Judging Alexander

[Thalestris]

Call me an Alexander apologist, perhaps I am, however, when 21st century individuals *judge* Alexander's vices, weighing them against his virtues, I am compelled to quote Arrian, who retorts detractors effectively:"Whoever therefore reproaches Alexander as a bad man, let him do so; but let him first not only bring before his mind all his actions deserving reproach, but also gather into one view all his deeds of every kind. Then, indeed, let him reflect who he is himself, and what kind of fortune he has experienced; and then consider who that man was whom he reproaches as bad, and to what a height of himan success he attained, becoming without any dispute king of both continents, and reaching every place by his fame; while he himself who reproaches him is of small account, spending his labour on petty objects which, however, he does not succeed in effecting, petty as they are. For my own part, I think there was at that time no race of men, no city, nor even a single individual to whom Alexander's name and fame had not penetrated. For this reason it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human being could not have been born without the agency of the deity." (Arr.VII,xxx,1-2)Montaigne, in his essay on "The Worthiest and Most Excellent Men", identifies 3: Homer, Alexander, and Epaminondas.Xenephon: "A ruler must not only conquer his subjects, but cast a spell upon them." Alexander's spell lingers and shall always.Extensive research is exhausting, but worthwile and edifying: therefore, the titles dictator/tyrant/brutal king are not applicable and befitting to Alexander the Great.Sincerely,Thalestris

[jorgios]

I take it as a slant towards me that i have not researched Alexander well enough?Well, let me just say that in my post i mentioned the goodness in Alexander, and his humanity.(it's like people did not even read that part or something!?) His growing lust for power and even his soldier's growing distrust for their commander is proof of the decaying nature of Alexander's character. That, and the fact that neither his wife, mother, or child lived very long after Alex's death might be considered proof of the thin thread that the subject's respect for him was based on, that thin thread was fear. This is also evident in the almost immediate uprising of the City-States of Greece following the death of the Great King.I DID say in MODERN terms Alexander would be considered a dictator and a megalomaniac, so the ancient writers have no bearings on modern thought(human rights etc.) In conclusion I find it difficult to see the sacking of peaceful cities and the enslavement of women and children to be admirable(in Modern rather than Homeric terms, of course).Hey remember Dante put Alexander amongst "The Bloodthirsy" in the trip to hell?(but for some reason Julius Caeaser was a noble pagan to him?)

[maciek]

Hi Thalestris!
I agree with Your opinion. I think people in ancient times didn't understand him enough or sometimes completely. They couldn't imagine why he could accept Persians as sathraps if they were the conquered nation and barbarians in addition. Now, many historians like to find out many different explanations for that, I read last that he made all those things like rebuilding the sanctuaries of various religions, founding the cities and learning young Persian boys there - all this only because he wanted to make his rule easier... Well If so I have to repeat my words from another forum - if so I'd like to have such ruler now in my country - ruler who makes everything what he can to make people's life better because he want to have easy ruling... Maciek M

[dean]

Thanks to a recent thread and Mr J. O'Brien, I became aware of the fact that there are in general two types of writers on Alexander. Ones who seem to go to all lengths to absolve him and others who seem to lay all the blame exclusively and individually on him. There are apparently few who manage to maintain a detached and objective attitude towards him.
(I don't include myself in this category)He was "bi-polar" by nature- he went from one extreme to another- and was given to sudden shifts in mood that were quite opposing. Thus he could be extremely magnanimous, cruel, generous, virtuous, violent etc.One account that I think demonstrates this is the occasion when Bucephalus was stolen and he cruelly threatened that all men, women and children would be killed if the horse wasn't returned. Was he bluffing? Hours later when the horse was returned to Alexander he became incredibly magnanimous and even paying a handsome ransom to the "thieves".I think he had many facets which could be labelled good and bad depending on your point of view.Best regards,Dean.

[jan]

Thanks, Dean, for mentioning bipolarism. I have just purchased Michael Wood's book and was astounded at the kind of bloodletting he performed against the male members of a community who he made sacrifices after the death of Hephaestion. That really made my head spin. I then checked to see what Arthur Weigall had stated about the same incident. He describes it as sacrifices in a neighboring community but does not make it sound so horrendous as Michael Woods makes it sound.All of this made me understand why al Qaeda found it so easy to bomb the world trade center. The bombing of the world trade center appears to be minor in comparison to the amount of pain that Alexander caused his enemies.As I recall all Cyrus had to do when he made his rounds to assert his authority as King was simply to say I am King Cyrus and the villages simply submitted to him. But when Alexander tried to insist upon the same response, they saw him as a foreigner and intruder and resisted; thus, he slaughtered them if not submitting to his authority as King of Asia.I honestly believe that Alexander became more and more powerful with every successful massacre which reinforced his own belief in his divinity and his authority. As in the game of Risk, Alexander gained in power each and every time he won a battle. Contrary to O'Brien, I believe that his successful victories are what caused his changes within himself. Each time, he is proved to be a true son of Zeus and rightful king of Asia. Had only the Asians been smart enough to accept him, most of these slaughters would never have happened.According to the times and knowing how terrible and horrendous the Persians had been, Alexander's victories are worthy and noble for him and his troops. If he had not slaughtered them, they would have slaughtered him as they had done so often to the Greeks in the past. Alexander's retribution is justified in my opinion.

[karen]

Hi all:It's a good point you make, Dean, following O'Brien, about there being two categories of Alexander writers, and an interesting theory that this very duality is caused by a duality in Alexander himself. I don't think it's because he was literally bipolar, however, i.e. suffering from the disorder. I think it was because he was taught, and then learned from his own experience, that the combination of ruthlessness and generosity was singularly effective in furthering his goals.Police forces use the tactic of "good cop, bad cop" in interrogation: one officer acts cruel and threatening towards the captive, while the other is kind and sympathetic and pretends to befriend him. Driven by fear of the one to trust the other, the captive is manipulated into co-operating. Alexander was both in one, and you see it clearly in his policies: to reward cities that surrendered to him by reinstating customs they'd been forbidden, rebuilding temples and so forth, to punish cities that resisted him by selling their citizens into slavery afterwards, and to save the worst punishments -- total massacres, razings, etc. -- to those who he felt had betrayed promises made to him. He knew full well that news of these policies as well as his prowess would run ahead of his army, making the choices stark in people's minds and thus increasing the likelihood of peaceful surrenders, saving him time, trouble and casualties. The fact that the ideal of outdoing friends in kindness and enemies in cruelty already existed in the Greek world would seem to make it certain that he was conscious of what he was doing.Thus an apparent contradiction such as his fury in threatening those who stole his horse and his generous gratitude to them when it was returned isn't truly a contradiction, but a *tactic*. Now you could say that only a personality of fairly mercurial emotions, and some complexity, would be able to do this at all naturally, and I think that would be fair. And certainly such an extreme as the murder of Kleitos was impulsive rather than calculated, else he wouldn't have regretted it so much. But I still think the main motivation for his habitual combination of ruthlessness and generosity was calculated, responding to external realities, not mood-dependent. I think this is not well understood because very few of us have either the personality or upbringing or circumstances to relate to it well, but that doesn't preclude it.Love & peace,
Karen

[agesilaos]

I think the point is that the sources are bipolar; not Alexander. You have to analyses rather than collate a la Manfredi, to arrive at a reason able picture and then you will find a Hitler without the racism or a stalin without the moustache not St Francis of Assissi; also the Persians ruled with a light hand try Nick Welman's site; it opened my eyes to alot. Though, naturally, I disagree with some of it; since this thread has many quotes cop one fron Nietzche 'Show me a man who agrees with all i say and there is my downfall.' Arrows & Maxims

[beausefaless]

Didn't Arrian say "Alexander's eyes were blue as the sky or dark as night", there was no middle ground, he either loved you like a brother or hated your guts the same with the masses, he had respect for people that wanted to get along and if not he would killed them or sell them into slavery. It's a tough job trying to make the world as one.