A Negative Portrait of Alexander

[ScottOden]

Hi all!Some time ago, one of the Forum regulars asked about contrary or negative perceptions of ATG. I ran across one recently. Victor Davis Hanson, Professor of Classics at California State University, presents the following in his book "The Wars of the Ancient Greeks" (Cassell Publishing, London, 1999):"The immediate legacy of Alexander the Great? Other than tactical and logistical brilliance, not much. To his contemporaries, Alexander in the years after his death was, to be frank, little more than an ingenious boy and impetuous front-line fighter who had run wild for a decade and left a rich source of booty for wiser and older men like Seleucas, Antipater, Antigonus and Ptolemy to haggle over and divide up. The Greeks on the mainland mostly rejoiced at his death. Alexander's half-educated infatuation with Eastern mysticism, and play-acting at divinity failed to impress Philip's old guard of Macedonian veterans, who finally tired of the antics of this rather dangerous alcoholic."Extant ancient historians of the Roman Age, their sources traceable in a convoluted trail back to contemporaries of Alexander himself, present both a 'good' and 'bad' Alexander -- either an Achilles come alive whose youthful exhuberance and piety brought Hellenism to its proper limits, or a megalomaniac, drunken and indulgent thug, who butchered most in his path before turning on his father's friends and compatriots, the very men whose loyalty and genius created him in the first place."And later:"Alexander the Great's legacy was to leave the Hellenistic world with generations of would-be Alexanders, who practised their master's savage brand of political autocracy and butchery of all under suspicion. The army of the West was now not to be a militia or even a professional force subject to civilian oversight, but, like the later Nazi military, an autocratic tool that would murder at will far from the battlefield, friend and foe, soldier and civilian alike. Alexander the Great was no philosopher-king, not even a serious colonizer or administrator, and surely not a well-meaning emissary of Hellenism. Instead, he was an energetic, savvy adolescent, who inherited from his father a frighteningly murderous army and the loyal cadre of very shrewd and experienced battle administrators who knew how to take such a lethal show on the road."And later, still:"Too many scholars like to compare Alexander to Hannibal or Napoleon. A far better match would be Hit

[ScottOden]

"Too many scholars like to compare Alexander to Hannibal or Napoleon. A far better match would be Hitler, who engineered a militarily brilliant but similarly brutal killing march into Russia during the summer and autumn of 1941. Both Alexander and Hitler were crack-pot mystics, intent solely on loot and plunder under the guise of bringing 'culture' to the East and 'freeing' oppressed peoples from a corrupt empire. Both were kind to animals, showed deference to women, talked constantly of their own destiny and divinity, and could be especially courteous to subordinates even as they planned the destruction of hundreds of thousands, and murdered their closest associates."Professor Hanson minces few words. His portrayal of Alexander got me to thinking: If we strip away the glitz and gloss, the romance and the hero-worship what picture do we have of Alexander, the Man? I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion, but for me Alexander the Man was a half-barbarian autocrat; a tactical genius who squandered his father's formidable military machine in a Quixotic search for his own private Illium. Psychologically, he identified with Achilles and so, in true Homeric fashion, Alexander left his home and traveled to a far land in search of the gods' greatest gift: the short glorious life. He found it, and much more. Homer wrote: "Sing, O Goddess, the anger of Achilles, son of Peleus, that brought countless ills on the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures . . ." Can it not equally apply to Alexander?I don't believe Alexander was a dynast, not like his father; he cared little for who would succeed him, so long as his name was emblazoned on the papyrus of history. But while he lived, he was loathe to relinquish even a fraction of his power. Power, for Alexander, equalled freedom. Freedom to roam, freedom to fight, freedom to challenge the deeds of his heroes. Power equalled life, and when his life and livlihood were threatened, Alexander reacted with the savagery of an autocrat. That same savagery, that anger, is no where more evident than during those episodes when Alexander's wishes were not granted, such as Tyre. The crucified defenders speak volumes about the mythical 'Unity of Man'.In the end, Alexander died at the precise moment. He had taxed his body and mind to their limits; the reality of empire building had began to sap his precious freedom, and

[ScottOden]

In the end, Alexander died at the precise moment. He had taxed his body and mind to their limits; the reality of empire building had began to sap his precious freedom, and the lure of wealth and power had seduced more than one of his close circle of friends to conspire against him. Someone asked, in another thread, about Alexander's best and worst deeds. To me, his best deed was to die young, because old age would have soured the king's particular brand of genius, making him just another tyrant in a long line of tyrants. His worst deed was identifying himself with Achilles, whose very name is a byword for violence, rather than with the archetype of cunning, Odysseus (who was Achilles' superior in every other way save battle, and even in that the King of Ithaca was no slouch). Perhaps then, this much lauded 'Unity of Man' would have had a chance to flourish.Just a few thoughts, and I apologize for the length.Scott Oden

[dean]

Hello,I must admit that in spite of its length, thankyou for posting this for I enjoyed very much reading it.I think that it is very important as you say, to keep a healthy balance and remind ourselves of Alexander's shortcomings so that we don't fall into the dangerous trap of creating an "ideal" human being of Alexander- this would not be historically correct and without wishing to be controversial a similar thing as to what people did with Jesus.I found the comparison between Alexander the Great and Hitler shocking- I don't know about Hitler's thugs going into Russia but I know that the ratio of men at Gaugamela on Darius' side was immense compared to Alexander's. In this single battle he risked everything standing with his men amongst the horror of a true Homeric battle.Achilles, as you say, is a by-word- for violence- he represents anger,hatred,hard-heartedness especially seen in his severe treatment of Hector no matter how real or mythical- Alexander believed the Iliad to be pure history - and absorbed from early childhood the Prima donna behaviour of his hero- assuming it as his own as he did his belief in friendship and companionship- nothing hurt him so much as the death of a friend.Unfortunately towards the end the power he obtained surely corrupted him and he became quicker to punish severely and harsher of temperament- murdering as you say close members of his entourage. As I have said on other posts- the guy's bi-polarity surfaced with greater frequency as did his drinking probably reaching its peak in Babylon at the very end.In short, Achilles never returned home, got the glory he so yearned for and died young to pay for it.I've just realised that I too have been going on for quite a while- Take Care,
Dean.

[Kit]

I've got V D Hanson's book 'Wars of the Ancient Greeks' as well, and good though it is in some ways, he really doesn't like ATG. An people think Peter Green is critical!Still it's the different perspectives that make discussing ATG so interesting.Kit

[S]

Greetings,
Quite a long while back, I recall a lengthy discussion on the Forum about Alexander/Hitler, pro and con. I wonder now if this book generated that discussion. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll have to look for that.
Regards,
Sikander

[Kit]

It's part of the Cassell History of Warfare series. My harback copy has ISBN 0-304-35222-5, but I think it is out in paperback now as well.regardsKit

[Tre]

The comparisons to Hitler owe more to Ernst Badian than this guy, who wrote a reasonably good book on Agriculture.

[jan]

Thanks, Scott, I enjoyed this so much that I wonder what the positive side of Alexander would generate.Great thoughtful piece!

[davej]

I have read the book on argriculture. I though it was a little better than reasonable. For one thing it convinced me that it was impossible for Sparta to destroy Attica's complete crop production, Until Declaea of course. I love his style, he is enjoyable to read, even if light on sources. One more thing for anybody who is interested he has retired from acadamia. He writes a column for NRO.

[Polyxena]

Hi,
Thank you for this info. Although the comparision with Hit is quite exagerated, I think we must admit and look at Alexander's bad side, too. He was dedicated to glory and he gained it on the battle field. He used his position as a King of Macedon, and Philip's son, to fulfill his dream. Actually, his own country and his own people were his instrument to glory. That's why he needed war so badly... and how the time passed by... he became hopelessly addicted to it. And I agree that the so called "redeem of Greek's honor" was only one superficial reason to attack Persia. The true one was to conquer this land and to became the King of all kings and "by the way" to became their god, too. He was ready to use everything and everybody he can to fulfill his dream. But, that was his personal dream. He simply disregarded the dream of his people, the dream of his country. And it's really sad to see how during the last year of his life, his dream became other people's nightmare.

[Perseus]

VD Hansen is an author I definately enjoy reading. But I feel he takes his opinions to extremes in order to make his case.Case in point, Hellenistic Times. Although considered to be by many a worthy successor and contributor to the enterpreneurial Classics, he views them as the destruction of Hellenism which certainly isn-¦t so. Alexandrian Hellenism certainly has had its share of the spotlight in discoveries, evolution of science, progress in arts, etc. The Hitler comparison again just serves to shock the audience out of Alexander-adoration. WHile I don-¦t agree with the theopoeisis of Alexander by many, comparing him to Adolf Hitler is simply out of touch with reality. Alexander sure had psychological anomalies as a character, and may have been a megalomaniac and self-centered, but he had many virtues, and in the end, IMO, honest intentions. Losing control he wasn-¦t able to manage and administer what he had achieved. His mistakes are quite a few and serious enough to mention. But contrary to his mentor-¦s simplistic view of Hellenes/Barbarians, he was the first who trully believed and tried to put in practice what Isocrate-¦s said...-½A Hellene is one who partakes in a Hellenic aducation-+.

[dean]

Hello Polyxena,I remembered you today as I am reading First Man of Rome by Colleen McCollough and in it there is a character who is well versed in the classics of Greek literature etc.etc.and just happened to mention that Achilles had hit and killed a man for insinuating that he had made love with the queen of the Amazons' corpse. It is almost as if it were some kind of rumour that Achilles didn't want to spread- I can imagine why. Anyway at least you know that what you read on the internet is bonafide good info.Best regards,
Dean.

[Polyxena]

Hi Dean,Thank you for your attention. It's really good to receive a confirmation about something "rejected" as being "incorrect".Best regards, Poliksena.

[beausefaless]

Nicely done, most people in this forum have the tendency to forget that ATG was pure military and everything else came second!! I will give him credit for the twenty five numismatics mints he created before his death and more came after.