What role to Alexander the Great have in History?

[Katharine]

I am doing a freelance class on historical figures. For our exam, we have to answer the importance of the person in history. Well, obviously I chose Alexander the Great. I was curious if you had any imput on his importance or role in history. I would love other peoples imput!
Thanks!

[S]

Greetings,What books have you read so far? After reading about him, what do *you* feel his role in history might have been? It helps if you give us some of your own input and ideas, and then we could look at expanding those ideas a little. In this way, how *you* see his role becomes the core of your work, rather than just parroting what others might say.Regards,
Sikander

[jona]

He created room for Greek culture to spread to the east, most people would say. But this creates new questions, which also deserve attention.For example, what kind of Greek culture? Few Greeks will have recognized a culture in which the city-states had lost their autonomy as theirs. Yet, this was what had happened. Between the Third Sacred War and the Lamian War, the Macedonians kings had carefully destroyed the independent towns. (I think this is not a trivial point. Many people in Europe will say that a unified Europe without independent nations is no longer Europe.)Second point, the spread of Greek culture is often accepted as something good. Today, few people will put it like this, but the sentiment still seems to be there. But the women of Egypt and Syria lost their rights, and torture was introduced in the courts of Babylonia.Especially the Egyptian and Syrian women are interesting, because it can be argued that the Romans copied their rights, and that Islam accepted it too. Is Alexander to blame for the bad position of women in Islam? It seems exaggerated, but perhaps an interesting case can be made. I don't know.Finally: it is true that Alexander created room for Greek culture. Yet, the spread of Hellenism was already well on its way. Take, for example, a man like Mausolus. In my view, Alexander sped up a proces that had already started, and was responsible for the expansion of this room to the far east (Bactria). Cf. http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander18.html .I hope this helps. If I have written too much, it is because the question is good.Jona

[S]

Greetings Jona,Not to let the educator in me come out, but: The question might be a "good one" (though rather broad), and tempting as it might be to answer, it's also good to try to encourage students to do some of their own "homework" first and show they have given some thought to it, then post their views for discussion and draw futher from that.. in fact, I think this there is even an article covering some of her question on this site, if I am recalling correctly. Regards,
Sikander

[amyntoros]

"Especially the Egyptian and Syrian women are interesting, because it can be argued that the Romans copied their rights, and that Islam accepted it too. Is Alexander to blame for the bad position of women in Islam? It seems exaggerated, but perhaps an interesting case can be made. I don't know."Jona - do you know of any particular articles on this subject? The general concensus that I have seen seems to be that attitudes towards women in the Hellenic world *improved* after Alexander, and they were treated much better than in the classical period. I've even seen it said that Alexander was responsible because of attempts to emulate his own, unusual (for the time), relationships with women, but could this instead be a case where women in the Hellenic world benefited from eastern influence while the reverse took place in Syria and other countries?Best regards,Linda Ann

[Katharine]

Well, Jona actually beat me to one of my punches, which is good, because I was hoping that the spread of Greek culture, good or bad, was important. He also helped to connect the eastern "European" country to the western. Even though the motives behind his expeditions might be questionable, without his conquests, the European continent might not be as connected. If it wasn't for him, wouldn't we still be learning about Chinease and Indian people? How about their incredably difficult religions. He was the stepping stone to the beginnings of learning about these cultures as well.
I hope this gives you and idea of where I am coming from...
Katharine

[Katharine]

I know that there are articles on the website that may "answer" my question, but I am more looking for personal views. I have read a biography about Alexander, and I know the "historical" views, but I think that personal views are more interesting.

[Linda]

KatherineThe problem with asking for people's opinions is that you have no idea whether they are speaking from a position of knowledge of ignorance (not to insult people on this forum, but I could give my opinion, and I would not be a person whose opinion on this aspect of Alexander was worth much). If you are answering the question "what are the popular perceptions of Alexander's role in history", then there is more value in asking an open question. Opening up east and west is a pretty standard and accepted answer to the question. Another angle would be that he provided a model for a conqueror, which influenced future leaders. ie the idea of Alexander is more important than what he actually did. Sometimes I think authors and historians since year dot have struggled to justify Alexander's campaigns. Such a remarkable man and remarkable achievements must have had a purpose bigger than just conquest. Why was it good to spread Greek culture and therefore Christianity? Linda

[S]

Greetings Katharine,Of course they are- which is why it would be interesting to read your own. Regards,
Sikander

[S]

Greetings L&nda,Powerful question.. unfortunately, one that could take me far off-topic, so I will refrain. I am afraid I do not share the (seemingly popular?) view that spreading that particular religion resulted in the best possible world... I can appreciate some of the positive aspects of the tenets of any particular faith (or culture) without being blind to the damage, also.
(Sigh) I had better stop before I go too far. Regards,
Sikander

[Dr. Pal]

Jona Lendering wrote,GÇ£Finally: it is true that Alexander created room for Greek culture. Yet, the spread of Hellenism was already well on its way. Take, for example, a man like Mausolus. In my view, Alexander sped up a proces that had already started, and was responsible for the expansion of this room to the far east (Bactria).GÇ¥Jona I am not sure that he created room for GÇ£Greek cultureGÇ¥. This is what Droysen wrote but even though he knew little about other religions he realised the impact of other cultures on AlexanderGÇÖs Hellenism. It was not a one-way affair. The Babylonians had some kind of city-states and the Greeks borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians. I kept searching for keywords like GÇÿHellenisticGÇÖ and GÇÿChristianityGÇÖ but was baffled. Green seems to have had the last word. Again in your admirable review of HeckelGÇÖs book you lament over the absence of non-European sources but I see a similar lack of interest in Indian sources in your work. I have stated in my website http://www.geocities.com/ranajitda that there would not have been an Asoka without an Alexander and probably there would not have been Christianity or Islam without an Asoka(Diodotus-1).Regards,Dr. Pal

[jan]

Whether you know it or not, Alexander the Great is probably important to the extent that the Christian faith tried to suppress his reign as that of pagan as the Christian faith asserted itself to the world as a true faith. Only scholars of Alexander consider him to be important at all, as his place in history has been relegated to mostly myth and fantasy. While he was a devotee of his gods and beliefs, the Christian faith has virtually wiped his influence off the map! Only a few consider him worthwhile at all. He was a warrior, not a peacemaker!

[Nax]

I'm betting you can't make it stick that in history Christians were seen as peacemakers.
I'd like input from some of the "pagans" and non-christians on the forum- the ones who have a history of being forced to accept Christianity or die, or who have little boys on missions making themselves a pain in the b**t, or the ones who ruined the Hawaiian culture, or hey! let's hear it from the Indians!! Alexander might've fit right in with some of them, all he'd of have to do is renounce his religion, join theirs and keep killing

[S]

Greetings,I do not want to argue this point, but I would request that we not get into this conversation on this forum.Regards,
Sikander

[Linda]

Alexander was in no way a religious leader. And as for his influence being crushed by Christianity, I would argue the contrary,, that he was annexed by Christianity, as the Church did to lots of pre-Christian things, as a powerful image, and perhaps a symbol of the inevitability of Christianity. Perhaps that is what you meant, when you said that he was surpressed, but I suspect Alexander would happily have been a Christian if that had been the prevailing faith of his culture. He may have been devout, but religion was less personal then than in later faiths.Linda