i didnt know alexandert the great was tutored by aristotle

Setanta wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to assume, based on the available evidence, that he was any kind of military genius, or that he introduced any new concepts of military practice or of civil governance into the world.

Well, if those are your criteria for determining whether someone deserves the epithet "Great," then you might have a point. Alexander certainly was not much of a tactical innovator. He relied on the same Greek phalanx that had served as the core of Greek armies for over a century. The Macedonian phalanx was, it's true, a deeper formation than those employed by the Greek city-states, but that innovation can probably be credited to his father. He used his phalanxes to attack en echelon, but that was something that Epaminondas did fifty years before.

But then what military commander can truly be said to be an innovator? The aforementioned Epaminondas is often regarded as one, but all he did was to take the available Greek model, tweaking it a little to suit his army and his opponents. Frederick the Great's "oblique order" was just a regular flank attack. When an opponent was prepared for this maneuver, as the Russians were at Zorndorf, the oblique order was little different from a conventional frontal attack and Frederick was no better than a third-rater like Fermor. The progress in military science, therefore, has largely been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, each commander building incrementally on the edifice left by his predecessors.

In that respect, Alexander was no different, just a lot more successful. But then shouldn't that be enough to earn him the sobriquet "Great?" After all, Persia was still a great empire that stretched from the Indus to the Nile and the Hellespont. One can argue that Persia was diseased and rotten, but it's equally true that Greece was still largely in the same position in 336 B.C., the year of Alexander's accession to the throne, as it was in 448 B.C., at the conclusion of the Persian War. If Persia was tottering on the edge of defeat, it certainly took the Greeks a long time to give it a push. And if all it required was a slight nudge to send Persia into a catastrophic collapse, then shouldn't Alexander be given credit for being the guy to do it?

One other point: there is no evidence whatsoever that Alexander participated in "indiscriminate homosexual orgies." Indeed, there's precious little evidence to suggest that Alexander had sexual relations with men at all (not that there's anything wrong with that), while there is at least some evidence pointing to the fact that he was heterosexual. The rumors of Alexander's homosexual exploits, in other words, have been greatly exaggerated.

0 Replies

As a matter of fact, i am on record numerous times in these fora to the effect that there have been precious few military innovators in history. I have not, however, in this thread or any other, suggested that military innovation, or even success, were the sole criterion by which i would consider the epithet "the great" to be warranted.

In fact, i have explained in detail why i considered Frederick II of Prussia to worthy being called "the Great," and it doesn't rest upon military innovation.

Alexander was only ever concerned with his personal glory, by which he meant his reckless thirst for murderous combat. To even suggest that he provided any kind of leadership is, in my never humble opinion, unwarranted. In Arrian's Anabasis Alexandri, he tells of how Alexander, assaulting a mud-walled town in the Indus valley, hauled himself over a wall and threw himself among the defenders, causing a "berserker" frenzy in his Life Guard, who broke into the town to rescue their feckless commander. That can hardly be consider to be a praiseworthy example of leadership on the part of a "Great Captain."

The Persian expedition was planned before the assassination of Philip, and it was intended that Philip lead the expedition. Added to Alexander's frequent petulant remarks about his personal "glory" is the statement he is alleged to have made on that occasion that his father would leave him no places to conquer.

Alexander left no legacy of leadership, of military innovation, of civil administration, of imperial vision nor even of something so simple as good governance for the people of Macedon. I see no reason to grant him the title of "the Great."

As for his sexual predilections, i have no dog in the fight, and if anyone wishes to absolve him of homosexuality (which i have not condemned), they are welcome to it. I will observe that several contemporary observers were reported by ancient writers to allege that Alexander's murder of Cleitus was committed in the midst of a homosexual orgy. Whether or not it is true, there is little doubt that Alexander had a murderous disposition.

The clearest judgment against Alexander's leadership are the several assassination plots which were hatched against him in his brief career, and the reaction of the Greeks and Macedonians to his "orientalisms," such as the Persian custom of hand-kissing, which greatly aggrieved his followers. The original expedition planned by Philip had been to overthrow the Persian Empire, and the Greeks, for whatever grudges they may have nurtured against Philip, were happy enough to fall in with this plan. When, however, Alexander turned aside after the battle of Issus, there was grumbling about the object of the expedition, and the more so as he basked in the "glory" of being declared divine in Egypt. His decision not to invade Nubia may well have been conditioned by a conviction that he would be defeated, but it certainly would also have severely annoyed his Greek allies, for whom the destruction of the Persians was the object.

When he crossed the Oxus, he began to lose both the affection and the confidence of the army. The brutal march across what is now Afghanistan may well have sparked the plot against his life by the royal pages. Descending the Indus valley, he now lead a force with little taste for his continual desire for new conquests and personal "glory," and when he proposed to turn west into India, the army very nearly mutinied (c.f., Plutarch's account).

I can see no reason to have considered Alexander anything other than a bloody-minded, murderous ego-maniac, whose only consideration was his own view of his personal glory. He left behind no lasting legacy, other than the effect with the spread of Greeks through southwest Asia has had, and that could have been as easily accomplished by Philip as by Alexander. In fact, in view of the competency he displayed in his lifetime, i rather suspect that Philip would have made a better job of empire, had he lived to lead the Persian expedition.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

As a matter of fact, i am on record numerous times in these fora to the effect that there have been precious few military innovators in history. I have not, however, in this thread or any other, suggested that military innovation, or even success, were the sole criterion by which i would consider the epithet "the great" to be warranted.

In fact, i have explained in detail why i considered Frederick II of Prussia to worthy being called "the Great," and it doesn't rest upon military innovation.

I can't quite understand that one either. You argue that Alexander's military accomplishments were slight because they rested on the foundation created by his father, yet you think that Frederick was an able administrator when, in fact, he was simply building on the foundations of internal administration created by his father (and great-grandfather). You think Frederick was great because, in part, he corresponded with Voltaire, yet you don't think Catherine of Russia was great, even though she corresponded with Voltaire too. As for his musical talents, there was nothing particularly unusual about a European monarch being an accomplished musician. The Habsburgs could usually whip up a string quartet at their family get-togethers without much trouble. Indeed, most of Frederick's "great" characteristics were shared by his contemporary Joseph II of Austria, who was something of a disaster as a monarch. In short, the accomplishments that you most admire in Frederick would probably merit him the title "Frederick the Somewhat Better than Average."

Setanta wrote:

Alexander was only ever concerned with his personal glory, by which he meant his reckless thirst for murderous combat. To even suggest that he provided any kind of leadership is, in my never humble opinion, unwarranted. In Arrian's Anabasis Alexandri, he tells of how Alexander, assaulting a mud-walled town in the Indus valley, hauled himself over a wall and threw himself among the defenders, causing a "berserker" frenzy in his Life Guard, who broke into the town to rescue their feckless commander. That can hardly be consider to be a praiseworthy example of leadership on the part of a "Great Captain."

Why not? In an era when personal bravery mattered a great deal, it was necessary for a successful commander (and ruler) to demonstrate his own courage on the battlefield. Such an exploit would be in keeping with a great leader of the age.

Setanta wrote:

The Persian expedition was planned before the assassination of Philip, and it was intended that Philip lead the expedition. Added to Alexander's frequent petulant remarks about his personal "glory" is the statement he is alleged to have made on that occasion that his father would leave him no places to conquer.

If personal modesty or a refusal to seek glory were a prerequisite for earning the title "Great," then no one would earn it.

Setanta wrote:

Alexander left no legacy of leadership, of military innovation, of civil administration, of imperial vision nor even of something so simple as good governance for the people of Macedon. I see no reason to grant him the title of "the Great."

You can call him whatever you like, I suppose.

Setanta wrote:

As for his sexual predilections, i have no dog in the fight, and if anyone wishes to absolve him of homosexuality (which i have not condemned), they are welcome to it. I will observe that several contemporary observers were reported by ancient writers to allege that Alexander's murder of Cleitus was committed in the midst of a homosexual orgy. Whether or not it is true, there is little doubt that Alexander had a murderous disposition.

Well, first of all we have no contemporary accounts of Alexander's life at all. Secondly, the most any of the subsequent commentators say is that Alexander murdered Clitus in the midst of a rather ferocious drinking bout. If getting drunk with a bunch of male friends constitutes a homosexual orgy, I'm sure that will come as quite a surprise to a lot of men.

Setanta wrote:

The clearest judgment against Alexander's leadership are the several assassination plots which were hatched against him in his brief career, and the reaction of the Greeks and Macedonians to his "orientalisms," such as the Persian custom of hand-kissing, which greatly aggrieved his followers. The original expedition planned by Philip had been to overthrow the Persian Empire, and the Greeks, for whatever grudges they may have nurtured against Philip, were happy enough to fall in with this plan. When, however, Alexander turned aside after the battle of Issus, there was grumbling about the object of the expedition, and the more so as he basked in the "glory" of being declared divine in Egypt. His decision not to invade Nubia may well have been conditioned by a conviction that he would be defeated, but it certainly would also have severely annoyed his Greek allies, for whom the destruction of the Persians was the object.

When he crossed the Oxus, he began to lose both the affection and the confidence of the army. The brutal march across what is now Afghanistan may well have sparked the plot against his life by the royal pages. Descending the Indus valley, he now lead a force with little taste for his continual desire for new conquests and personal "glory," and when he proposed to turn west into India, the army very nearly mutinied (c.f., Plutarch's account).

This doesn't make much sense at all. Being the target of rebellious plots and assassination attempts was a pretty standard job hazard for rulers in that age. You have a high opinion of Alexander's father, yet he was the target of a successful assassination attempt.

Setanta wrote:

I can see no reason to have considered Alexander anything other than a bloody-minded, murderous ego-maniac, whose only consideration was his own view of his personal glory. He left behind no lasting legacy, other than the effect with the spread of Greeks through southwest Asia has had, and that could have been as easily accomplished by Philip as by Alexander. In fact, in view of the competency he displayed in his lifetime, i rather suspect that Philip would have made a better job of empire, had he lived to lead the Persian expedition.

Alexander can't be judged on what his father would have done under the circumstances, because his father never had that chance. Alexander must be judged on his own accomplishments, and those were formidable.

0 Replies

Joseph II was indeed, an disaster as a monarch--however, Frederick was not. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single monarch who combined all of the talents which Frederick displayed. If you do, i'll be happy to attach the epithet "the Great" to their names, if that will please you. I aim to please.

Displaying battlefield courage, to the exclusion of actually keeping one's army in hand, however, is not an example of good leadership.

I nowhere said that personal modesty were a trait for earning the sobriquet "the Great," although it was evident in people such as Yusuf Saladin and in Frederick II. That's a strawman, and this is as much of an answer as you'll get from me to it.

Actually, there were contemporary accounts of Alexander's life, we simply don't have them any longer. Both Plutarch and Arrian claimed to have worked from such accounts. I carefully pointed out that ancient writers made allegations about what contemporary observers had reported. This is also suspiciously like a strawman, because i never stated that i had access to any contemporary accounts.

Your comment about plots against Alexander ignores two things--the first is that i pointed out that there were numerous plots in his brief career, and i carefully linked that to the dissatisfaction with his career of conquest. The second thing which you ignore is that ancient commentators tell us of only one plot against Philip, the one which succeeded. One can only lament the comparative incompetence of those who attempted Alexander's life.

I have not judged Alexander on the basis of what his father might have accomplished, so your skirting near another strawman. I have simply pointed that what you are now pleased to describe as Alexander's formidable accomplishments were not beyond the scope of others, and i would further add that in view of how much blood and treasure were spent on his obsession with personal glory, it didn't produce a viable empire. The Hellenistic period was a result of the Greco-Macedonian conquest of southwest Asia, which had been planned without reference to Alexander. It was not a product of any particular vision of Alexander's, it would have been undertaken whether or not Alexander attempted it, and anything formidable about the scope of the conquest can be attributed to skills and competence of the Greco-Macedonian military establishment which provided Alexander the means to pursue his egotistical fantasies.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Joseph II was indeed, an disaster as a monarch--however, Frederick was not.

Well, I think that's the bottom line.

Setanta wrote:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single monarch who combined all of the talents which Frederick displayed. If you do, i'll be happy to attach the epithet "the Great" to their names, if that will please you. I aim to please.

I am profoundly indifferent as to who you call "great" and who you don't. As far as I can tell, though, your main criterion is whether you like the person or not. That's fine with me. It's not a historical judgment, of course, but that's your choice.

Setanta wrote:

I nowhere said that personal modesty were a trait for earning the sobriquet "the Great," although it was evident in people such as Yusuf Saladin and in Frederick II. That's a strawman, and this is as much of an answer as you'll get from me to it.

Whatever.

Setanta wrote:

Your comment about plots against Alexander ignores two things--the first is that i pointed out that there were numerous plots in his brief career, and i carefully linked that to the dissatisfaction with his career of conquest. The second thing which you ignore is that ancient commentators tell us of only one plot against Philip, the one which succeeded. One can only lament the comparative incompetence of those who attempted Alexander's life.

We'll never know how many plots against Philip's life would have occurred if he had survived the first one, so the fact that there was only one doesn't really reflect on his popularity, only on the success of his assassins. As it was, Philip spent a lot of his time fighting wars and putting down rebellions in Greece, so there were clearly a few people who didn't like him very much.

Setanta wrote:

I have not judged Alexander on the basis of what his father might have accomplished, so your skirting near another strawman.

Let's review what you said:

He left behind no lasting legacy, other than the effect with the spread of Greeks through southwest Asia has had, and [b]that could have been as easily accomplished by Philip as by Alexander[/b]. In fact, in view of the competency he displayed in his lifetime, i rather suspect that [b]Philip would have made a better job of empire, had he lived to lead the Persian expedition[/b].I think that's pretty clear.

Setanta wrote:

I have simply pointed that what you are now pleased to describe as Alexander's formidable accomplishments were not beyond the scope of others, and i would further add that in view of how much blood and treasure were spent on his obsession with personal glory, it didn't produce a viable empire.

The problem is that, while others might have accomplished what Alexander accomplished, none of them actually did. Although the evaluation of any figure's historical greatness is, at its foundation, a process of exploring counterfactuals, it should also be remembered that the facts still matter. If the Wright brothers hadn't come along someone else would surely have invented the airplane, but that doesn't diminish their accomplishment. If Columbus hadn't discovered the New World someone else would have, but that doesn't make him less historically significant. On the other hand, it is pure speculation to argue that Philip would have been as successful as his son had he set out to conquer Persia. In this case, your counterfactual is pretty weak, so I'll stick with the facts.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I am profoundly indifferent as to who you call "great" and who you don't. As far as I can tell, though, your main criterion is whether you like the person or not. That's fine with me. It's not a historical judgment, of course, but that's your choice.

That is, simply put, horseshit. My criterion is to what extent any candidate for the honor deserves it on the basis of the range of their accomplishments. It appears that the only accomplishment of Alexander was a conquest, of which he personally was not a necessary component--a point which i have been making, and which you attempt to twist (i'll respond to that in its appropriate place) is that the conquest could have been accomplished by another. In the case of Frederick, he was accomplished, at least reasonably so, as a military commander, and was accomplished as an administrator (many biographers whose works i have read would disagree with you that he merely inherited his father's system, several, notably Carlyle and Dodge, claim that he rationalized a creaky system, and formed a collegium of responsible minister and their higher-ranking staff, and that he reformed the judicial system), and as a musician and a composer, and was a competent, it not brilliant author. Some allege that Sans Souci is evidence of architectural skill on his part, but i don't subscribe to that, because i have no certain knowledge of the extent of his responsibility for the plans.

So my criterion is the extent and range of an individual's accomplishments, and on the basis, Alexander happens to have been a one-trick pony. As for Frederick, i neither like nor dislike him, given that i was not personally acquainted with him. You may be pleased to disagree, but i consider my criterion to be an historical judgment, and one reasonably founded.

Quote:

We'll never know how many plots against Philip's life would have occurred if he had survived the first one, so the fact that there was only one doesn't really reflect on his popularity, only on the success of his assassins. As it was, Philip spent a lot of his time fighting wars and putting down rebellions in Greece, so there were clearly a few people who didn't like him very much.

Certainly, it is hardly a point worth mentioning. The point which i was making was that Alexander seems to have earned the animus of his contemporaries because of a relentless career of conquest for the purposes of accumulating personal "glory."

Setanta wrote:

Let's review what you said:
He left behind no lasting legacy, other than the effect with the spread of Greeks through southwest Asia has had, and [b]that could have been as easily accomplished by Philip as by Alexander[/b]. In fact, in view of the competency he displayed in his lifetime, i rather suspect that [b]Philip would have made a better job of empire, had he lived to lead the Persian expedition[/b].
I think that's pretty clear.

What is also clear is that when you were bold-facing the text of what i wrote, you carefully neglected to bold-face "i rather suspect." Once again, what Alexander accomplished could have been accomplished by other men.

Setanta wrote:

The problem is that, while others might have accomplished what Alexander accomplished, none of them actually did. Although the evaluation of any figure's historical greatness is, at its foundation, a process of exploring counterfactuals, it should also be remembered that the facts still matter. If the Wright brothers hadn't come along someone else would surely have invented the airplane, but that doesn't diminish their accomplishment. If Columbus hadn't discovered the New World someone else would have, but that doesn't make him less historically significant. On the other hand, it is pure speculation to argue that Philip would have been as successful as his son had he set out to conquer Persia. In this case, your counterfactual is pretty weak, so I'll stick with the facts.

While you're "sticking with the facts," consider the fact that the discussion is not whether or not an individual accomplished a certain goal. It is whether or not that individual deserves the sobriquet "the Great" for having done so. Let's see . . . the Wright Brothers the Great, sounds rather awkward; Columbus the Great, no i've not read that anywhere. It seems to me that your criterion is simple acreage, which is all Alexander has going for him. On that basis, Temujin has him beat all the hell, having conquered twice as much territory, and having ruled an empire (and really ruled it, as opposed to prancing around in Persian garb and preening himself on his excellence) of more than 100,000,000 people.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That is, simply put, horseshit. My criterion is to what extent any candidate for the honor deserves it on the basis of the range of their accomplishments.

And a very selective -- not to mention inconsistent -- range of accomplishments they are. But, as I said before, I really don't care who you call "great" and who you call "not so great."

Setanta wrote:

...(many biographers whose works i have read would disagree with you that he merely inherited his father's system, several, notably Carlyle and Dodge, claim that he rationalized a creaky system, and formed a collegium of responsible minister and their higher-ranking staff, and that he reformed the judicial system)...

Carlyle and Dodge? Those are your sources? Really, this must be some sort of joke. I encourage you to read something that was written more recently than 1909 -- there has been a lot of good work on Frederick written in the last 100 years.

Setanta wrote:

Certainly, it is hardly a point worth mentioning. The point which i was making was that Alexander seems to have earned the animus of his contemporaries because of a relentless career of conquest for the purposes of accumulating personal "glory."

He earned the animus of his enemies because he was the king. I'm sure his ox cart drivers didn't have to worry about assassination attempts.

Setanta wrote:

What is also clear is that when you were bold-facing the text of what i wrote, you carefully neglected to bold-face "i rather suspect." Once again, what Alexander accomplished could have been accomplished by other men.

Which proves my point: you judge Alexander on what his father could have done in his place.

Setanta wrote:

While you're "sticking with the facts," consider the fact that the discussion is not whether or not an individual accomplished a certain goal. It is whether or not that individual deserves the sobriquet "the Great" for having done so. Let's see . . . the Wright Brothers the Great, sounds rather awkward; Columbus the Great, no i've not read that anywhere. It seems to me that your criterion is simple acreage, which is all Alexander has going for him. On that basis, Temujin has him beat all the hell, having conquered twice as much territory, and having ruled an empire (and really ruled it, as opposed to prancing around in Persian garb and preening himself on his excellence) of more than 100,000,000 people.

I would have no problem calling the Wright brothers or Columbus "great," except for the fact that it might result in a bit of confusion and would cause some people to regard me as hopelessly affected. I will, therefore, content myself with calling those people "great" who are traditionally called "great."

0 Replies

No, it is not either selective, nor inconsistent. The criterion which i applied was that an historical figure to whom the sobriquet "the Great" be accorded be someone who by a range of accomplishments have exceeded the ordinary standard of the monarchs of his day. Frederick accomplishes that with ease; as i pointed out, Alexander was a one-trick pony. I suggest that you protest too much--if you really don't care to whom i accord such an accolade, you would have trouble justifying your vociferous response.

You're playing your cherry-picking game again, one at which you must consider yourself accomplished. I did not say that i had read only Carlyle and Dodge, and even had that been the case, how recently a biography has been written is neither evidence of the accuracy of the information included therein, nor evidence of error. How very silly of you. As it happens, the most recently published biographies i have read are those by Gerhard Ritter (which i read about 30 years ago), and that of David Fraser, which was published in about he year 2000. I'd ask you if that is recent enough for your tastes, but that would be dishonest of me, as i don't care it is or not, and as i've pointed out, how recent a biography is does not measure it's accuracy.

Philip likely earned more than the ordinary share of animus not simply from being King, but from his sharp tongue. He is alleged to have browbeaten those of his enemies who were defeated and had the misfortune to survive as his captive.

Your point is not proven, but what is proven is an apparent inability on your part to distinguish speculation (as in "i suspect") from an assertion that this or that is an historic fact.

I am unsurprised that you hew the line of tradition with regard to whom you name "the Great." I have noted a tendency on your part to accept traditional interpretations of history. While not necessarily in and of itself a fault, it seems to be evidence of a lack of imagination. I have commented that i think the sobriquet is often given without good cause, and that i think Alexander provides an example of this. You claim that you don't care, and yet you've gone on for many words (perhaps thousands, although i've not counted, and wouldn't bother) arguing the point. Perhaps you think that is evidence of the extent to which you don't care? I suggest that you are mistaken in that, as in so many other things.

0 Replies

i didnt know alexandert the great was tutored by aristotle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know