any help?

[morganalafaye]

hi ive just discovered this website and i was wondering if anyone had some useful websites or links/info to help me with my classics coursework for a level im after anything to do with alex's thirst for conqering and then his disinterest in administering in the area, i am sort of hypothesising that he just moved on because he preferred the thrill of the battle. Any offers? thanks a bunch xxx

[alexandersdesciple]

Morgan The only help u need is to read more on the subject,your idea is pretty narrow to say the least.If you start with Robert Lane Fox

[coronzon]

Indeed.
Obviously you need to research a little more in this field. I would be more than glad to answer any questions. By no means am I the most educated on the subject, but I know lots about it. If you would like to know more, Just post back and I will give you my information(Email, Instant message, Etc.)
Thanks,
Brandon

[Kit]

You could also try Peter Green's 'Alexander of Macedon' and General J.F.C Fuller's 'the Generalship of Alexander the Great'. Alexander's interest in conquest almost certainly outweighed his interest in administration. Or as Green puts it-"not only the most brilliant (and ambitious) field commander in history, but also supremely indifferent to all those administrative excellencies and idealistic yearnings foisted upon him by later generations ,especially those who found the conqueror, tout court, a little hard upon their liberal sensibilities."regards,Kit.

[coronzon]

Indeed. I have Peter Greens Alexander of Macedon. It is a good source for information on Alexander!

[davej]

There is an arguement forward by Victor Davis Hansen on that subject. I think the book is called Greek Warfare. I can't recall. The arguement is compelling on some levels but over the top on others. Youwill need to balance his work with other by Green as suggested or Bosworth. If you are going to critic Alexander there is plenty of stuff to be found. Steer clear of Hammond if possible it will only complicate your arguement.Good Luck and more power to you. It is only by examining both arguement that history progresses. I don't think you will be able to make much stick though. VDH'sarguement does'nt withstand close scrutiny.

[agesilaos]

It would be a great mistake to confuse the sources lack of interest in administrative measures with Alexander's. The little they do preserve demonstrates a subtlely tiered system of overlapping jurisdiction which keeps power spread among mutually antagonistic officers. Nor should you ignore the dplomatic efforts around the Exile's Decree and the request for Apotheosis. He was no liberal but took care to administer his conquests in a way that kept real power with himself. You can see this reflected in his military reforms too.

[beausefaless]

You must judge for yourself, find time and visit your library! Hammond comes down unequivocally on the side of argument over Alexander that regards him as a rare genius in both war and statecraft!

[bob]

I will give my direct answer.
Your = alex's thirst for conqering and then his disinterest in administering in the area=
is totaly wrong.It is great not just because
power of his military genius.That is how other
empires are looking on his legacy.But not so with
the real lands who up to today know that that AtG
before 2350 have made -city like Kabul,Dura Europa,Alexandrias etc in so smoll and short span of his regin without planes,ships,trucks.That is the real reasons for his glory
up to today.Looking back and forth around AtG deeds there are a lot of emperor and empires who have fail on that caring side.Take for example today,and see the map of lands with the AtG empire borders.That is wast lands all in acute and pasive wars.From Cashmiri,Afganistan,Pacistan,Iran,Iraq,Jordan,Turkey,Israel etc.People know the difference when rulers and emperors build or destroy countries.At least he was just in destroying.
And this is from different cultural sides accepted
to be truth.
Scolars can make asumption based on academic papers,but reality is still live.