I wonder Can we admit that Alexander was as good an organise

[kenny]

Companionsd HiI would like to try round Alexander off a liitle more,,, We would all accept that A;lexander was first and foremost a military genious without equal;.But I think the fact gets overlooked he was a prettyu good alrounder.Politically astute, Brilliant Planner,, Meticulous organiser and a just king.I would put myself out here and say Alexander was the whole package,,, THe only weekness maybe a little imaturity now and then following a few steady bears with the boys,, Normal testeronial behaviour. We go out have a few pints two mates have a scrap only in Alexanders day the weapons were lying about.So the question I feel, Would you agree Alexander the ultimate all rounder or only a general.Kenny

[Heinrich]

I object to the "just king". The people of the Indus valley did not pose a threat to Greece and Macedonia, and even if they had, there was no justification for genocide.HM

[Kit]

Actually there is a justification for genocide, it merely relies on the abandonment of any moral arguement!If you kill every man, women and child of a potential enemy then you have removed any possibility for future vengence/revenge. It's not nice or'civilized', but it is effective.Alexander lived in a time where this was practiced
(Athens itself had done as much to some opponents in the Peloponesian War!).Unfortunately ethnic cleansing and 'final solutions' are not 20th Century ideas!Kit.

[jona]

"Actually there is a justification for genocide, it merely relies on the abandonment of any moral arguement!"Which is indeed what happened. After the killing of Clitus, Anaxarchus told Alexander that as a king, his acts was by definition just (Arrian, Anab. 4.9.5-6).Jona

[dean]

Hello,To Kenny's original question I would say that Alexander was terribly "astute" and would have been a mean chess player- probably planning about 30 or so moves ahead so that the opponent wouldn't have stood a chance. Possibly with regards money, accounts, etc I suppose that he certainly wasn't the kind of king that bothered about such questions- but in general I'd say that he had most areas sown up in his life. I don't think that we can either say he was a just king because he had his moments and was indeed sometimes very very good and then others he was very very bad- there seems to be no in between...with the man.Best regards,
Dean.

[kenny]

Deanhail for your reply,,, I cant see how my original Post got onto Genocide,,,. Well it takes all sorts.Kenny

[jan]

Kenny,Last night on CBS there was a battle between World Commercials and Superbowl Commercials. One of the world commercials featured a skater wearing the number 32 on his person. Do you mind my asking why you choose the number 32 for your i.d.? Does it have a reference to Alexander's death?

[jan]

This is correct. Paul Doherty does use a survivor from the Battle of Thebes in one of his books to set up the conflict and drama there. To protect one's self, one has to make certain that there are no survivors to seek vengeance or revenge against you.

[kenny]

Janet HailAlexander was 32 when he was murdered,, all my numbers and conultation are Alexander based.Kenny

[xxx]

The term would be a polymath. Someone who is good at everything. Whether or not he would qualify as a 'genius' by our standards is open to debate, but he was certainly extremely intelligent.As for a just king - most of the time, but he was human and sometimes he failed terribly Kenny. Anger was his daimon and even though he was well aware of it and tried to isolate himself by stalking off to his tent, sometimes he didn't or couldn't get away and it cost him dear and people died for it.As one of my friends put it so well, if you met Alexander as he was you probably wouldn't like him. Yes he was charming, brave, noble, heroic, generous, a devoted friend and great leader who was extremely charismatic and a great speaker, but he was also arrogant, egotistical, snobbish, narccistic, competitive, aggressive and a know-it-all. He could also be cruel. All perfectly acceptable and expected of a Macedonian noble and especially so for a King, but not in our time. The thing that separates him from the usual rabble of conquerors is he had a conscience. Without that, he could have easily been a monster.Regards,Tre

[kenny]

TReRespect ,your friend says we probably wouldnt like him for those qualities you listed.I would arguev we would like him regardless of those faults you name thousands upon thousands of the troops and normal people loved him,,, I guess the only people that would not would be those in power and maybe would wish for more,,, So Id gamble and say I would like him and above all I would respect him as a king and ruler,,, How many populace of the world could say that about there kings or governments?kenny

[kate]

Hi,
I like your friend's summing up of Alexander, Tre, -very pithy! - but I don't agree with his conclusion that we wouldn't like Alexander. Probably we would find it harder to be understand him than people of his own time, but I think he must have had a special kind of charisma which over-rode his faults and atracted devotion: as Kenny points out, many ordinary people did love Alexander.
Cheers,
Kate

[conrad]

that charisma may very well have been known as a sarissa in his day!What's not to love?

[marcus]

Hi Heinrich,I suppose there are a number of ways of looking at it. At the time the people of the Indus valley were not Alexander's subjects, and therefore what he did to them was not the action of a king to his subjects. Also, there was a rather prevalent feeling at the time (which persisted until at least the Age of Enlightenment) that what you did to people outside your 'kingdom' was in a completely different class from what you did to your own subjects.That isn't to say that it was always admired - I'm thinking of Charlamagne's massacre of the Saxons in 782(?), which was universally reviled; and Richard I's massacre of 2,000 prisoners at Acre in 1191 - yet they were admired by their own people (and even sainted, in the case of Charlamagne).Now, this doesn't mean that I necessarily think Alexander was a "just king", as Kenny put it - it depends on what one means by "just"; and it certainly doesn't mean that I condone the large massacres of Indians. However, the very act of one doesn't preclude the other, depending on one's interpretation.I think we should be very careful about the use of the word "genocide", too - Alexander's policy was not a deliberate policy of wiping out the entire people. There was a very good article in The Times last week, about the use of the word, and how it's become diluted by over- and flippant use.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,Undoubtedly! I would say that his organisational abilities were part of his military genius, in fact.I think you'd really enjoy, and get a lot out of, David Lonsdale's "Alexander: Killer of Men". He's got some good stuff in the book about the skills required of a general, and demonstrates also how rare it is for a general to have all the skills in abundance. Alexander, for sure, had them all!(It's not totally adulatory of Alexander, however, and Lonsdale does point out some of the mistakes Alexander made, particularly early in his career. The other part of his genius, of course, was (a) recovering from his errors and turning them round; and (b) learning from them so he didn't make them again!)All the bestMarcus