Visionary or Tyrant?

[Chas]

I am just starting research on the subject of Alexander's Greatness. Was he a visionary seeking for a better world, or a viscious tyrant? I am leaning towards the "visionary" side, and would like to know some of the basic arguments supporting that view. Thank you for any help you can provide.

[ruthaki]

I go with "visionary". He went over to Asia Minor to send the Persians packing, and when he was so successful he kept on going. Sure there were times he was known to use harsh (and what may seem to some) "cruel" punishments for those who double-crossed him or wouldn't play the game (tactics I believe he learned from his Dad). But basically I think he wanted to see what was out there, conquor what he could and 'unite' the countries he conquored. If he was a 'tyrant' he wouldn't have been so loved and idolized as he was.

[maciek]

Fully agree with Ruth - that's my point of view too. I think most importand is to watch him as man of his times as Micheal Wood says in hus movie. He had the same power as many tyrans after him and he could use it as he wanted. He could breack the democracies in the cities and make oligarch govenrments but he wanted to follow Corinthian League rules. We have to realize that beeing the king for real - is not so easy as reading the book about it and finding mistakes in ruling. Sometimes king of so large land has to do unpopular things. I think he was visionare - to proof it You have to read few authors or just read all informations in this peage - which is very good made and You can read short-cut from Alex's history. This subiect was discussed many times in here but lets try some arguments for visionare point:
1 Supporting democracies
2 Alowing Persians to stay as a sathraps in their sathrapies,
3 Adding into his army large bunch of scientists, poets, artists and so on,
4 Founding a new cities - with macedonian organisation and greek culture
5 Group marriages of macedonians with persian women
6 Freedom of religion beliefs and showing the respect for any religion in his path.
7 I cnat remember now but I'm sure there is many more...
Maciek

[ADEAN557@netscape.net]

Hi, in a previous thread I think it was mentioned that Alexander lost the plot a little in Persia after his great succession of battles and victories but in general he showed a great respect for other people's cultures and knew astutely how to act differently as the situation required.
His father gave him a great love of Greek culture and this enabled him to respect other cultures.(After he had conquered them of course.)
In Tyre things got a little personal and that is why 2000 Tyrians got crucified- in Thebes the massacre was absolute too.
He was capable of acts of great clemency and yet also great cruelty and that is part of the paradox that I think makes him so interesting.
Best regards, Dean

[maciek]

Hi
I wrote that he made unpopular things it's true but try to fill like soldiers beeing in the siege of Tyre for more then half a year when defenders killed parlamentarists, using cruel methods of fight. No doubt they were angry. It was the war he had to show that the best way to do for everybody is to remain in peace with Alexander.Respond was cruel - it's true, but it had to be like that if he realy wanted to conquer the world. In my opinion realy harsh he was in last his campaign in Malls lands. But there was a reasons also.I have to add to this: His father and Aristotele gave him a great love of Greek culture Thebians masacre was made by allied soldiers (together with Macedonians) because of Thebians previous dids. Note that Alexander did his best to protect people who took his side before the siege, he saved Pindars house, he also saved all who was anytime on macedonian court.
Maciek

[ruthaki]

You've all made some really valid, excellent points. He was known to have a quick temper at times, (i.e. killing his friend Cleitus which was a terrible act of violence he regretted) but in general he seemed to have shown great compassion to those he conquored (treating the Persian women of Darius' harem with great dignity, for one). Compared to the wanton acts of terror and threats of war going on in today's world, he was incredibly fair and easy on his enemies.

[maciek]

Hi Ruth! and thanks for reply
In my opinion "Cleitos accident" was one of the greatest mistake in his career, second (or first) was not preparing the succesor. The last (what I remember now) was choosing the way through the Gedrosian desert. It only proofs he was a real man not a fiction character from some fantasy story.Maciek

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,"He was incredibly fair and easy on his enemies" - until he was sailing down the Indus, of course, when he slaughtered thousands with relatively little provocation .All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Tyre? Thebes?He regretted Thebes. If you surrendered. fine; if not....

[davej]

Neither,The idea for campaign against Persin was all his fathers. The first phase had been implemented before Philip's death. Tyrant, No. Not really he did'nt seem to be at risk from his men and I don't know how real the threats against him were. He was a popular king not a tyrant. Besides Tyrants in ancient times were not all bad. As for Thebes, I don't think he gave it a second thought. If he regret it why did he needlessly kill the the supliant 10000 mercenaries after Granicus. Sorry Marcus, Yianni and Linda. He was a great general but he had some serious flaws.

[marcus]

No need to apologise, Dave. I wasn't aware that I was arguing anything different from you. :-)All the bestMarcus

[davej]

No Marcus, the fault is mine, I did'nt read your post correctly. I like Alexander, I am not a lover of all of his work. I admire him as one of the greatest generals ever. But I think he had some serious faults. PS. I posted your present on Monday sorry for the delay. turned out to be three Disc. You are going to be busy.The Croc Hunter. Dave

[marcus]

Hi Dave,Oh goody! I am looking forward to my pressie. 3 discs! Blimey, it will keep me out of trouble for ages.I will reply to your e-mail off-forum, more fully (and deny everyone else the chance to find out what you mean by "Croc hunter" :-)All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

Before this disappears I would just like to add my two staters worth.First why either visionary or Tyrant most visionaries are given to tyrranical means 'Change is born of Blood' as Marx has it I think. Ignoring our era think of Peter The Great, he dragged Russia out of the Middle ages but there was a significant trail of corpses.Similarly, this idea that only nice men recieve the worship of their army/people Hitler, Mussollini, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler Ivan the Terrible the list is endless success breeds respect but Terror does not necesssarily dispel it.Maciejk made a fine list of points but they are erronneous;
1) Alexander did not install democracies but allowed the conquered states to continue with their present constitution, also his new foundations were almost certainly oligarchies where the Graeco-Macedonian elite ruled the barbarian majority
20 Confiming Satraps in their positions was a political move to encourage more to defect without a fight, that it had nothig to do with their ability may be seen in the number who are executed on the retun from India
3 The scientific corps are there to map his empire and the new worlds he opens up this rebounds to his glory and makes taxation and subjugation more efficient
4 Founding cities to serve as hubs of government or the nails that hold a province down is sound policy not visionary
5 The mixed marriages are an expedient to woo the Iranian nobility and bind them with ties of blood
6 Religious freedom was the Greek norm, it is only when their natural tolerance is stretched to breaking point by the Jews that they become religious persecutors and then only of the Jews whose own religious intolerance is legendaryYes Alexander had a vision it was of him as world emperor, he did act tyrannically and displays great insecurity and paranoia at times, but ruthlessness was considered a virtue and it was a foolish ruler who allowed plots to flourish. I see him as a strong leader with weaknesses, poor judgement of character a certain insecurity and only a superficial curiosity, hence the Indian bloodbath.