Alexander the Great and his 'equality'

[Asander]

I understand where your coming from. And I do believe that no theory should be considered nonsense especially when there are conflicts in the different sources where we get our information. I do hope your essay went well and through all the back and forth discussions some good came out of it for you.

Thanks. One of my teachers had said once, that we, the students, should think in a free manner and judge the facts with own mind. OK, I confess - I'm concern about my manner, because maybe I've been walked to far with the liberty of thinking, but I will se... and above all, I will assume what I am sustaining.

I will tell you all, for those who have patience of course, how my essay was marked. I will make a small presentation of my essay in front of a three different teachers.


Soon.

[marcus]

As for "choosing" Tarn ... well, enough said.
ATB

marcus,

Last time I checked, I still can choose in a free manner between so many authors and theorys, despite the protests of the majority.

Indeed you can, and I would defend to the death your right to do so. But please don't castigate the majority for disagreeing with your choice, or for providing alternative views.

ATB

[marcus]

But... we really DON'T know his true intentions, there is a chance that he believed what he was doing really WAS for the common good.

Many guys should read this post again, and again, and again.

We do. Oh boy, we do.

But it all comes down to EVIDENCE, and there is NO evidence that Alexander believed in equality, and any 'evidence' that was put forward in the 1940s that he believed in the "unity of mankind", or the "brotherhood of mankind" has been shown to be seriously flawed.

ATB

[marcus]

I understand where your coming from. And I do believe that no theory should be considered nonsense especially when there are conflicts in the different sources where we get our information. I do hope your essay went well and through all the back and forth discussions some good came out of it for you.

I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that the only time the word "nonsense" was used was in relation to a completely fabricated letter that was presented as "evidence", but which bears no relation to the historical sources. In that respect it is indeed "nonsense", and deserves no attention in any serious attempt to discuss and explain Alexander's motives.

Anything to do with Alexander's belief in equality, or the brotherhood of man, has been discussed without the use of the word "nonsense".

ATB

[Asander]

But please don't castigate the majority for disagreeing with your choice, or for providing alternative views.
ATB

I will write my posts with more carefully in the future time, because I don't want to castigate or to offend the majority.

[Asander]

But... we really DON'T know his true intentions, there is a chance that he believed what he was doing really WAS for the common good.

Many guys should read this post again, and again, and again.

We do. Oh boy, we do.

But it all comes down to EVIDENCE, and there is NO evidence that Alexander believed in equality, and any 'evidence' that was put forward in the 1940s that he believed in the "unity of mankind", or the "brotherhood of mankind" has been shown to be seriously flawed.

ATB

Is that paragraph form Arrianus that is interpreted in many ways, the one with 'macedonians and persians should rule together in harmony'. You have mentioned that early. Why did you stick only to the theory that Alexander wanted only a solid base for his future campaing in Arabia? Why didn't you go further, saying... I don't know... that this speech is a start for the common good fo all, begining with the fusion between Greeks and barbarians?

Why do you limit Alexander so much?

[Paralus]

Yes, originally I asked about the equality, but the disscusion advanced.

Except that you stayed exactly where you started come what may.

Regarding E. Badian, he is simply destroying both reputations of Alexander and Tarn.

Nothing of the sort.

Still do you not understand?

I've understood from the start. Your question:

I am doing a small essay about him and I will like to know if his vision includes equality among all people. I do think so, but I'm not really sure....

Framed around whether Alexander was a king "equal with his subjects and peoples that he conquered" and asked because you were "not sure" and didn't "want to write nonsenses". You then provided a litany of your own answers, disregarding anyhting contibuted by those you'd asked, amongst which were...

I think he wanted to conquer the world because he truly believe in the unity of all mankind. Equal rights, equal judgement, equal treatment for all [...] I think that Alexander was more intelligent and comprehensive and I truly believe in his vision of equality [...] Alexander believed in equal judgement and law for all, greeks and barbarians. For me, that it's enough [...] I will say that two of the principles that Alexander adopted, the one of universality and equality among nations (Greeks and barbarians, that is), where set in motion along with his marches through Asia, the macedonian king putting at the same level of parity the Greeks together with barbarians who inhabited Asia...

There was no point in the question to begin with.

Regarding the unity of mankind, no one has yet convinced me that is just a nonsense and nothing more.

And that is absolutely unsurprising. It was not ever going to be any other way. Nothing quite as "educational" as asking questions with an utterly closed mind.

[Asander]

I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that the only time the word "nonsense" was used was in relation to a completely fabricated letter that was presented as "evidence", but which bears no relation to the historical sources.

ATB

The Opis speech, false as you say, speeaks about Alexander's view regarding races.
Was Alexander a racist?

[Asander]

Paralus, you are boring me, no offense.
Still the same manner.

[spitamenes]

Can we agree that there is no EVIDENCE claiming Alexanders involvement in a world peace movement? We all know he sold tens of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS into slavery. That point alone should push us far from any unity of mankind theory.

[Asander]

spitamenes,

Only because he sold peoples into slavery, you think he didn't wanted the unity of mankind? It's quite a weak argument. I have some questions. Why he first wanted to treat peacefully with some cities in Asia Minor? Will you say that those where greeks towns under persian rule? That's fine. But how about Tyre? He also wanted this city to be his in a peacefully manner. If Alexander really enjoyed the war, why he did wanted to imply the peace in his maneuvers?

And why he did wanted to conquest so much territories on and on, withouth stoping, always going further into the unknown? What was his goal? Was he a megalomanic and paranoid, as Badian describe him? Or he was a visionary man searching the ultimate goal?

[spitamenes]

In my personal opinion, selling human beings is not a weak arguement when your discussing if a man wanted equality or not. But you are correct, it is possible unity was his goal, I'm afraid there is just no real evidence for it. Therefore, the arguement of wether or not that was his goal, seems to be a bit redundant. Like you stated earlier, you needed to be convinced that he DID NOT believe in the unity of mankind, I simply would like to see evidence that he did. When I say evidence I mean something in the written word, not an inturpretation of what someone was meaning when they wrote it. And definately not a speech that can in no way be considered the words of Alexander.

[marcus]

Is that paragraph form Arrianus that is interpreted in many ways, the one with 'macedonians and persians should rule together in harmony'. You have mentioned that early. Why did you stick only to the theory that Alexander wanted only a solid base for his future campaing in Arabia? Why didn't you go further, saying... I don't know... that this speech is a start for the common good fo all, begining with the fusion between Greeks and barbarians?

Why do you limit Alexander so much?

I don't intend to "limit" Alexander, but I cannot "go further" than I have evidence to support what I say. If there was evidence that he wanted more than to provide a solid base for his empire, and for future campaigning, then I would have no hesitation in evaluating that evidence and making known my opinion on it. But without evidence, unfortunately, any opinion I might have is pure speculation.

ATB

[Asander]

For my essay, I was searching for all know authors that wrote about Alexander, but unfortunately I could't find Tarn's Unity of Mankind at the public library, among many others books.

I wish to know on what arguments he based his theory about the unity of mankind, if someone is willing to reveal them.

[marcus]

I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that the only time the word "nonsense" was used was in relation to a completely fabricated letter that was presented as "evidence", but which bears no relation to the historical sources.

ATB

The Opis speech, false as you say, speeaks about Alexander's view regarding races.
Was Alexander a racist?

I won't comment on that Opis speech, because it bears no relation to the historical record.

Asking whether Alexander was a racist is an extremely difficult question to answer. I should add that any answer given would have no relation to that speech, either.

Technically speaking, according to our modern world view, I suppose he was - the Greek view, which he appears to have held, at least for much of the time, was that anyone who didn't speak Greek, who didn't have in his city the key elements of a polis, who ate meat regularly, and who wore trousers, was a barbarian. Generally the Greeks considered that they were superior to those barbarians.

Having said that, to use the term "racist" when referring to the ancient world is problematic, and forces too mcuh of our sociological baggage on to their shoulders. I wouldn't want to answer the question any more than I have said here so far.

ATB