This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones
* Foul or inappropriate language
This has been an interesting thread, but I would suggest Alexander would be no more a puzzle and no less of one than any other man or woman taken in the context of their station in life, environment (both culture and natural), times, opportunities, specific human characteristics or traits, and more.
A good response, Sikander. I had never thought of it in those terms, but I agree with you. He was remarkable in his achievements, but I don't think there was much of a mystery to his character and personality.
On the other hand, many people find their neighbor hard enough to comprehend, so it is understandable that Alexander may appear to be an enigma
dean wrote:I'd love to know why he seems to arouse such fascination that people would spend a good part of their lives studying what he did.
I believe it has something to do with just how vast the history of Alexander is. There seems to be something for almost everyone in his story to intrest them. As for myself, i became very interested in the siege of Tyre. And as a result, I ended up reading and searching for anything and everything Alexander. Maybe a good topic for another thread? What was it about Alexander that first grabbed our attention?
All the best...
I just came across this fascinating post. In way, of commenting on it, I'd like to intrude a bit with a little incident that I once had. I had the dubious "honor" of speaking with a serial killer once. (that's a story for another life) Anyway, what was interesting was his perspective of those who sought to understand his actions by thinking to "get inside his head." He thought it was a bunch of bull..... and said he felt that way because people change constantly and no one can ever know themselves as throughly as they might wish to. He said that until he did what he did it had never occurred to him to execute the acts. His own desire to undertsand himself what something he was curious about until he died.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way, sorry, is that no one will ever really know who Alexander really was unless by some chance a personal journal in his own hand is discovered. And even then, it would only reflect what he was willing to part with to reveal about himself to himself, to own that part of himself he would have felt comfortable enough with to expose in such a manner. We can certainly see that he changed, as all people do. He was obviously not the same man he was at 20 that he grew into at 25 or 30. He was the product of all his experiences, good and bad and people who in turn laid their experiences upon him. No one lives in a vacuum, least of all someone like Alexander.
For me what I find fascinating is what he did, because it changed the history of humanity so dramatically. Yes, the "why" is a tremendous draw, it always is. It's human nature to want to understand how things work, why people do what they do, what drives them. And, we have many clues about that from his actions. Those actions tell us a great deal about the man he was. Why he became or was the man he was is, I guess, a question that will probably always be debated.
For me, I do have a pet peeve about modern history, i.e, the shrinks, etc., trying to anyalyze him from modern perspective, i.e. Freud, Jung, or Joseph Campbell, etc. It's not possible, anymore than an individual who has lived in some remote outpost say in Siberia and worshipped a reindeer cult would ever understand someone who is Christian from Palm Springs, Ca, in the US. Not just different worlds, but perhaps worlds so unalike that they would be more akin to different universes. Perhaps that's the real key to understanding Alexander - is that we can't and probably won't ever be able to. And, perhaps that's the least of what is important about the man, his deeds, his actions, what he did with his life, and how he went about living that life are what are important. The legacy he left is what lives on and inspires us so greatly, and those are things it seems we can all understand no matter what age we live in for they seem to be things we all share as part of the human experience.
lysis56 wrote:For me, I do have a pet peeve about modern history, i.e, the shrinks, etc., trying to anyalyze him from modern perspective, i.e. Freud, Jung, or Joseph Campbell, etc.
I'm curious to know what Freud, Jung and Campbell have said about Alexander "from modern perspective", Lysis. Care to illuminate?
I think the biggest people have trying to "understand" Alexander is that they tend to perceive of him as "different" than other men, whereas he is understandable if one considers his actions from a simple human perspective.
While I agree that most psychoanalysis is probably somewhat questionable when applied to Alexander, I also feel it is oft times questionable when applied to most people.<chuckling>
Human nature has not changed much, though some human behaviors have become more channeled and some actions that were, if not acceptable, at least were possible on a grand scale in the past, tend to be frowned upon and collectively stopped in the present day. Men the like of Alexander exist even today, bu the conditions- and perhaps the available worlds to conquer or the forms those worlds might take- have changed enough so as to either better hide, or give less freedom/opportunity to, their ambitions and visions.
As to appeal, Alexander appeals to different people for different reasons. For some, his adventure is the draw. For others, it is his power or charisma. For others, it is the somewhat romantic view of the "boy-king" achieving beyond his years. For others, it is the sense of "I wish I could do that/be that" or what have you". For some, it is that sens eof power and ambition realized. And for still others, it is because realistically, there are a limited number of "world conquerors" to draw from and the academic study of a typical leatherworker or pottery maker in in a remote village of say, Thrace or Asia Minor just isn't going to match even the small amount of information we have about the better known world leaders, kings, emperors or warriors. The study of humankind is often more the exposure of what we don't know more than the realization of what we do know- or at least believe we know.
I think a lot of Sikander's comments made a good deal of sense. Alexander appeals to those of us admire, him or whatever for different reasons, and those of course are based on our own ideas, dreams and desires, etc. I also agree with his view of modern psychology...sometimes I think my cat would be a better shrink, etc., than some of those I've come across in the field. (Then again, I'm biased there as i did name my cat after Alexander.)
I do have some info. I'm going to post in small amounts re Freuds, Jung's and Campbells' comments, views, etc., as regards to
Alexander. Campbell puts him in the "myths" category, of his work, just a small example. I'm just trying to get it all down into something small and bitable, so to speak.
Thank you- I try to keep things in perspective and in the context of time, place, position, people, and opportunity. To me, that is the only way to study any person. If we focus too much on one aspect, we lose sight of the fact that many factors can come into play. No individual develops in a vacuum, and by the time of Alexander, there was extensive trade and many opportunities to feed curiosity, ambition, adventure, pothos, and visions! In addition, when you have a standing army, you need to find a way to employ it, pay it and feed it <chuckling>
