the sole reason for Macedonian RoyalyGÇô and Alexander's GÇô interest in all things Greek. This indeed was a process that stretched back to Alexander's namesake; Alexander I. It was continued by his successors down to Archelaus, when GÇô after his unfortunate demise GÇô it ceased, only to be re-started by the politically brilliant Philip. The process aimed at "Hellenising" Macedonia GÇô the push to include Macedonia in the Olympic games is firmly in this process. To this end Greek poets and artists (Euripides comes to mind) were accommodated (if not always liked by the Macedonian Barons) at the various Macedonian courts. Philip's appointment of Aristotle was simply the latest move in this direction. Although it can be over-emphasised, this love of all things Greek had strong political and practical overtones.One thing Alexander would not have learned at Aristotle's feet was any respect for foreign cultures. Aristotle was quintessentially Greek, generally regarded as the best mind of his time and most certainly a fully paid-up, cultural bigot. If it were not Greek, it was barbaroi. There was to be no "brotherhood of man" in the Aristotlian worldview. There was GÇô not surprisingly GÇô little room for such a notion in Alexander's world either, despite "Tarnian" romantic pretensions to the obverse. Alexander's co-option of native levies and nobles into his service was an exercise in realpolitk rather than worldwide ecumenism - a notion comprehensively dispelled by both Bosworth and Badian; if nowadays being taken too far to the other extreme.
Continued....

[Paralus]

Aristotle most certainly did have an impact on Alexander. He was, of course, one of his tutors between the ages of thirteen and sixteen. What he was taught, well we really have no idea. He was evidently taught more than simply Greek culture whilst enjoying the "Idyll of Mieza". Enough to act as Macedonian King in his father's absence. As Badian observes: "were it not attested (Aristotle's tutelage of Alexander), there would be nothing in the future career of either man to enable us to guess the association, although it would be clear enough that Alexander had an excellent Greek teacher."It is far too easy to cede the fact that Philip's engagement of Aristotle was the sole reason for Macedonian RoyalyGÇô and Alexander's GÇô interest in all things Greek. This indeed was a process that stretched back to Alexander's namesake; Alexander I. It was continued by his successors down to Archelaus, when GÇô after his unfortunate demise GÇô it ceased, only to be re-started by the politically brilliant Philip. The process aimed at "Hellenising" Macedonia GÇô the push to include Macedonia in the Olympic games is firmly in this process. To this end Greek poets and artists (Euripides comes to mind) were accommodated (if not always liked by the Macedonian Barons) at the various Macedonian courts. Philip's appointment of Aristotle was simply the latest move in this direction. Although it can be over-emphasised, this love of all things Greek had strong political and practical overtones.One thing Alexander would not have learned at Aristotle's feet was any respect for foreign cultures. Aristotle was quintessentially Greek, generally regarded as the best mind of his time and most certainly a fully paid-up, cultural bigot. If it were not Greek, it was barbaroi. There was to be no "brotherhood of man" in the Aristotlian worldview. There was GÇô not surprisingly GÇô little room for such a notion in Alexander's world either, despite "Tarnian" romantic pretensions to the obverse. Alexander's co-option of native levies and nobles into his service was an exercise in realpolitk rather than worldwide ecumenism - a notion comprehensively dispelled by both Bosworth and Badian; if nowadays being taken too far to the other extreme.
Continued....

[Paralus]

To quote Peter Green (writing in "The New Republic" - http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041115&s=green111504 GÇô subscription required unfortunately) reviewing Claude Mosse's "Alexander: Desinty and Myth" and Paul Cartlege's "Alexander the Great" (highly recommended):"If he was not to be dismissed as the mere bloodthirsty conquistador pilloried by Seneca, Lucan, and Augustine, then he had to be endowed with an acceptable mission. This proved surprisingly easy. An essay of Plutarch's supplied the notion of invading Asia in order to bring the benefits of Greek Hochkultur to a continent of unenlightened heathens; and European scholars, confronted on all sides with the twin rewards of imperial colonization and Christian proselytism, took up the idea and ran with it. By far the most influential version of this thesis was promoted by W.W. Tarn, who not only put a sympathetic face on Droysen's conquering hero but also made him a torch-bearer for the Stoic notion of the Brotherhood of Man. Tarn was writing in the aftermath of World War I, in the heyday of the League of Nations, and at a time when Lowell Thomas was weaving a very similar myth around the charismatic figure of Lawrence of Arabia. Both the League and Lawrence, each in their own way, had an indelible impact on Tarn's portrait of Alexander." Much also is made of the "civilsing of the East" as one of Alexander's objectives. The fact that Greek culture was disseminated in his wake is not contested. Nor is the is the building of cities (mostly garrison towns) with the attendant theatres etc. That does not mean that all this was by design of the conqueror. From the same review:"There is general agreement on the radical reshaping of Mediterranean and Near East society brought about in the Hellenistic period by Alexander's conquests; but far too often this result is identified with an assumed intention on the part of the conqueror. Post hoc is by no means always propter hoc, and a preponderance of evidence suggests strongly that Alexander had not the least notion what long-term effect his hegira of conquest would have, and could have cared less."In my view, bang on.
Paralus

[Paralus]

To quote Peter Green (writing in "The New Republic" - http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041115&s=green111504 GÇô subscription required unfortunately) reviewing Claude Mosse's "Alexander: Desinty and Myth" and Paul Cartlege's "Alexander the Great" (highly recommended):"If he was not to be dismissed as the mere bloodthirsty conquistador pilloried by Seneca, Lucan, and Augustine, then he had to be endowed with an acceptable mission. This proved surprisingly easy. An essay of Plutarch's supplied the notion of invading Asia in order to bring the benefits of Greek Hochkultur to a continent of unenlightened heathens; and European scholars, confronted on all sides with the twin rewards of imperial colonization and Christian proselytism, took up the idea and ran with it. By far the most influential version of this thesis was promoted by W.W. Tarn, who not only put a sympathetic face on Droysen's conquering hero but also made him a torch-bearer for the Stoic notion of the Brotherhood of Man. Tarn was writing in the aftermath of World War I, in the heyday of the League of Nations, and at a time when Lowell Thomas was weaving a very similar myth around the charismatic figure of Lawrence of Arabia. Both the League and Lawrence, each in their own way, had an indelible impact on Tarn's portrait of Alexander." Much also is made of the "civilsing of the East" as one of Alexander's objectives. The fact that Greek culture was disseminated in his wake is not contested. Nor is the is the building of cities (mostly garrison towns) with the attendant theatres etc. That does not mean that all this was by design of the conqueror. From the same review:"There is general agreement on the radical reshaping of Mediterranean and Near East society brought about in the Hellenistic period by Alexander's conquests; but far too often this result is identified with an assumed intention on the part of the conqueror. Post hoc is by no means always propter hoc, and a preponderance of evidence suggests strongly that Alexander had not the least notion what long-term effect his hegira of conquest would have, and could have cared less."In my view, bang on.
Paralus

[Efstathios]

" and a preponderance of evidence suggests strongly that Alexander had not the least notion what long-term effect his hegira of conquest would have, and could have cared less." Oh well... Maybe he didnt know exactly what would be the long term effects,but surely he cared.If we accept the thesis that Alexander did not intentionally spread hellenism around Asia then we also accept that his only purpose was to conquer just for the sake of conquering.Like Genkins Khan.That is the general idea that comes from Cartledge's book who is interpretating things based on his own view of realism.And being realistic is a good thing,but only if you keep in mind all the facts. All the ancient historians and biographers of Alexander pinpoint that he did spread hellenism intentionally.He was the one who brought actors from Athens.And he was the one who ordered how the cities were going to be built,including theatres e.t.c.He chose to build cities in the hellenic way.If he didnt actually care,and he would want to emphasise to the union between cultures,he would have ordered the cities to be built based on the local way. The "proper hellenic education" is something that he said in one of his speeches.So,if we are to start doubting his own words ,then soon we will start doubting his own very existence...

[Efstathios]

" and a preponderance of evidence suggests strongly that Alexander had not the least notion what long-term effect his hegira of conquest would have, and could have cared less." Oh well... Maybe he didnt know exactly what would be the long term effects,but surely he cared.If we accept the thesis that Alexander did not intentionally spread hellenism around Asia then we also accept that his only purpose was to conquer just for the sake of conquering.Like Genkins Khan.That is the general idea that comes from Cartledge's book who is interpretating things based on his own view of realism.And being realistic is a good thing,but only if you keep in mind all the facts. All the ancient historians and biographers of Alexander pinpoint that he did spread hellenism intentionally.He was the one who brought actors from Athens.And he was the one who ordered how the cities were going to be built,including theatres e.t.c.He chose to build cities in the hellenic way.If he didnt actually care,and he would want to emphasise to the union between cultures,he would have ordered the cities to be built based on the local way. The "proper hellenic education" is something that he said in one of his speeches.So,if we are to start doubting his own words ,then soon we will start doubting his own very existence...

[Paralus]

"If we accept the thesis that Alexander did not intentionally spread hellenism around Asia then we also accept that his only purpose was to conquer just for the sake of conquering.Like Genkins Khan.That is the general idea that comes from Cartledge's book who is interpretating things based on his own view of realism."Let's seeGǪno, no and yes.
That we accept a "thesis" that ATG did not intentionally set out to spread Hellenism does not mean his only purpose was to conquer for the sake of conquering. It is a little more complex than an either/or proposition. Although having "worlds to conquer" was a major reason for Alexander's rising from a fully recumbent position each morning, it is not the only one (finding the chamber pot being one other that comes to mind). Empire building is about a little more than simply conquering, economic (or greed in the case of many Roman generals to follow) and the exercise of power politics being amongst others.Much of the actors, poets and dancers (the last very definitely from Athens) were "imported" for the edification of his officers. At times of rest (after campaigns) games and drama contests would be held: for the officers and the troops. I can't recall Iranians, Medes or Bactrians competing in these games, though it's been a while since I've read the sources fully.Definitely not like Genghis Khan. Although Alexander may have done the odd "Khan turn" (Thebes, Tyre and the Mallians), this was not, it must be said, his first choice of everyday activity. It does though seem to be his reaction to being denied his way.

Continued....

[Paralus]

"If we accept the thesis that Alexander did not intentionally spread hellenism around Asia then we also accept that his only purpose was to conquer just for the sake of conquering.Like Genkins Khan.That is the general idea that comes from Cartledge's book who is interpretating things based on his own view of realism."Let's seeGǪno, no and yes.
That we accept a "thesis" that ATG did not intentionally set out to spread Hellenism does not mean his only purpose was to conquer for the sake of conquering. It is a little more complex than an either/or proposition. Although having "worlds to conquer" was a major reason for Alexander's rising from a fully recumbent position each morning, it is not the only one (finding the chamber pot being one other that comes to mind). Empire building is about a little more than simply conquering, economic (or greed in the case of many Roman generals to follow) and the exercise of power politics being amongst others.Much of the actors, poets and dancers (the last very definitely from Athens) were "imported" for the edification of his officers. At times of rest (after campaigns) games and drama contests would be held: for the officers and the troops. I can't recall Iranians, Medes or Bactrians competing in these games, though it's been a while since I've read the sources fully.Definitely not like Genghis Khan. Although Alexander may have done the odd "Khan turn" (Thebes, Tyre and the Mallians), this was not, it must be said, his first choice of everyday activity. It does though seem to be his reaction to being denied his way.

Continued....

[Paralus]

Paul Cartelege is indeed "interpreting things based on his own view of realism", something that we all do. You yourself have made the point that you seem to be the only Hellenic (or Greek) poster on the site (if I recall correctly), which GÇô by virtue of the descriptor GÇô necessarily illustrates the "view of reality" upon which you base your interpretation. An entirely fair thing too. Cartelege is also presenting his based on his comprehensive knowledge of both the subject matter and the source material GÇô a subject to itself and treated accordingly in his book with its own chapter.If memory serves, the "proper Hellenic education" may have been in the speech made when Alexander introduced the Persian "Inheritors". He was referring to the sons of the de-mobbed Macedonians and their "native" women who would be given the proper Macedonian upbringing: that is, fully trained in Macedonian infantry tactics.Paralus.

[Paralus]

Paul Cartelege is indeed "interpreting things based on his own view of realism", something that we all do. You yourself have made the point that you seem to be the only Hellenic (or Greek) poster on the site (if I recall correctly), which GÇô by virtue of the descriptor GÇô necessarily illustrates the "view of reality" upon which you base your interpretation. An entirely fair thing too. Cartelege is also presenting his based on his comprehensive knowledge of both the subject matter and the source material GÇô a subject to itself and treated accordingly in his book with its own chapter.If memory serves, the "proper Hellenic education" may have been in the speech made when Alexander introduced the Persian "Inheritors". He was referring to the sons of the de-mobbed Macedonians and their "native" women who would be given the proper Macedonian upbringing: that is, fully trained in Macedonian infantry tactics.Paralus.