Democracy and Alexander the Great

[amyntoros]

Hi Alejandro,

Just thinking about your post- Alexander and our judging him.

Alexander may compare favourably when the benchmark is Hitler

It is all down to personal opinion- if you are looking for faults- then you will invariably find them- and if you are on the other side of the wall, and into deifying the man then also sure enough you'll find reasons to elevate him.

But what if you're not into either deifying or demonizing Alexander? I'm not interested in comparing him with anyone else, therefore I don't have a "benchmark." It's possible to have the greatest admiration for him AND recognize that he had faults, like any other person. I just want to understand him as best I can, given the available sources. Am I alone in this?

Best regards,

[dean]

Hi Amyntoros,

Your post is very thought provoking.

I think, at that particular moment in the thread we were on about judging Alexander- speaking about comparisons that could be useful to help us understand him better. I agree with Alejandro, that comparisons can be useful-

It's possible to have the greatest admiration for him AND recognize that he had faults, like any other person. I just want to understand him as best I can, given the available sources. Am I alone in this?

Each of us has his or her own agenda for studying Alexander. It is human to want to moralize- demonize, deify- neither of which probably improves the true reailty.

Best regards,
Dean

[Efstathios]

We dont know the facts in some occassions, thus we can only make assumptions.We try to understand Alexander based on assumptions some times which can lead far from the truth.

[alejandro]

I'm not interested in comparing him with anyone else, therefore I don't have a "benchmark." It's possible to have the greatest admiration for him AND recognize that he had faults, like any other person. I just want to understand him as best I can, given the available sources.

Hi Amyntoros,

I admire your goal of achieving a "perfectly detached objectivity" (if I didn't misunderstand you) when studying Alexander. But I truly believe that it cannot be achieved (in the same way that there is no perfect benchmark), though it shouldn't make us despair: we should always strive for the highest possible level of objectivity.

But even then, I think that comparisons are important, for the simple reason that we don't live in a "vacuum", or inside a laboratory where experiments can be carried out.

I highlighted in your message the words that implied a comparison. I didn't do it to put you in the spotlight, but only to illustrate how we need a reference point (what I called a "benchmark") every time that we talk. Think about this: Here we are, 2300 years after his death, talking about this guy. If he is relevant even today, his life must have been important in one way or another, as to stand up. But this very idea reflects a comparison: most of the people who lived before, during and after his lifetime had rather unintersting/non-earth-shaking lives. We still study him not because of the inherent nature of what he did, but because what he did was extra-ordinary, compared to the great majority of people who inhabited or inhabit this planet. The same rationale applies to his "nickname" the Great: it reflects again his "unusualness" (of course, in this particular case, there is a second layer of meaning, because Great implies a favourable judgement, but the point is that it reflects a comparison, and it could go both ways, as in the "Alexander the Butcher/Killer/Megalomaniac" literature).

Finally, as mentioned by Efstathios, the sources don't always provide all the relevant information, sometimes different sources contradict each other, and there is always the possibility of a propagandistic use of them. Thus, comparisons can give us an insight about the possible scenarios in the case of missing information, or about which source is more likely to be correct in the case of contradiction, and even about the possibility of manipulations of information for propagandistic goals.

Plagiarising Kenny, history is as beautiful as a starry sky, but some stars shine brighter than others. However, without the less bright ones, we wouldn't find the brightest ones so delightful.

Just my thoughts, though.

All the best,
Alejandro

[Phalanx Pursos]

It is therefore a pity that in the middle east the people were not given any taste of democracy-

Thank you for bringing this up, it is really an important issue. At this moment am really tired so I'll reply to your message as simple as possible, remember it is best to evaluate military & diplomatic possibilities from the situation on the ground and also from experience gained in past times. Current U.S. Senator Joe Biden recently explained that you can not bring Democracy to a tribal nation, it just doesn't work that way proven by past time experiences & assessment of the military situation on the ground. Federalism is a much better political reform for a tribal nation, where different regional tribes govern their own territory because democratic unity to tribal nations will only bring political unrest because of differences in social traditions. Remember you want political stability to progress and not worsen, therefor it is the responsibility to come up with a sensible conclusion which is the best solution of handling a troublesome situation.

Just because democracy is good for us, doesn't necessarily mean it is also good for tribal nations.

[sikander]

Greetings,

"ust because democracy is good for us, doesn't necessarily mean it is also good for tribal nations."..

and from another perspective, it might well be perceived that one person's "democracy" looks like a plutocratic oligarchy to others. Democracy has been defined in different ways, but I do not see how one can say Alexander meant to bring "democracy" to anyone, no matter how "beneficent" the rule.. (smiling)

"Here we are, 2300 years after his death, talking about this guy. "

But for a benchmark, we would then also have to ask how many people are talking about
*other* historical figures, because the full count would have to take into consideration if Alexander were truly one of the "most talked about" historical figures overall..

As to understanding Alexander, we are also coloured by our own experiences and personalities, as well as our imaginations. A person who has never led others may not be able to understand the behaviours Alexander exhiited that were for the purpose of "manipulating" his followers, whereas someone who *has* led might well understand that there are times that a particular behaviour is useful to achieve a goal. On the other hand, a person with a creative imagination and the ability to understand how people function and how they react or act, can study the situation and grasp the motivaitons behind actions..

One of the things I enjoy about Pothos is the diverse array of experience, imagintion, and knowledge that allows examining Alexander and his times from many viewpoints..

Regards,
Sikander

[alejandro]

"Here we are, 2300 years after his death, talking about this guy. "

But for a benchmark, we would then also have to ask how many people are talking about
*other* historical figures, because the full count would have to take into consideration if Alexander were truly one of the "most talked about" historical figures overall..

Hi Sikander,

Well, it depends again on what your final goal is. You have to choose two main things for a comparison: the dimension and the population.

The dimension is the area of interest: territory conquered, political ability, ruthlessness, etc. Accurate measuring/defining of the dimension plays a very important role as well.

The population is the group of people/organizations/entitities that constitute the observational universe: the whole population of the world past and present, the population of kings past and present, the population of conqueror-kings past and present, the population of kings nicknamed "the great" past and present, and so on. You can choose a population as small or as big as you want.

Which one is the "correct" comparison, then? I don't know, it depends on the area you are interested.

Implicitly, your suggestion is that the dimension is "current popularity". Now, it could be difficult to measure, but you can get some proxies, like "number of results from a google search": 1.34 million for "alexander the great", 1.4 million for "julius caesar", 19.3 million for "jesus christ", etc. Of course, I am ignoring alternative spellings (just "caesar" or "jesus" or "christ" or "alexander of macedon") as well as results in languages other than English, but it is a good proxy anyway. But regardless of the numbers, the next step is to choose the population.

Your choice is "historical figures", but so vaguely defined that it is difficult to know who exactly you mean. I assume the three I googled are included in the category "historical figures", but what about the rest? Ronald Reagan? Walt Disney? John Paul II? Britney Spears? What is, in the end, the cut-off point? how do you decide that Bill Clinton is part of the population but Hugo Chavez is not?

At the end of the day, you can choose the dimension and population that you want, but I guess that a popularity contest will not help our understanding of Alexander's mind. That's why I claimed before that the relevant dimensions are the ones that define him: conqueror, general, ruler, adventurer. And given this, the candidate populations suggest themselves: other conquerors, generals, rulers and adventurers. Also, it could be good to use the population of the (alleged) role models of Alexander: Acchilles, Heracles, Cyros, Philippos.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I don't claim it is "the" way to proceed. Other people, interested in other areas, may well be interested in other comparisons with other populations. And that's fine as well.

All the best,
Alejandro

[Phalanx Pursos]

but I guess that a popularity contest will not help our understanding of Alexander's mind. That's why I claimed before that the relevant dimensions are the ones that define him: conqueror, general, ruler, adventurer. And given this, the candidate populations suggest themselves: other conquerors, generals, rulers and adventurers. Also, it could be good to use the population of the (alleged) role models of Alexander: Acchilles, Heracles, Cyros, Philippos.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I don't claim it is "the" way to proceed.

Greetings to thee, most esteemed Alejandro.

Ancient Peloponnese states & Macedonia deified their best warriors as legendary heroes, this was part of their ancient culture or possibly religion. So your opinion almost seems as a fact to me, but it is modest of you to express this as your opinion.

[sikander]

Greetings Alejandro,

"Here we are, 2300 years after his death, talking about this guy. "
But for a benchmark, we would then also have to ask how many people are talking about
*other* historical figures, because the full count would have..."

My quirky sense of humour, since you stated "here *we* are", and I was reminded of how many other people at this moment are enthusiastically talking about *other* historical figures, imagining *their* personal favourite as "the greatest"

that said, of course I would agree that comparisons depend on context.. and are influenced by the individual perceptions, biases and agenda or purpose of the one doing the comparison.

And I would agree that comparing particular attributes, actions, etc would be the only way to "measure" each person. And in doing this, Alexander's humanness comes through clearly, as well as an awareness that many people (both in past history and present) share many attributes with him under the various attributes.

And of course, in doing so, one can remain relatively objective about Alexander, as Amyntoros suggests.

Regards,
Sikander

[alejandro]

Hi Sikander

I didn't realize you were highlighting the "we" part of the argument. My mistake! I do have a tendency to miss subtle humour (and that, rather than humourous, is quite sad, actually!).

Yep, I agree we Pothosians may overestimate the importance of Alexander because we are "into" the subject (I read that overestimating one's interests is common in every area of life, not only in scholastic realms, so we are not weirdos! ).

And I agree with you and Amyntoros that we should look for the maximum feasible objectivity in our analyses. And I guess that one way to achieve this "second-best" outcome is to explicitly indicate the assumptions made (in the present example, the dimension and population chosen, the measurement problems, and the rationale behind every choice). This does not eliminate the gamut of possible analyses to undertake (from A's generalship to his sexual life to his relationship with his parents to...) and allows the readers to assess the validity of the assumptions/justifications.

At least this is the way we proceed in my area of expertise (economics), and I think that this method is quite good (but I have to admit that there could be some/a lof of indoctrination going on here).

All the best,
Alejandro