pothos.org

The subject of when and why Alexander was first refered to as Great.

I looked in the local reference section of our library at a book called 100 Great men it just didnt recall military men. Alexander was about the fourth reference in the book and the chapter began saying Alexander was the only one defined as Great and reckognised as Great.

One thing has been said that it was the Romans that first called Alexander Great. We know that the Romans had basically no respect for cultures religions etc. The Roman thought was our way or off with your head or nailed to a tree no questions asked. Now I wonder why or if really the Romans did label Alexander the Great.Wheras they never labeled there own leaders Great. Not even Augustus who was probably the most succesful Emperor was called Great.

We know that the Roman Empire was basic mob corperate Rule and they hated the Idea of absolute power and kingsman ship. And if in reality the Romans did infact call Alexander Great then in historical comparison there could really be no equal accolade for a man to be called great.by an Empire that realistically was the most powerful and lasting in human history.

I read a few snippets about some other so called The Greats. Now excuse my ignorance as an Englishman. But where did Alfred the Great come from. All I know about that guy is he was supposed to have burned some cakes. Excuse me.

Kenny

It was all down to Ptolemy Kenny. He calls him "Magnus" in Stone's film. Presumably he gave the word to the Romans who "borrowed" it (as English does many a word).

jasonxx wrote:The subject of when and why Alexander was first refered to as Great.

I looked in the local reference section of our library at a book called 100 Great men it just didnt recall military men. Alexander was about the fourth reference in the book and the chapter began saying Alexander was the only one defined as Great and reckognised as Great.
...

I read a few snippets about some other so called The Greats. Now excuse my ignorance as an Englishman. But where did Alfred the Great come from. All I know about that guy is he was supposed to have burned some cakes. Excuse me.

As always, I'd need to check exactly when it was, and Amyntoros will be able to put a finger on it much more quickly - but the first reference we have to him as "the Great" is something like second century BC, in Rome.

Alfred the Great was "the Great" because he overcame some very shaky episodes to weld together the Saxon kingdoms in a great alliance against the Danes, defeat the Danes to such an extent that they were effectively hobbled in England, and thereafter created the first "English" kingdom (as opposed to an assortment of Saxon kingdoms). He didn't liberate England entirely, but he regained much of what the Danes had been picking off for years.

We know that the Romans had basically no respect for cultures religions etc. The Roman thought was our way or off with your head or nailed to a tree no questions asked.

That's not really the case, however. The Romans were extremely tolerant. They did regard the Greeks as rather effete, but they had a great respect for their cultural achievements, and hijacked many of them. One of the favourite postings for proconsuls was Greece, because of the great amounts of art they could comprehensively loot!

ATB

marcus wrote:The Romans were extremely tolerant. They did regard the Greeks as rather effete, but they had a great respect for their cultural achievements, and hijacked many of them. One of the favourite postings for proconsuls was Greece, because of the great amounts of art they could comprehensively loot!

Don't quite know that "effete" was the word. Certainly they took a long time to come to grips with the Greek propensity wanting argue the toss about most everything in front of Roman consuls and the senate. Arbitration and conciliation was not something the Romans readily took to: they were more used to dealing with matters in a somewhat more, shall we say, pointed a fashion. The Greeks, for their part, seemed perplexed at Roman inactivity or studied disinterest. If you’ve the biggest fist, use it! Once the Romans realised where this proclivity of the Greeks led, they exploited it for all it was worth.

The increasing Roman frustration with these forever quibbling Greeks is palpable though. It was inevitable, in the end, that a permanent Roman solution would be imposed.

The Roman taste for all things Greek and – a fortiori – Eastern Greek, is legendary. After Cynoschepalae and the resultant Roman “settlement” of Greece, Titus Quintus Flamininus attended the Isthmian Games where his “crier” proclaimed (as Plutarch records it):

A trumpet sounded to command silence; and the crier, stepping forth amidst the spectators, made proclamation, that the Roman senate, and Titus Quintius, the proconsular general, having vanquished king Philip and the Macedonians, restored the Corinthians, Locrians, Phocians, Euboeans, Achaeans of Phthiotis, Magnetians, Thessalians, and Perrhaebians to their own lands, laws, and liberties; remitting all impositions upon them, and withdrawing all garrisons from their cities.

The Greeks all rose, and, forgetting the games and their entertainment, proclaimed Flamininus as the “liberator of the Greeks”. This would be a theme as defining of Roman-Greek relations as was the raped and abused “autonomy of the Greeks” to the Diadochoi.

They really had no idea, though, what that “liberty” stretched to. To paraphrase (I don’t have the tome handy) Green’s marvellous prose (Alexander to Actium): whilst this proclamation was read out, Flamininus’ men were busy on the Corinthian docks liberating the Greeks from as much of their artwork as could be stuffed into the available Roman galleys.

It was an occurrence that would acompany every Roman consular army which headed east.

jasonxx wrote:Now I wonder why or if really the Romans did label Alexander the Great.Wheras they never labeled there own leaders Great. Not even Augustus who was probably the most succesful Emperor was called Great.

There's this:

"But it concerns the glory of the Roman Empire, and not that of one man, to mention in this place all the records of the victories of Pompey the Great and all his triumphs, which equal the brilliance of the exploits not only of Alexander the Great but even almost of Hercules and Father Liber." Pliny Naturalis Historia VII. 26 [LCL]

Poor old Pompey; evidently the Romans thought highly of him, but hardly anyone gives him much credit today.

Marcus, I know you know Pompey was called "Great" 'cause you said so on this thread which contains the info on when Alexander was first given the epithet.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:Poor old Pompey; evidently the Romans thought highly of him, but hardly anyone gives him much credit today.

Yes, and that criticism can be leveled at me too.

The Romans, though, had little choice. This bloke was the first "spammer" in history. Rome awoke every second month, it seemed, to yet another ancient version of "Watch this stock! Pompey Inc about to take off!" in the Forum. The lesson, by the way, was not lost on Caesar.

He was an egregious Alexanderphile even unto the hairdo. His overweening and ostentatious aping of the Macedonian monarch saw him, perhaps, outdo Alexander himself in the self promotional stakes

Perhaps it is why I "dis" him so (as the younger lot say today).

amyntoros wrote:Marcus, I know you know Pompey was called "Great" 'cause you said so on this thread which contains the info on when Alexander was first given the epithet.

Yep, certainly Pompey accorded himself the title - and his men were encouraged/happy to call him "Magnus" - in emulation of Alexander.

And thank you, yes, it was Plautus who is the earliest reference we have to Alexander being called "The Great".

ATB