Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Phoebus »

Semiramis wrote:
Phoebus wrote:
Semiramis wrote:To describe someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of wealth and power through violence as a “hero” makes little sense to me.
I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

To the ancient Greeks, heroism seems to have had as much to do with scale rather than morality--if not moreso. Hegel's use of the term/title to identify people who fit in a state's Zeitgeist would also apply here.
And what do you think Hegel would make of Spartacus? :)
I think he would say that he too might fit a certain state or peoples' Zeitgesit or Volksgeist, or what have you. I don't think Hegel was so much trying to say that a person needs be moral or right in everything he does; just that he or she, well, captures a peoples' imagination in a certain way. :)

Or I could be in deep waters. I'm by no means well-schooled OR well-versed in philosophy. :shock:
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by marcus »

Semiramis wrote:Oxford online defines the term as -

"imperialism • noun a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

So let's clarify that we really are discussing arguments in favour of imperialism. Or are we hunting out specific instances where imperialism produced the side effect of something positive? Surely the two are different matters? World Wars may have given rise to the League of Nations and United Nations, but that doesn't necessarily argue in favour of World Wars. I have enjoyed many fascinating cricket matches. But surely Brian Lara's batting skills can't be used to argue in favour of British imperialism? :) Are you saying that the perceived "benefits" excuse the principle? Or the methods?
It's late, and I really need to go to bed, but ... maybe we are talking at cross purposes; but note that the dictionary says "colonisation ... or other means", so military force is not the only one on offer here. Yes, I am talking about the positive effects of imperialism, which don't necessarily excuse the means (but I never said they did always excuse the means). But surely, therefore, it is too simplistic to say that "imperialism is bad" when (a) it doesn't have to be by military force; and (b) good things can come out of it? I will repeat, however, that I am not saying that every instance of empire-building necessarily had good consequences; nor that any empires didn't have good and bad consequences at the same time. And I don't think that one can therefore categorically criticise the principle of imperialism.

I'm not sure your analogy of the League of Nations/United Nations and the World Wars works in this argument, but I'm too tired at the moment to consider it properly. I will say, however, that any thought that the League of Nations was a "good" consequence of WWI is flimsy, to say the least - but the principle was a sound one!

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Fiona »

Hi Semiramis,
you asked when imperialism could be considered a Good Thing, and I was leaving it to Marcus, who is doing far better than I ever could.
Semiramis wrote:
Oxford online defines the term as -

"imperialism • noun a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

So let's clarify that we really are discussing arguments in favour of imperialism. Or are we hunting out specific instances where imperialism produced the side effect of something positive? Surely the two are different matters?
Well, no, actually, I don't think they are different matters. To be honest, I think that's splitting hairs. A policy is only words until it is put into effect, and then it can be judged by what it has or has not achieved.
I suppose it would be possible to argue that a policy can be unequivocably right or wrong, and therefore that its effects, for better or worse, are irrelevant, which seems to be what you're getting at. So I'd just like to say that that isn't what I meant at all when I mentioned it in the first place, and I was definitely talking about instances where imperialism produced positive results.
Semiramis wrote: World Wars may have given rise to the League of Nations and United Nations, but that doesn't necessarily argue in favour of World Wars. I have enjoyed many fascinating cricket matches. But surely Brian Lara's batting skills can't be used to argue in favour of British imperialism? :) Are you saying that the perceived "benefits" excuse the principle? Or the methods?
On a long enough time scale, and from a broad perspective, yes. I am grateful for the benefits my country gained from being part of the Roman Empire. That doesn't mean I would wish to see Roman methods employed today. As for the principle, I think it's unrealistic to expect the desire for empire ever to go away. It's been around for a long time, and I think it may be hard-wired into human nature. So until we're all so advanced that humans have no desire to empire-build, then it's how you do it that counts, and how much good you do in the process.

As for British imperialism, well, it's because I felt sure that that would come up that I was hesitant to post at first. I remember when you said that comparing the British sharing of government with Indians with Alexander's sharing of government with Persians was an insult to Alexander, which led me to suppose that we would find little common ground and generate more heat than light. It's a subject I feel strongly about - family members involved, Anglo-Indian relatives - so forgive me, but I don't think I've anything else to add on this subject.
Cheers,
Fiona
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Semiramis »

Hi Marcus,
marcus wrote:I'm not sure your analogy of the League of Nations/United Nations and the World Wars works in this argument, but I'm too tired at the moment to consider it properly. I will say, however, that any thought that the League of Nations was a "good" consequence of WWI is flimsy, to say the least - but the principle was a sound one!
You’re right. Those were awful examples. The League of Nations was most ineffective in carrying out its aim of preventing further wars of aggression – at least 50 million dead in WWII. The United Nations too has been depressingly impotent in recent years regarding that same task. Good to know that we both feel the same way about the founding principles.

Hi Fiona,

Yes, it’s likely that our basic beliefs about the matters in discussion are very far apart. Oh well... we'll always have Jared Leto to agree on. :)
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by amyntoros »

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. :lol:

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by jan »

Oh dear, this post made me remember that I had promised I would get out my books and quote sources forever, and made some quip about seeing Philip in Alexander as Jesus had said, you see the father in me...Oh boy, long time ago, and as I see Paralus did write a post here, I admit that I have not done promised post, doubt that he really cares...

But I want to say one thing that does annoy me a lot about the savagery and brutality which Alexander is accused of. First of all, at the Battle of Charonea, when he was a young man, standing beside his father then, he thought nothing at all of eliminating each and every member of the Sacred Band as that is the role of a military leader. Just because years later, in a different situation, when the so called enemy is an Indian settlement, but populated with both men, women, and children who are equally as dangerous, though not trained and drilled in the way of the military, does not mean that they were any less dangerous. It strikes me odd that his campaigns in India are described as savage and brutal, often noting that he had been misled, misinformed, and betrayed while so called opposition were ready to decimate his troops, that that is the name of the game in military warfare, kill or be killed.

Who is to say that this so called Indian village that was massacred so brutally was not as dangerous as were the Thebans, who after all were in their houses, or the residents of Tyre, who were also in their homes and fighting equally as hard as Alexander and his Macedonians.

War is war, defense is defense, and frankly, I do not believe that Alexander did anything different from one battle to another, but to defend himself, eliminate his enemy, and remained consistent and would have continued to do so had he stayed alive for a few more years. That is the name of the game. :!:
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by marcus »

amyntoros wrote: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. :lol:
The "instability" reference, which is always made, is made in reference to two things, I think:

1. Alexander's reaction to Hephaestion's death.
2. Alexander's growing paranoia about omens and portents on his return to Babylon. Now, there are various theories about which stories are true; but it is clear that in the last few months of his life he was becoming more superstitious, especially about non-Greek omens/portents - the increasing reliance on the Chaldeans, etc; and the way he acted upon them suggests an increasing paranoia - such as the incident with the 'mad' person who sat on his throne, and was executed.

One could easily produce a very rational explanation for his behaviour with regard to the omens/portents, I'm sure; but the way the sources present it to us is clearly indicative of an increasing paranoia. His reaction to Hephaestion's death was just ... well ... creepy! :D

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by jan »

Oh dear, I always read first, and sign in later... :wink: But I had to add one more thought and then comment upon Marcus's "creepy" comment. Remember, that Alexander was also a child when he began his military career so in his viewpoint, children are just as lethal and deadly as mature adults, if not more so.

As for the increasing so called degeneration with which I disagree also, I would say that more stories are told that emphasize his use of these ancient soothsayers, as when he entered Babylon for the final chapters in his life he had been forewarned about the correct gate to use, but found it a warning that he could not follow, meaning of course, to everyone around in hearing distance of this story that that is the real reason everything fell apart, giving credence to the warnings...people of many types were superstitious then, especially the listeners of these tales as if they were the real and absolute reason for his disastrous end...

as for the reaction to Hephaestion, I do not see anything strange about it when one considers the fact that these many years, these many miles, and these many hardships have created a bond that is tried and true, and that after so much agony, so many battle scars, so many frustrations, so many long hours, to find that one's one real true friend has suddenly been taken from you would devastate anyone....finding Hephaestion lying prone on a bed after opening the gate to his room, Alexander gazed upon his steadfast friend appearing sound asleep, dressed in full military garb, studied his closed eyes, his silent features, his arms resting alongside his torso, his legs still, that beautiful face so glorious now relaxed forever, and finally Alexander could stand it no longer, flung himself upon his childhood companion of years of turmoil and travail, and sobbed, and clung to him, finally releasing all the anxiety, all the fears, all the hopes that each had shared together. Earlier he had chased the guards and attendants out of the room, crying at each one of them, Out, Out, out, and then gazed upon his friend to finally embrace him as long as he could. At last Alexander expended his own grief, his own anxiety, his own frustrations, as only he could know that Hephaestion had finally crossed into the Elysian Fields where he was received as a loyal and true soldier from Macedon.

Nothing creepy about it! Just a sincere appreciation and love for a friend and devoted soldier!

Jan
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Paralus »

Nothing creepy about it?

Noooo....just that entire foregoing description....

Mills and Boon meet Arrian?!
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Nikas
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Nikas »

Fiona wrote:If Philip and Alexander's generations were reversed, I wonder what each of them would have achieved? Of course it is only idle speculation, but to me it is interesting to think about, because they were both highly talented. Could Alexander have united Macedon and built an army that used the latest technology? Yes, I think he could. He could be just as patient and canny as his father when he wanted to be. Could Philip have built on Alexander's foundation, and successfully invaded Asia? Of course - he was a great general. But I don't think he'd have thrown his spear onto the beach, and I think that kind of gesture is where the real difference lies. Alexander captured people's imaginations, in a way that Philip couldn't and didn't. Perhaps it is unfair that Philip isn't remembered as 'the Great' - but if he was, Alexander would have to be, 'the Magnificent'.
Fiona
Ouch, to say that Philip could not inspire is a tad harsh. Unlike Alexander, Philip inherited a dispirited and crushed army, a kingdom on the verge of collapse and possible disemberment, yet he managed to both connive and inspire, bluff and act, and strategically and tactically move with an acumen that is dazzingly adept in retrospect. He did this by continuing to hold together the Upper and Lower Macedonians in the face of Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Athenian thoughts otherwise, all the while inspiring the loyalty and what seems almost devotional following of the powerful nobles. In fact, I can only think of one time when his army lost cohesion and that was the first go-around with Orchomenus. Yet, Alexander also had his share of mutinies. I also don't recall Philip drunkenly murdering any of his companions, and even his brushing aside of Amyntas did not relieve his nephew of his life, nor nary a murmur of discontent.

Yet, even more, let's compare them where it matters, was Macedonia better off at the end of their reigns than at the beginning? With Philip, I see no reason to unconditionally say yes, with all that has been already said, he accomplished in twenty short years a pre-eminence never before seen in Greek affairs. In leaving a kingdom larger, stronger, richer (in potential revenues if not in the treasury), and a successor maintaining a continuity of the Argead Dynasty that had been in place for hundreds of years already. Alexander, I believe unforgivably, did not overly concern himself with the succession, which is inexusable for a King (and Philip and Olympias even tried to assist in that regards too), managed to destroy the Argead Dynasty that had survived centuries and now passed out of his family, and arguably did not leave Macedonia a whit more prosperous than what he inherited (although I will grant much more glorious).

It is my belief that it is a shame that Philip does not get the appelation "Great" (although some of the ancients gave it to him).
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Phoebus »

Nikas wrote:Alexander, I believe unforgivably, did not overly concern himself with the succession, which is inexusable for a King ...
Sorry, but I still can't agree with this viewpoint. What worthy Macedonian princess do you think Alexander should have impregnated prior to heading for Asia? More to the point, which could he have pursued that avenue with, without raising discontent within his ranks? Did Parmenion have a daughter whose union with Alexander wouldn't have led old Antipater to pull a fast one while the young king was gone? Or would we have more concrete (and more expedient) proof of Philotas' plots had a daughter of Antipater's been chosen?

Isn't there record of at least one stillborn child by Roxanne before Alexander IV was born? Does Alexander's wedding at Susa count for nothing in the grand scheme of building a dynasty?
... (and Philip and Olympias even tried to assist in that regards too), ...
When he was still in his teens? With high-class prostitutes?
... managed to destroy the Argead Dynasty ...
That credit goes to Cassander, though one could argue that Perdiccas should get a good deal of blame as well.
... and arguably did not leave Macedonia a whit more prosperous than what he inherited (although I will grant much more glorious).
Not more prosperous? In what way was Macedon not more prosperous following Alexander's death? You can't mean in a fiscal sense.
It is my belief that it is a shame that Philip does not get the appelation "Great" (although some of the ancients gave it to him).
Agreed, but not on account of his son being given the title.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by athenas owl »

Phoebus wrote:
... (and Philip and Olympias even tried to assist in that regards too), ...
When he was still in his teens? With high-class prostitutes?

:lol:
... managed to destroy the Argead Dynasty ...
That credit goes to Cassander, though one could argue that Perdiccas should get a good deal of blame as well.
So true! And if two teenagers could be murdered then, who is to say that an earlier young teen son (if ATG had married before he left AND had a son..no sure thing that) would not have met the same fate.

Alexander's great "sin" is dying at 32. At least the sin of not leaving a capable heir.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by Paralus »

The fact remains his father will not have left Macedon without there being an heir. His father was marrying (and multiplying?) early into his reign - something, demonstrably, that did not concern Alexander.

What nonsense blaming Perdiccas and Cassander for the end of the Argead dynasty. Cassander simply ended a fiction that had existed since Antigonus deposed and remade satraps after his victory in January 316 at gabiene. The "king" had been of no consequence since. This is much like suggesting it was his marshal's fault that the empire did not survive his death. Both are a result of the large vacuum Alexander left. That goes for the loss of Thrace as well - there is little doubt that Philip will have addressed this before marching over the horizon to Arabia.

There is no comparison here with Philip's accession. Then there was a clear line of succession (including pretenders). Ditto at his death. By Alexander’s death we have a “constitutional crisis” due to a complete lack of a succession.

Certainly the Makedones saw it that way. For the marshals (or barons of the traditional Macedonian power structure) all was opportunity.

But we've been over this all before...

As for the homeland being better off for Alexander's reign, Antipater might disagree were he able to speak. Militarily he was seriously embarrassed when Athens and her allies rose. Such an embarrassment is unthinkable in 336.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by athenas owl »

Paralus...Philip was in his early 20's when he began his reign (or regnecy..erm...whatever it was) and he certainly was a procreating fool...but he had the good sense to not get assassinated until his son were old enough to take over. Otherwise all this would be for nought.

How do we KNOW that "The fact remains his father will not have left Macedon without there being an heir."? You simply can not know that. Unless you are in possession of some document wherein Philip states "I would NEVER leave my kingdom without making sure I have an heir!".

I mean really how do we know that at all? He was getting banged up in battle right from the start. He could have died on any given day leaving very small children (if they were even born yet) to the mercies of other Argead rivals. But I guess it's the thought that counted.

And I agree that Cassanader did simply end the fiction. The idea of a united Empire died with Alexander. At least one with an Argead at the helm. Naming the kid and the brother were stop gap measures to appease the Army and Olympias and those Macedonians who were loyal to the Argeads, but Ptolemy and the others certainly had other plans. At least IMHO.

Had Alexander not gone on his Persian "adventure" and still died young, none of this would matter. it would have just been a continuation of the Argeads battling it out with each other..killing off or setting aside young successors.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:The fact remains his father will not have left Macedon without there being an heir. His father was marrying (and multiplying?) early into his reign - something, demonstrably, that did not concern Alexander.
However, although there is of course much in what you say, Alexander was still only around 26/27 when Herakles was born. Whatever the issues surrounding succession that there might have been later on (and whether 'legitimacy' was even one of those issues is, I think, arguable), Alexander had a son when he was only a small handful of years older than Philip was when he began begetting. So although it was longer since the start of his reign, because Philip was 23 when he took over in Macedonia, we shouldn't be too harsh on Alexander's begetting priorities.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply