Alexander's Aims?

[Kit]

What was Alexander the Great hoping to achieve? What was his primary motivation and goal?I have always wondered if the desire to go further than Heracles, or achieve more than Achilles, was his primary driving force. Was the actual conquest just a means to an end? Did it all come down to winning glory!?Kit

[nick]

Hi Kit -Some of the other Forum members will strongly disagree, but here is my interpretation (after years of reading, also the Persian side).In Alexander's world there was one ruler that rose in omnipotence, magnificence, glory and power above all others: that was the Persian King. Alexander's world had been like that for over two centuries. The anti-Persian feeling in e.g. Greece might (is this tricky or what?) possibly be compared with anti-American feelings in our modern world.In my perception, Alexander's aim was to transplant that glory of Persian Kings onto his own person. When he returned to Babylon he had restored his empire in India exactly to the boundaries of what once was Persian territory (the entire Indus Valley, conquered under Darius I). OK, I will admit Alexander had the ambition to venture forward from there - the Ganges, Arabia, Carthage maybe. But his indulgement in drink & power might (might!) have equaled his taste for conquest once he had shown that he was the single rightful heir to the Achaemenid throne.Translated to our modern context the achievements of Alexander might be compared to (choose whatever you like):
- Osama bin Laden becoming president of the USA;
- J.P. Balkenende becoming president of the USA;
- Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor of CA.Come to think of that: if Osama bin Laden ever (pure speculation) could make it to presidency of the USA, would he still burn the White House? (Persepolis?) Even though the White House would be "his property", would he still be tempted to destroy the very symbol of what he despised and was obsessed by at the same time?I don't mean to offend anyone. These are just my genuine thoughts. I think that we can look for answers about Alexander's behavior by closely examining our modern world - on the assumption that basically the same patterns of human nature still account for many things that happen.Best regards -
Nick

[Nicator]

Hello Nick,"The anti-Persian feeling in e.g. Greece might possibly be compared with anti-American feelings in our modern world."In reference to the anti-American feelings you mention from presumably, the rest of the outside world, you might be surprised by just how anti-American, Americans themselves feel. I was surprised just how ignorant foreigners were to the way Americans truly feel about many issues. The outside world doesn't know what really goes on inside America, only what propaganda and headlines they've been exposed to. The outside world may see America as a warlike, male dominated society. The truth is that men in America are oppressed by laws which empower women and a media which fosters a feminist agenda. I could go on about this, but I'll try to stick to the point. "Translated to our modern context the achievements of Alexander might be compared to (choose whatever you like): - Osama bin Laden becoming president of the USA; - "...careful here, Nick. This could definitely offend. But your point is powerful. I'll never forget how bad I felt after 9/11. There are few things that most Americans, across lines of: race, sex, age, and religious orientation agree on...this is the most hated man in the world! I would personally turn down large sums of cash for a chance to put him in the ground. For me, it is just about as offensive to imagine Osama as my president as it is to imagine him as Alexander. "Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor of CA."...only in America? Just like Jesse "the body" Ventura becoming governor of Minnesota. Schwarzzy has had political ambitions since at least the late 80's. "Come to think of that: if Osama bin Laden ever could make it to presidency of the USA, would he still burn the White House? (Persepolis?) Even though the White House would be "his property", would he still be tempted to destroy the very symbol of what he despised and was obsessed by at the same time?"Osama is no Alexander. Remember, Alexander was intelligent, and appears to have had some semblance of a grand plan (at least after Guagamela). Osama is just a hateful murderous piece of garbage. Alexander would have shuddered at the thought of flying planes into buildings. This was low, base, and underhanded. Prior to Guagamela, Alexander appears to have been following military expediancy. Securing flanks, supply lines, and critical bases. After Guagamela, he had more luxury to go after non-strategic goa

[Nicator]

Prior to Guagamela, Alexander appears to have been following military expediancy. Securing flanks, supply lines, and critical bases. After Guagamela, he had more luxury to go after non-strategic goals. Particularly after Persepolis and its vast sums of gold and silver. It could be argued that his only plan was to simply conquer, regardless of any vision which later epitaph historians might place upon his headstone. By conquering he achieved these goals (if they existed) as a by-product. It appears to me, however, that he definitely had something in mind. As evidence, I would point out his treatment of the Persian royal women, wearing of Persian dress, taking up foreign religions, integrating foreigners into his army, and marrying Darius' daughter. Not to mention the rest of the mass marriages at Susa. later Nicator

[nick]

Thanks, Nick. You're absolutely correct. I had no intention to offend anyone, only to see to what conclusions a comparison could lead.Isn't it true that at one stage or another Alexander must also have been "the most hated man in the world"?Regards -
Nick

[maciek]

"I think that we can look for answers about Alexander's behavior by closely examining our modern world - on the assumption that basically the same patterns of human nature still account for many things that happen."
Hi Nick, Hi all companions! Well Your post is so controversial with comparing Osama and Alex - but I understand that it was the kind of expression - and that You don't regard Alex as such terrorist as Osama. I'd like to say about Your last part of the post cited above. I think it is point of view which produces most mistakes in examination of ancient history. Looking into ancient times through todays "modern world" conditions is in opinion greatest mistake of many historians. Well I believe it is so because when we use such perspective it is very hard to understand that people with no such expirience as ours (two warld wars or crazy comunistic period of time for my country) could think completelly different then people in modern world. Look - Alex was educated by Aristotele, Illiad, Ksenofont's Anabase - miths (for him real history) about god's and herose great ideals and dids. I think his mind could much puerer then ours. Of course I don't state that world was perfect then oh no but it was much different. All those tragic things like slaughtering Thebians or burning Persepolis are nothing compairing to Hitler's gas chgambers and mass murders made my Stalin and Lenin.
Well Alexander's aims are very interesting issue. The informations in the sources are such that interpretations of modern historians are completelly different now. I'm reading all my books of Alexander seconly only to search his aims "coded" there. I read a work on this subject and it has until now almost 100 pages and always when I read it I find something new what I want to add.
Regards
Maciek

[susa]

I personally think Osama hilarious.Actually the world is cheerful with the amount of powerful [some not really] funny people around!!:)
Do you know WB Yates poem? 'Those that i fight i do not hate/Those that i guard i do not love'?

[jan]

I agree that to use OBL in that respect makes sense as probably that is how Alexander had appeared to the followers of Zorastor and to the Persians who hated him as much as Americans hate OBL. So I certainly don't take offense as I think it is a great analogy. I suspect that as OBL has already burned down the WTC and part of the Pentagon that he would have burned the White House as well had he too been an Alexander type.Religious beliefs made ATG run, and so the Muslim faith seems to make OBL run also. I think OBL is dead anyway, so why bother worrying about it now. He just simply won't get the grand funeral that the King of the World then did. Osama's burial will go unnoticed and unattended. So be it.

[Nicator]

...aaarrrggghhhhhh!!!People, let's not compare a god to parasitic fungi...on any level. OBL doesn't deserve an acronym, let alone the daily consumption of air which he robs our precious planet of! (was that too harsh??? I don't think so.)Have a nice day,
Nick

[Nicator]

No doubt about it! After his forced marches and self-indulgent behavior, you would've had to get in line...a long line. It's no coincidence that the Athenian politician Demades? (i think that was his name) stated "Alexander dead, impossible, the whole world would thus stink of his corpse". The reason for ATG's hatred was success (after success, after success...etc). Having success by convincing a bunch of religious fanatics to hijack planes full of innocents and kamikazi them into buildings, and then gloating about it is another kind of success, altogether. It was not an honorable victory. It was in my mind a miserable failure of a sick individual to come to grips with reality before doing the unthinkable. For Alexander, who refused to do battle with Darius on anything but Darius' terms, because it was the honorable thing to do, only brings up his honorable nature. "I will not steal a victory". ATG took on the great might of the entire Persian empire honestly, and openly. He defeated Darius on Darius' field...a prepared field, with Darius waiting in anticipation and also prepared. There may be some muslims out there who will call Osama... "the Great", but the reality is something much different..."the horrible". It gets to the question of why we call ATG great. We all have our own reasons, I'm sure. For me it is a multitude of things, both concrete and abstract. Maybe suitable to a post on its own.later Nicator

[John.]

Jan,Alexander hated?You know the Suez-Zeus anagram you gave below? Here's one I saw for Alexander the Great: XTRA HATED GENERALI think Mary Renault hated him, and her hatred explains her Persian Boy book.John

[Perseus]

I understand how the analogy came about but it simply wrong.Alexander spent his entire life trying to spread Greek civilization to the world, while Bin Laden-silly for him-thinks he can destroy it. And before one puts them on the same level and tries to say: "They both are using war to promotoe their culture", I leave you with a simple fact, that any cholar of the classics, history adn Alexandrophile should know by now. "Western civilization, like it or not, is the better, nobler civilization" . If you disagree, remember that doing so is only possible by the fact that Western cCivilization has alowed you.Before anyone jumps on top of this and considers it "Western chauvinism" let me just say that i do value many things from Eastern cultures, especially Ancient Chinese,Japanese etc., but in the end, the world is better off because of Greek?Western civilization, not Persian despotism, Asiatic esoterism, Eastern mystery and abra-katabra...Alexander, with all his faults and mistakes, genuinely tried to give the world some light, some knowledge.Bin Laden, and any religious fanatic for that matter, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, try to sink the world back into the Middle-Ages.A lot of you folks here show a genuine interest in history and would benefit greatly from reading Hanson's and Heath's "Who killed Homer?".

[jan]

Hi John,That is some anagram! Thanks for telling me.I believe that the obsession with Alexander, pro or con, is due to the confusion about his spiritual role and his "secular" role.While reading Judith Tarr's Lord of Two Lands, which is a fictional piece about ATG, I had an experience last evening which I will confide.In studying Alexander, I have undergone many strange and unusual experiences, some of which I share with others as I feel the need, and some of which I keep to myself.This experience found me reliving an aspect of Alexander's life that sobered me considerably. I am in the Tyre section of Tarr's book, and while reading a chapter, I found myself reliving an aspect of ATG's life. I am carrying a sheep or ram in my arms, feeling its warmth, its woolly touch as it squirms and bleats but submits to my taking it to sacrifice. It really impacted me as I am very serious about this, thinking of all the men I am taking into battle, how many will be sacrificed just like this sheep, and how many I must save. I am weighted with this load in my arms as it is a constant reminder of a life force that is soon to die. I realized then how serious a man that Alexander really is and how responsible he is to his duty and his mission. He takes this aspect of his devotion to God as seriously as I can imprint it upon you. He is a man of purpose and dedication, not a man of impulse and indecision. So I decided that fiction is not that which suits my purpose in sharing my version of him, but that only the truth of the experiences that I undergo.I like some of Lord of Two Lands, but basically, I find it fiction and untruths, but entertaining. I will submit a review of it to Sikander when I finish reading it to see if he will post it or not.Well, I believe mostly that while Alexander is the subject of hatred, his mission to him is one of God, and that many more loved him than hated him.As for Mary Renault, it is also fiction. Fiction is to make book stores a profit so authors write mostly for profit.Thanks, for the anagram insight. The great I AM may be made out of ZeusAmmon also!Jan

[jan]

I noticed that you use Arnold Scharzenegger's desire to be governor as a kind of comparison. I disagree strongly with that. In order to become governor, Arnold had to submit to becoming an American first. He desired citizenship, and became an American before he could run for elective office.Alexander did not submit to Persian rule, Egyptian rule, or Sogdianan Rule, or any other rule. He was a Macedonian first, last, and always, and made each conquered civilization submit to his rule.That is a real significant difference. Granted, after some time he did adopt aspects of each civilization but he did as Cyrus had done before him, and that is, announced himself as being the King, and that each civilization must submit to his rule and law or be annihilated. Cyrus did the same if a city or state did not submit to him when he announced. All those who submit are in good stead. Those who don't must die. Simple, and it worked for many centuries.Arnold submitted to America. That is the real difference.

[John.]

I gave the anagram as XTRA HATED GENERAL.There's no reason to leave off the first E. It's:ALEXANDER THE GREAT and
EXTRA HATED GENERALJust thought I'd clear that up...John