History (truth) and Historians (perceivers of truth)

[Athanasios]

Companions,Reading through all the posts it would not surprise you to hear me say that we, as a collective group, have a difference in opinion on not only Alexander -the man and leader, but also the actual historical events. We have also collectively put this down to a lack of evidence and the passing of time. After all, the Alexander historians had different accounts even a few centuries after his life and times.Is it worth considering that even if we take a recent event within our lifetime, say, the second Gulf War, there are extremely polarised accounts of what happened? There are some who believe that diplomatic means were not exhausted and it appeared inevitable that the USA and its allies were seeking war. To complement this, we see a shift in language. Consider this:1. Al-Qaueda was responsible for 9/11
2. Taliban and Al-Qaeda became one and the same
3. Afghanistan, a nation, not a military group, was attacked and Taliban overthrown [regime change]
4. Talk of axis of evil to include Iraq
5. Exhaustive sentences used by the Bush administration, which made reference to Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
6. Hussein possessing WMD
7. Justification for war
8. Post-war: justification for regime change irrespective of lack of WMD and UN resolutionThere are others, who will see the events as just, i.e. Hussein was evil and that was good and reason enough to overthrow regime, etc.My point is this:Are we seeking something that cannot be achieved, i.e. a single, decisive account of the life of ATG?Is it a case that it is not so much history that dictates what is learnt, but rather the historians, backed by the winners, who will dictate what is perceived to have happened?Your thoughts?Regards,
Atha

[Efstathios]

Things were simpler back in those times.But still there are various versions and oppinions for events.For example many people say that the invasion in Persia was inevitable.Just as the invasion in modern Iraque and Afganistan,but for different reasons. And of course there are people who say that America had to invade Afganistan and Iraque because they were breeding terrorists but many people also believe that the main reason is the oil and the interests in the area.The truth is muti-sided.And of course for everything there is a cause that leads to a result. Persia was a constant threat to the greeks.So finally based to the fact that the persians had invaded Greece 2 times in the past and to prevent a possible future invasion they invaded instead.This was executed by Alexander,and the initial plans were made by Philip ,but the idea was older.Other times in the past the greeks tried to invade Asia but with no special results rather than capturing some cities in Ionia and the helespond.Like Byzantium e.t.c.And that because the efforts were made by individual cities and alliances,such as Athens,and not by a panhellenic alliance. And of course when the Panhellenic alliance happened under Philip's command,the reasons for invading Asia are obvious.Revenge for the past,and conquering,new lands and money.Both reasons were valid.Not only one but both.And they are more clear than todays events where you cannot tell specificly the truth and the real reasons for which things are happening, although it's not that difficult to understand.

[Efstathios]

Things were simpler back in those times.But still there are various versions and oppinions for events.For example many people say that the invasion in Persia was inevitable.Just as the invasion in modern Iraque and Afganistan,but for different reasons. And of course there are people who say that America had to invade Afganistan and Iraque because they were breeding terrorists but many people also believe that the main reason is the oil and the interests in the area.The truth is muti-sided.And of course for everything there is a cause that leads to a result. Persia was a constant threat to the greeks.So finally based to the fact that the persians had invaded Greece 2 times in the past and to prevent a possible future invasion they invaded instead.This was executed by Alexander,and the initial plans were made by Philip ,but the idea was older.Other times in the past the greeks tried to invade Asia but with no special results rather than capturing some cities in Ionia and the helespond.Like Byzantium e.t.c.And that because the efforts were made by individual cities and alliances,such as Athens,and not by a panhellenic alliance. And of course when the Panhellenic alliance happened under Philip's command,the reasons for invading Asia are obvious.Revenge for the past,and conquering,new lands and money.Both reasons were valid.Not only one but both.And they are more clear than todays events where you cannot tell specificly the truth and the real reasons for which things are happening, although it's not that difficult to understand.

[jan]

Interesting that there is now talk of another bin Laden tape today on CNN, and the BBC news source does prove to me that this is the authentic voice of bin Laden.

[jan]

Interesting that there is now talk of another bin Laden tape today on CNN, and the BBC news source does prove to me that this is the authentic voice of bin Laden.

[S]

Greetings,I think it is fairly safe to say that the full story and the full truth of Alexander and his times, as well as the nations and people around him, will never be fully known. That is what makes history so interesting- it is a never-ending mystery. Every person tries to "create' Alexander in the image they feel most sure about based on the books they read; the ancient texts are written by people who lived many decades after his life (and I am certain brought their own agendas, intents, and biases to the tales) and modern writers extrapolate *their* creation from both those ancient sources and modern finds. In every modern writer you can identify the sources they h ave used to create *their* picture of Alexander; you can also usually see their own biases. We will add more to the story as we find more from digs, and even that will be coloured by our biases a great deal unless, in a "Nag Hammadi" moment, we find letters written by Alexander and/or his contemporaries to each other.

We will probbaly never reach consensus on Alexander or his times, but the discussions offer well-rounded views and each viewpoint offers an opportunity to broaden our own perceptions.Nice tie-in with modern events, by the way.Regards,
Sikander

[S]

Greetings,I think it is fairly safe to say that the full story and the full truth of Alexander and his times, as well as the nations and people around him, will never be fully known. That is what makes history so interesting- it is a never-ending mystery. Every person tries to "create' Alexander in the image they feel most sure about based on the books they read; the ancient texts are written by people who lived many decades after his life (and I am certain brought their own agendas, intents, and biases to the tales) and modern writers extrapolate *their* creation from both those ancient sources and modern finds. In every modern writer you can identify the sources they h ave used to create *their* picture of Alexander; you can also usually see their own biases. We will add more to the story as we find more from digs, and even that will be coloured by our biases a great deal unless, in a "Nag Hammadi" moment, we find letters written by Alexander and/or his contemporaries to each other.

We will probbaly never reach consensus on Alexander or his times, but the discussions offer well-rounded views and each viewpoint offers an opportunity to broaden our own perceptions.Nice tie-in with modern events, by the way.Regards,
Sikander

[kennyxx]

Atha Sikander is exactly right.None of us probably knows anything. All we can do is read the histories books etc. Then we all arrive with our own concepts and opinions.I think things can be reasoned and rationalised.All that can be sure is what he did and his achievements. We only assume the toughts theories and ideas. Based on rational reading and debate.I still maintain Alexander the Greatest pereson ever to strollthis earth. But at the same time I accept the guy must have been somewhat ruthless in some of his thoughts and actions.The guy was a born warrior and soldier with a genius mind. Not some moderate whiter than white guy.Id love to meet the guy but I dare say id be weary of getting on the wrong side of him.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Atha Sikander is exactly right.None of us probably knows anything. All we can do is read the histories books etc. Then we all arrive with our own concepts and opinions.I think things can be reasoned and rationalised.All that can be sure is what he did and his achievements. We only assume the toughts theories and ideas. Based on rational reading and debate.I still maintain Alexander the Greatest pereson ever to strollthis earth. But at the same time I accept the guy must have been somewhat ruthless in some of his thoughts and actions.The guy was a born warrior and soldier with a genius mind. Not some moderate whiter than white guy.Id love to meet the guy but I dare say id be weary of getting on the wrong side of him.Kenny

[Paralus]

G'day Athanasios.What a timely topic (given Rex's thread).Yes, of course it is the historians GÇô backed by the "winners" GÇô that dictate what we eventually read. It is likely better summed up by asking: how much is the music we write and enjoy dictated by the instruments upon which it is made? Think how different "western" music might be had the piano or guitar not ever seen the light of day. In much the same way the history we now have is the product of two instruments: the sources we have to "play" with and the milieu in which they composed. Diodorus omitting the Romans attendance upon Alexander (along with Carthage etc GÇô should it have actually occurred) is a salutary example of the milieu dictating the exigencies affecting the author.Your examples of the propaganda and rhetoric of the recent past too are salutary. They should give pause to those who take the various "Hellenic Leagues" as committed allies as gospel. Some of these GÇô those of Demetrius Poliorcets, Alexander, Philip and Antigonus III Doson come to mind GÇô are little more than today's Coalition of The Duressed " (yes, I know, I've invented a word). In fact they were mostly much less. Propaganda did not come into being in this last century or so.Invasion of the evil Persian Empire was long a propaganda tool. The Athenians created an empire from it. Agesilaus and the Spartans used just this in the 390's. Just on Sparta, were we left with simply Xenophon and Plato's writings on the city, we should think it a bastion of virtue and rectitude. Indeed, were we left only with the former, we would most likely buy the continual Spartan propaganda that their concern was ever the "autonomy of the Greeks". Something the Ionian cities sold to Persia in 408/7 and helots would take serious issue with; and a ridiculously indefensible notion exploded by Epaminondas at the negotiating table in 372/1.So yes, it will be difficult to come to any unarguable view of Alexander. It is well to be cautious though of the notion of the sainted civiliser, Helleniser and apostle of the brotherhood of man that he sometimes made out to be.Paralus

[Paralus]

G'day Athanasios.What a timely topic (given Rex's thread).Yes, of course it is the historians GÇô backed by the "winners" GÇô that dictate what we eventually read. It is likely better summed up by asking: how much is the music we write and enjoy dictated by the instruments upon which it is made? Think how different "western" music might be had the piano or guitar not ever seen the light of day. In much the same way the history we now have is the product of two instruments: the sources we have to "play" with and the milieu in which they composed. Diodorus omitting the Romans attendance upon Alexander (along with Carthage etc GÇô should it have actually occurred) is a salutary example of the milieu dictating the exigencies affecting the author.Your examples of the propaganda and rhetoric of the recent past too are salutary. They should give pause to those who take the various "Hellenic Leagues" as committed allies as gospel. Some of these GÇô those of Demetrius Poliorcets, Alexander, Philip and Antigonus III Doson come to mind GÇô are little more than today's Coalition of The Duressed " (yes, I know, I've invented a word). In fact they were mostly much less. Propaganda did not come into being in this last century or so.Invasion of the evil Persian Empire was long a propaganda tool. The Athenians created an empire from it. Agesilaus and the Spartans used just this in the 390's. Just on Sparta, were we left with simply Xenophon and Plato's writings on the city, we should think it a bastion of virtue and rectitude. Indeed, were we left only with the former, we would most likely buy the continual Spartan propaganda that their concern was ever the "autonomy of the Greeks". Something the Ionian cities sold to Persia in 408/7 and helots would take serious issue with; and a ridiculously indefensible notion exploded by Epaminondas at the negotiating table in 372/1.So yes, it will be difficult to come to any unarguable view of Alexander. It is well to be cautious though of the notion of the sainted civiliser, Helleniser and apostle of the brotherhood of man that he sometimes made out to be.Paralus

[S]

Greetings Kenny,"d love to meet the guy but I dare say id be weary of getting on the wrong side of him."(Laughing) I often say that most people today who think they would like to meet Alexander would be hard-pressed to sustain that wish were it granted!Regards,
Sikander

[S]

Greetings Kenny,"d love to meet the guy but I dare say id be weary of getting on the wrong side of him."(Laughing) I often say that most people today who think they would like to meet Alexander would be hard-pressed to sustain that wish were it granted!Regards,
Sikander

[Athanasios]

...and THIS is the man that started a whole chain of events that, if were fiction, would have been too far-fetched to be believed!Also of interest is that there appears to be no chasing him anymore?? Does this make it convenient for some individuals to carry out their Hawkish policies?Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

...and THIS is the man that started a whole chain of events that, if were fiction, would have been too far-fetched to be believed!Also of interest is that there appears to be no chasing him anymore?? Does this make it convenient for some individuals to carry out their Hawkish policies?Regards,
Atha