Hello,
On a recent post t'was touched on very lightly the theme of democracy in Asia Minor and its relatively farsical introduction.
In Epheseus, Alexander restored democracy, offered to rebuild the temple, and well, moved on-
But what was the reality of this so called democracy? In the middle east, we see that Alexander runs riot- Issus, Gaugamela, and running straight over the Hindu Kush unstoppably.ñ.
In Persepolis there could be no creation of democracy, given that the place was burnt to a cinder. It is therefore a pity that in the middle east the people were not given any taste of democracy-
I think that the majority of people, like me and you, no matter whether you live in India, Pakistan, Greece etc,etc aspire to a peaceful life and I believe that this aspiration hasn't just sprung up this century but has been there for a LONG time. Alexander's basic policy was of let's just subdue any resistance and then place satraps who swore allegiance to Alexander- (with a Macedonian garrison on site, just for good measure) Especially in the middle east, it is tempting to think, "what if Alexander had really made democracy the governing rule in the middle east, instead of levelling everything and then saying OK, now you know who's boss, back to work, would things have been different today?"
At the time they weren't ready for such a concept but maybe over a few millenia things might have worked out. As such even today, we see women in Iran still being stoned to death.
With the difference in culture and thought in the east, could Alexander have done anything other than what he did with reference to democracy?
Best wishes,
Dean
Democracy and Alexander the Great
Moderator: pothos moderators
Democracy and Alexander the Great
carpe diem
G'day Dean,
Alexander set out on his epic journey of conquest with the firm intention of sharing power with – no one. Not the demos of any Greek city of Asia Minor, his barons or – most importantly – the Great King.
The foisting (seem to have forgotten how to spell “fostering”) of democratic regimes had little to do with any belief in the system of government. It did, though, have much to do with the removal of Persian political patsies supported by narrow oligarchies and the like. Their logical replacements were their adversaries: democrats.The antithesis, actually, of Macedonian policy on the mainland.
The situation in the Aegean was even heavier handed. Here, at least one government was appointed by Alexander directly (can’t remember which at the present), in direct contravention of the League of Corinth.
In any case, as you say, Alexander would then move on. Not before establishing the rules of liberation:
Tribute to remain the same
Please now remit to the Macedonian treasury
Problem with that? Refer Aspendus
Enjoy your liberation.
With respect to “Asia” and what is now the Middle East, Alexander had no intention of greatly changing anything. These were all something he understood: ancestral kingdoms. Of all those kings there was only one that he gave a hoot about and that was the one he’d pursue across dusty Iranian plateaus to supplant: the Great King.
And, when he did, he would then assume the exact same mantle unchanged, other than by improving its holdings.
Alexander set out on his epic journey of conquest with the firm intention of sharing power with – no one. Not the demos of any Greek city of Asia Minor, his barons or – most importantly – the Great King.
The foisting (seem to have forgotten how to spell “fostering”) of democratic regimes had little to do with any belief in the system of government. It did, though, have much to do with the removal of Persian political patsies supported by narrow oligarchies and the like. Their logical replacements were their adversaries: democrats.The antithesis, actually, of Macedonian policy on the mainland.
The situation in the Aegean was even heavier handed. Here, at least one government was appointed by Alexander directly (can’t remember which at the present), in direct contravention of the League of Corinth.
In any case, as you say, Alexander would then move on. Not before establishing the rules of liberation:
Tribute to remain the same
Please now remit to the Macedonian treasury
Problem with that? Refer Aspendus
Enjoy your liberation.
With respect to “Asia” and what is now the Middle East, Alexander had no intention of greatly changing anything. These were all something he understood: ancestral kingdoms. Of all those kings there was only one that he gave a hoot about and that was the one he’d pursue across dusty Iranian plateaus to supplant: the Great King.
And, when he did, he would then assume the exact same mantle unchanged, other than by improving its holdings.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Hi Paralus,
Democracy as I think, Kenny said on another thread, was just a word loosely branded around with about as much usefulness and meaning as a lead balloon.
It is like that song by Queen "I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now!!" - that was Alexander as the letter he sent back to Darius said - after Issus, after Alexander took the great kings family.
Loosely summed up as "Look, I am the boss now so it is my way or the Royal highway-."
So, basically things remained the same- perhaps with the centre of gravity taken away from Persepolis and Susa and placed in Babylon but for all intents as they say over here in Spain, "era el mismo perro con distinto collar" or in other words, the same dog but with a different collar.
I read the front page yesterday of the old BBC, and see that Saddam's chips are down-
maybe this could mark a new chapter in the democracy in the east but then again.... 
Best regards,
Dean
Democracy as I think, Kenny said on another thread, was just a word loosely branded around with about as much usefulness and meaning as a lead balloon.
It is like that song by Queen "I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now!!" - that was Alexander as the letter he sent back to Darius said - after Issus, after Alexander took the great kings family.
Loosely summed up as "Look, I am the boss now so it is my way or the Royal highway-."
So, basically things remained the same- perhaps with the centre of gravity taken away from Persepolis and Susa and placed in Babylon but for all intents as they say over here in Spain, "era el mismo perro con distinto collar" or in other words, the same dog but with a different collar.
I read the front page yesterday of the old BBC, and see that Saddam's chips are down-
maybe this could mark a new chapter in the democracy in the east but then again.... Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
-
Efstathios
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
- Location: Athens,Greece
Alexander didnt set forth to bring democracy to Asia minor or Persia but a goverment change.He respected religon throught his campaign, but the political system is something else.
You cant be a conqueror and establish democracy.But yet Alexander in some of the situations where Democracy previously existed (before Persian rule, or when that area was free for some time) he restored it as Dean said.I think that is beyond any conqueror would do.The most logical thing would be to establish an oligarchy everywhere so that he could control things ,especially when he didnt sit there to manage things but moved on to conquer the rest of Asia.
And why didnt he put a democratic goverment to all of Asia Minor since he did it in some occassions? Because maybe he made assesments where there would be trouble by doing this.In some places like in Miletus there were old rivalries of Democratics and oligarhics since the time the Athenians were there.We dont know the situation exactly, so we cant say.But he didnt have the time or he didnt want to to sit there and be a coach while he had greater plans in his mind.I think what he did was the most wise at that time.
You cant be a conqueror and establish democracy.But yet Alexander in some of the situations where Democracy previously existed (before Persian rule, or when that area was free for some time) he restored it as Dean said.I think that is beyond any conqueror would do.The most logical thing would be to establish an oligarchy everywhere so that he could control things ,especially when he didnt sit there to manage things but moved on to conquer the rest of Asia.
And why didnt he put a democratic goverment to all of Asia Minor since he did it in some occassions? Because maybe he made assesments where there would be trouble by doing this.In some places like in Miletus there were old rivalries of Democratics and oligarhics since the time the Athenians were there.We dont know the situation exactly, so we cant say.But he didnt have the time or he didnt want to to sit there and be a coach while he had greater plans in his mind.I think what he did was the most wise at that time.
Hello,
But after Philip's death, Alexander treatment of Greece is interesting- Thebes was razed yet the institutions were left standing- he wasn't invading- he was moreover just setting up a pattern that would be followed throughtout his life- that of overcoming resistance and then leaving things pretty much as before( but with Big Al' as boss- or isn't this the case?)
Democracy that of the power being held by the people was a flimsy and rare creature and of course Alexander wasn't in the business of sharing power nor was it really an age of dialogue and of equality- it was an age of slavery- of master and slave- a real dog eat dog world. As a warrior Alexander popularized the Greek Phalanx but as politically astute he was, he didn't uphold democracy.
Best wishes,
Dean
I like the line,- and it encapsulates a big truth.You cant be a conqueror and establish democracy
But after Philip's death, Alexander treatment of Greece is interesting- Thebes was razed yet the institutions were left standing- he wasn't invading- he was moreover just setting up a pattern that would be followed throughtout his life- that of overcoming resistance and then leaving things pretty much as before( but with Big Al' as boss- or isn't this the case?)
Democracy that of the power being held by the people was a flimsy and rare creature and of course Alexander wasn't in the business of sharing power nor was it really an age of dialogue and of equality- it was an age of slavery- of master and slave- a real dog eat dog world. As a warrior Alexander popularized the Greek Phalanx but as politically astute he was, he didn't uphold democracy.
Best wishes,
Dean
carpe diem
Macedonian a kingdom, Greece, a democracy
Hi Dean, Somehow or other, I believe that Alexander is a king who tolerated the Greeks and Athens for their democratic ways. He seems to be a king who permits the status quot to exist if the status quo acknowledges his rulership and submits to him. So when the Athenians gave in to him, they remain able to be democratic, and on and on throughout his campaign. He doesn't rock any boats except when they defy him, then he simply annihilates them. Live free or die! Kind of thing!
-
Efstathios
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
- Location: Athens,Greece
And i must say that he did with politics what he did with religion.Meaning, as he let people have their religions, many times also he let them have their previous goverment, before the Persians occupied them.The Persians not always respected the religions.They let people have their religion but somethimes they burned down temples, like in Athens.Alexander burned down the Persepolis palace, but this hadnt anything to do with religion.
Overall i think there are many things that are in contrast with the belief of some people that Alexander was the "butcher of nations" and all that.I really dont know where that came from, especially when Alexander was maybe one of the kindest conquerors, comparing to the Romans and the Khan e.t.c.
That is why i knida agree with Plutarch in some parts where he elevates Alexander.He wasnt the typical conqueror, and about his motivations and character we can only make guesses, but some of his actions speak for themselves.
Overall i think there are many things that are in contrast with the belief of some people that Alexander was the "butcher of nations" and all that.I really dont know where that came from, especially when Alexander was maybe one of the kindest conquerors, comparing to the Romans and the Khan e.t.c.
That is why i knida agree with Plutarch in some parts where he elevates Alexander.He wasnt the typical conqueror, and about his motivations and character we can only make guesses, but some of his actions speak for themselves.
I think also that the reality also was that he didn't have much choice on many occasions. I mean that in India, the territory was that vast that it would have been impossible to really "rock the boat"- the realistic solutions- perhaps the only one available was to leave things be- (after totally suppressing any type of resistance- even running contituted a type of resistance as can be seen in India, where all the towns that took to the hills were systematically brought down.I really dont know where that came from, especially when Alexander was maybe one of the kindest conquerors, comparing to the Romans and the Khan e.t.c.
It does though have to be said, that as far as religion and politics are concerned Alexander was extremely flexible.Unbelievably so...
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
Hi guys,
I think it is an extremely interesting topic the one that you consider here, namely, how to judge Alexander?
Most people here will quickly brand the “according to his own times’ values” sword, and I totally agree. But this is just one aspect of the analysis, though the idea is still the same: in order to make valid comparisons, you need to have comparable subjects. Is Alexander a butcher? A philosopher-in-arms? The emotion-driven Oliver Stone’s character? A cold, calculating Realpolitik-ian?
The key issue to be able to address these questions is: what is our benchmark? Alexander may compare favourably when the benchmark is Hitler, but not so well when it is Gandhi. He was certainly politically shrewder than Dareios’ predecessor Arses (?), but probably not as much as the Borgias were a few centuries later. And so on.
What this highlights is the fact that different aspects of Alexander’s personality could be contrasted against the corresponding facets of many a historical character.
The “ideal” benchmark is one that shares with A every other characteristic but the one we intend to test. Think of the tests that are ran before a given drug is allowed to be sold to the general public, where two groups of people (as close as possible in every possible aspect) are used to determine the true effect of the drug: one group is given the drug, while the other is given a placebo that looks just like to drug, and nobody knows which group they belong to. Of course, perfect comparability is impossible (even identical twins are not perfectly comparable because their histories will be different), but we should strive for the highest possible one.
That’s why I grind my teeth when someone says: “he was a butcher” or “he was lucky” or similar statements. None of them are of any use without the reference. That’s why I liked the phrase of the contradictory character of a conqueror spreading democracy (George W., are you listening? =P). He was first of all, a conqueror. Well, compare him to other conquerors then! Of course he killed many people, but that is because I am implicitly comparing his numbers against, say, the average Macedonian farmer or the people in my neighbourhood. That is, the sentence does imply a benchmark, though since it is not explicitly mentioned it can lead to confusion.
Going back to the experiment idea, what we need is a “control” group with similar conquerors or conqueror wannabes, and see whether he was more or less bloodier than they were. Otherwise, we are "adding apples and pears", as my gran would say. Indeed, can I say that, say, China is a better place to live because the number of people that own a car there is greater than in the UK? Would you move to China based on this information? The statistics can be true in absolute terms, but I would be surprised if the percentage of British people that own a car is far greater the corresponding Chinese percentage. You can see here the point of my argument: you need a proper benchmark.
Or what about the “he was lucky: Philip trained the army for him” line? Again, I can think of many (if not all) princes that inherited their armies from their fathers, and yet not many went to increase 10(?)-fold the size of their kingdom in 10 years. Though to be true to my own argument, you need in the control group the presence of a Persia-like superpower that, though not in decadence, was certainly not at the top of its power.
So, in summary, PLEASE, let’s be careful with our comparisons (yes, myself included). Not every comparison is valid, and though none is perfect, some are better than others. A good comparison is, however, very powerful, and can provide extremely interesting insights. That’s why I find Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives” so appealing.
Sorry for the long rant, but I’ve been “brewing” this feeling of irritation for quite a while, and I just needed to “let it go”. =)
All the best,
Alejandro
I think it is an extremely interesting topic the one that you consider here, namely, how to judge Alexander?
Most people here will quickly brand the “according to his own times’ values” sword, and I totally agree. But this is just one aspect of the analysis, though the idea is still the same: in order to make valid comparisons, you need to have comparable subjects. Is Alexander a butcher? A philosopher-in-arms? The emotion-driven Oliver Stone’s character? A cold, calculating Realpolitik-ian?
The key issue to be able to address these questions is: what is our benchmark? Alexander may compare favourably when the benchmark is Hitler, but not so well when it is Gandhi. He was certainly politically shrewder than Dareios’ predecessor Arses (?), but probably not as much as the Borgias were a few centuries later. And so on.
What this highlights is the fact that different aspects of Alexander’s personality could be contrasted against the corresponding facets of many a historical character.
The “ideal” benchmark is one that shares with A every other characteristic but the one we intend to test. Think of the tests that are ran before a given drug is allowed to be sold to the general public, where two groups of people (as close as possible in every possible aspect) are used to determine the true effect of the drug: one group is given the drug, while the other is given a placebo that looks just like to drug, and nobody knows which group they belong to. Of course, perfect comparability is impossible (even identical twins are not perfectly comparable because their histories will be different), but we should strive for the highest possible one.
That’s why I grind my teeth when someone says: “he was a butcher” or “he was lucky” or similar statements. None of them are of any use without the reference. That’s why I liked the phrase of the contradictory character of a conqueror spreading democracy (George W., are you listening? =P). He was first of all, a conqueror. Well, compare him to other conquerors then! Of course he killed many people, but that is because I am implicitly comparing his numbers against, say, the average Macedonian farmer or the people in my neighbourhood. That is, the sentence does imply a benchmark, though since it is not explicitly mentioned it can lead to confusion.
Going back to the experiment idea, what we need is a “control” group with similar conquerors or conqueror wannabes, and see whether he was more or less bloodier than they were. Otherwise, we are "adding apples and pears", as my gran would say. Indeed, can I say that, say, China is a better place to live because the number of people that own a car there is greater than in the UK? Would you move to China based on this information? The statistics can be true in absolute terms, but I would be surprised if the percentage of British people that own a car is far greater the corresponding Chinese percentage. You can see here the point of my argument: you need a proper benchmark.
Or what about the “he was lucky: Philip trained the army for him” line? Again, I can think of many (if not all) princes that inherited their armies from their fathers, and yet not many went to increase 10(?)-fold the size of their kingdom in 10 years. Though to be true to my own argument, you need in the control group the presence of a Persia-like superpower that, though not in decadence, was certainly not at the top of its power.
So, in summary, PLEASE, let’s be careful with our comparisons (yes, myself included). Not every comparison is valid, and though none is perfect, some are better than others. A good comparison is, however, very powerful, and can provide extremely interesting insights. That’s why I find Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives” so appealing.
Sorry for the long rant, but I’ve been “brewing” this feeling of irritation for quite a while, and I just needed to “let it go”. =)
All the best,
Alejandro
Excellent post, Alejandro
One of the most incisive and intelligent commentaries on judging Alexander that I've ever seen, if not THE most -- on pothos, or anywhere. Thanks.
ATB,
Karen
ATB,
Karen
-
Efstathios
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
- Location: Athens,Greece
Comparatives
Hi Alejandro,
Just thinking about your post- Alexander and our judging him.
Personally, I often unconsciously compare him to the holy man himself the big J.C. because in so many ways there are similiarities- father was a god, the unity of mankind aspect(which I don't go for but anyway...) generous to the point of leaving himself completely without and yet I find that also a number of other people spring to mind- and of course then an odd person or two who you meet or cross paths with ONCE IN A LIFETIME who just seem to be larger than life with capital letters- and leave you staring at them for reasons you don't really know but you're just in awe and to quote Sting, "Every little thing you do is magic"
Best regards,
Dean
Just thinking about your post- Alexander and our judging him.
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.Alexander may compare favourably when the benchmark is Hitler
Who could you compare him to? Julius Caesar? Jesus Christ? Achilles? And I ask this question first and foremost to Alejandro but also to all Pothosians.PLEASE, let’s be careful with our comparisons
Personally, I often unconsciously compare him to the holy man himself the big J.C. because in so many ways there are similiarities- father was a god, the unity of mankind aspect(which I don't go for but anyway...) generous to the point of leaving himself completely without and yet I find that also a number of other people spring to mind- and of course then an odd person or two who you meet or cross paths with ONCE IN A LIFETIME who just seem to be larger than life with capital letters- and leave you staring at them for reasons you don't really know but you're just in awe and to quote Sting, "Every little thing you do is magic"
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
Re: Comparatives
Hi Dean,dean wrote: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.Alexander may compare favourably when the benchmark is Hitler
I totally agree with your point. That's why I wrote "may".
And it's true: many times our choice of benchmark is influenced by the result that we are looking for: If I want A. to look like a savage butcher, I would probably choose Gandhi; while if I want him to be a lenient ruler that respected conquered peoples' political and religious customs, I would choose the Khan. So there is a high degree of subjectivity allowed to the person that makes the comparison. Probably there will be as many comparisons as people are interested in the topic (and even more, if you allow for multiple comparisons for multiple facets of A's personality with respect to multiple benchmarks).
Regarding what my benchmark is, I am not sure. Probably it evolved with me as time went by and I read more about A. But my first impulse when I read your message was Caesar, since it is the comparison that Plutarch uses in Parallel Lives. Then I thought: well, but what were A's own benchmarks? After all, Caesar was not around in 300BC. And I thought about the 2 most probable role models that A. could have adopted, Achilles and Cyros (or at least the sources seem to imply this). Another one that was probably always in his mind was his father Philippos, whom he wanted (or seemed to want) to surpass in every respect.
But as I said, the ideal benchmark (if we ignore its non-existence!
) depends on the aspect of A's life we're interested in. For his generalship, other generals; for political savviness (?), other statesmen/politicians; and so on. The comparison I usually try to make is in terms of military skill, and though I am not well versed on other generals and their performances, I think Alexander does quite well when compared to them. It is recorded, after all, that most of the greatest generals in (Western) history claim to have studied and admired Alexander as a military genius!Regarding the comparison with JC, I am not particularly fond of it (though being a Christian adds a bias to my analysis!). But apart from that, I think that their personalities are difficult to compare because they differ in the "main dimension" that defines them: one was a conqueror, the other a "philosopher". Of course, as you pointed out, there are aspects that can be compared, but I think that they are rather marginal for at least one of them, and that's why I would compare Alexander first and foremost to other generals/conquerors: that was their main drive. Jesus would probably be better compared to Mohammed, Buddah, Confucius and the like. But that is just my opinion, of course
All the best,
Alejandro
-
jasonxx
Judging Alexander is Like a faith
Measuring and comparing Alexander can and will forever go on. One way or another its swings and roundabouts.
But basically its as with faith and what each individual Believes. None of us really has the answer. A feww days ago a collegue at work Asked me what made Alexander Great. I really couldnt be bothered to answer nor did I want to explain. Its personal. The Old Cliche a persoan cant really explain what it is to be in love but more often they they know they are.
I dont really know why Alexander was Great. I just believe he was. Even with his faults. I cant explain why I feel Presley was the Greatest Entertainer but I believe he was.
THe Enigma question comes into play. There are no explanations really. But I will say my beliefs are my own I dont preach nor do I indoctriante my kids with Alexander. Things like this are personal and everyone finds there own way.
I would say my Viewpoint about Alexander is this.
History is Like space and when you look at the skt at night you will see some very Bright stars. History is dotted with such dazzling bright Stars. Alexanders star for me shines the Brightest and Presleys show up preety well also.
kenny
But basically its as with faith and what each individual Believes. None of us really has the answer. A feww days ago a collegue at work Asked me what made Alexander Great. I really couldnt be bothered to answer nor did I want to explain. Its personal. The Old Cliche a persoan cant really explain what it is to be in love but more often they they know they are.
I dont really know why Alexander was Great. I just believe he was. Even with his faults. I cant explain why I feel Presley was the Greatest Entertainer but I believe he was.
THe Enigma question comes into play. There are no explanations really. But I will say my beliefs are my own I dont preach nor do I indoctriante my kids with Alexander. Things like this are personal and everyone finds there own way.
I would say my Viewpoint about Alexander is this.
History is Like space and when you look at the skt at night you will see some very Bright stars. History is dotted with such dazzling bright Stars. Alexanders star for me shines the Brightest and Presleys show up preety well also.
kenny
Re: Judging Alexander is Like a faith
Very poetic Kenny.jasonxx wrote:History is Like space and when you look at the skt at night you will see some very Bright stars. History is dotted with such dazzling bright Stars. Alexanders star for me shines the Brightest
An entirely different kind of comparison from the one I was talking about, but a very pleasant one!
Best,
Alejandro