Although I haven’t participated, I’ve enjoyed the direction in which the thread has gone and I wanted to wait until it appeared to be winding down before adding to my original post.
Fiona wrote:I can see why you would be impressed by this. It's original and refreshing to see them held up side by side like this, to look for a moment just at the similarities between them. I bet they got on really well together when they weren't at each other's throats. If the chapter then goes on to show why Alexander is remembered as 'the Great', and Philip as 'II', then I'd be well impressed.
But if it's just a preliminary to a debunking of Alexander, I'd be sad. So often, debunking of historical figures seems to have more to do with their social class, ethnic origins, or simply the high regard in which they were held by previous generations. . .
I went back and took another look, along with some notes. Despite its brevity, I think it is mostly a reasoned - and reasonable - portrait of Alexander, although the opinions of the author obviously do come to bear, as can be seen in the following passages (italics are mine):
Alexander also gained a strong sense of his own connections with his mythological ancestors. (Alexander's mother was a member of the royal house of Epirus, which claimed Achilles as an ancestor. Alexander's father was a member of the royal Macedonian family which claimed descent from Herakles.) These legendary heroes - one, the preeminent Greek warrior against Troy, and the other, the explorer and tamer of wild lands beyond the horizon - had a profound impact on Alexander’s conceptualization of himself and his place in history. Although Aristotle discussed such things as ethics, colonization, and monarchy with Alexander, we are left to wonder whether these teachings made much of an impression upon the young prince. For comparison, imagine a 13-year-old boy, descended by tradition from J.R.R. Tolkein's Princes of Gondor or Elves of Rivendell. Then give him a copy of Tolkein's trilogy, the Lord of the Rings, and a textbook on political science and see which one leaves a greater mark.
(On Thebes) . . . Although other cities had suffered the same fate during earlier wars, the destruction of Thebes was considered an atrocity of enormous proportions. In the wake of such an event Alexander could afford to be lenient toward the other Greek states.
<snip>
The Tyrians rejected Alexander's request to enter the city, and they threw his ambassadors over the walls. Alexander was not amused ... ...For resisting, the Tyrians suffered the same fate as Thebes. Quite consistently, Alexander made sure that his adversaries could count on two things: brutal treatment if they resisted and more lenient treatment if they capitulated.
As time went on he began to conduct himself like a semi divine hero, with a hero's fate, a hero's parentage, and a hero's destiny. However, scholars disagree as to whether Alexander's vision drove his accomplishments or explained them (even to himself).
Although some of the plots were real, others may have been engineered by Alexander himself to uncover and eliminated disloyalty, and still others may have been nothing more than Alexander's fearful imaginings.
Now, here's where it gets really provocative.
(On the marriage banquet and Opis.) According to some scholars, participants drew wine from a common bowl and offered a joint libation to the gods, and Alexander prayed for an empire marked by homonia (concord) and fellowship. However, it appears that only Macedonians drank from the bowl, and even if Alexander said such a prayer, what did he mean by the words and how did he envision the development of his new empire? No one knows, really. His actual motivations and intentions are buried under centuries of speculation, contradiction, and moral bias. Moreover, even Alexander's actual beliefs, hopes, and plans were undoubtedly influenced by his growing physical and emotional instability. His demands for proskynesis and for recognition as a god, especially by the Greek world, were always doomed to failure. Indeed, even his vision of a single kingdom, united under one divine being, could be seen as the desire of a megalomaniac to reign supreme over all humanity.
Ah ah! There it is! That single word which has so often ignited the fires of furious debate. Megalomaniac. I’m not even going to comment on it right now as I will be leaving shortly for a weekend trip. I do want to say though that I'm not convinced that Alexander was emotionally unstable in the later years. Relying on memory and without diving into the sources, I can't recall anything truly unexpected in his behavior. For instance, the "purge" after his return doesn't surprise me given both the brutality of the Indian campaign and Alexander's obvious expectations of Satrapal behavior during his absence. I think though that my opinion is strongly influenced by Alexander's response to his men initially refusing to register their debts in order to receive remuneration. This was an act of generosity by Alexander, albeit probably designed to reinforce their allegiance to him. How stunned must he have been when he found out that they suspected him of subterfuge? When they didn't believe he was really going to settle their debts? Yet his reaction wasn't one of unreasoned anger, even though he may have felt emotionally betrayed by his own men. It was typical Alexander – and that, I think is the key here. Yes, he was a changed man in some respects ; how could he not be after the events of the previous years? What person in his or her early thirties remains exactly the same as they were at twenty, even when they haven't lived such a remarkable life? But he was still Alexander, and I just don’t see evidence of instability. Not yet, anyway. Now if anyone wants to enlighten me, I’ll be back after the weekend.
Best regards,