For those of you interested in Alexander the Great..

[Nerouin]

I just recently read in an interesting book titled Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power that Alexander is not quite correctly depicted in history; or at least that his history is incompletely told in most cases.

The story I knew of Alexander before I read this book was as so: "Alexander was a great general who defeated his enemies, the evil Persians, and then went on to conquer lands all the way to India. However, he grew sick from this constant campaigning, and died in the process. When he was on his deathbed, his soldiers filed by him one by one to pay last respects." Yada yada yada.
Basically, this story puts Alexander forth as a great leader of his people, a skilled general, and a conquerer.. and as an all-around good person. One gets from this that he conquered benevolently, somehow.

In fact, Alexander was not all of this. He was a great general, true. After defeating the Persians he went on to conquer lands all the way to India, true. However, the oft-told tale leaves many things.

One- the fact that Alexander's army slaughtered perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocents along the way- for example, when he reached Persepolis, he offered amnesty to the city if it surrendered, then let his troops loose to slaughter all the city's inhabitants when it accepted his offer. Entire cultures ceased to exist.

Two- Alexander was insanely paranoid, and over the course of time had all of his high-level subcommanders executed or straight out killed them. Once, he killed one of his most devoted followers by spearing him during a party, in a drunken rage.

Three- Alexander died because of his gross excesses on drugs and alcohol- mostly alcohol, as he appears to have had a case of severe alcoholism.


So, if what this book puts forth is true, Alexander the "Great" was only great in terms of power- as a man, he was quite a sh*thead.

[dragonchr15]

He probably was not as pretty as Colin Farrell either, but there is no way to find out is there?

[biguth dickuth]

He certainly became a drunkard along the way and there is a good chance that his paranoia was, partly, due to the heavy drinking.
And sure, he was responsible for the total demise of certain resisting tribes along the borders of his empire.
And he did burn Persepolis to the ground in what he saw as revenge to the similar destruction of several greek cities by the Persians.

So, he wasn't a "good fella" after all. What a surprise!
He was a tyrant who seeked power and was corrupted by it. Ooh that's an even greater surprise!

Come on guys! This is like reinventing the wheel!
I can't remember of a single guy in history who was a military leader and a "good guy" at the same time. You have to be somewhat ruthless to be of some success in this...occupation.
Of course there have been military leaders who could show some mercy and kindness at some cases and others who couldn't (i think that Alexander falls into the first category) but all of them were responsible for killing people, lots of them usually.

PS: No irony or scorn is aimed to you personally Nerouin. I just wanted to make my point a little more striking as i think that most historical personalities, recent or old, are usually somewhat "idealised" and this is something i don't particularly like, especially when it has to do with military leaders.

[Spino]

Wrong forum for this kind of post... This clearly belongs in the Monastary.

[discovery1]

This is old news(no offense). But anyone would know that Alex was a butcher, even, sometimes, when he didn't need to be. What was the name of the colony of Greek exiles that he slaughtered? BTW, I believe they were exiled(and killed) b/c they had surrendured some only shrine to the Persians or somesuch.

[Colovion]

This is old news(no offense). But anyone would know that Alex was a butcher, even, sometimes, when he didn't need to be. What was the name of the colony of Greek exiles that he slaughtered? BTW, I believe they were exiled(and killed) b/c they had surrendured some only shrine to the Persians or somesuch.


it's new to me

After thinkign about it though I don't think that any great leader in the past was considered a Great Leader because they were forgiving or generally just a good person. A Byzantine Emperor was actually deposed because he kept giving tribes that were raiding his provinces another chance after promising to stop. Back then leaders were ruthless and if anyone got in their way they would HAVE to be swift in punishment or their rivals would sense weakness.

Oh and Alexander was a sex fiend and was famous for his massive orgies in which no man or woman was safe. :sweatdrop: :whip:

[1dread1lahll]

Your statements are grossly incorrect, Your statment that he was a drunkard is not supported by historical fact, nor is it held to be a fact by the general community of historians, in fact Alexzander died in Babalion of viral phenomia, which he contracted after recieving a wound to the chest while leading an assault on some small fortified town..This history is well recorded, the names dates people places, are better known than much history of only 100 years past. You need to research your statements before you post and credit the resource, as well as remain un-biased in your statements, in addition it is generally accepted (among historical researchers) that you do not judge history with the standards of the present. Failure to observe these tenents are likely to result in scathing mockery from people who do. Your other statements are also very wide, and very far from the full truth; but im not going into it more.

[biguth dickuth]

Your statements are grossly incorrect, Your statment that he was a drunkard is not supported by historical fact, nor is it held to be a fact by the general community of historians, in fact Alexzander died in Babalion of viral phenomia, which he contracted after recieving a wound to the chest while leading an assault on some small fortified town..This history is well recorded, the names dates people places, are better known than much history of only 100 years past. You need to research your statements before you post and credit the resource, as well as remain un-biased in your statements, in addition it is generally accepted (among historical researchers) that you do not judge history with the standards of the present. Failure to observe these tenents are likely to result in scathing mockery from people who do. Your other statements are also very wide, and very far from the full truth; but im not going into it more.
Are you refering to me or to Nerouin who started the thread?

I said he was a drunkard because he was one. He is historicaly reported to have been a heavy drinker, which is even used by some historians as an explanation of his, sometimes, violent and paranoid behaviour towards friends. His heavy drinking, however, became apparent only after his first three major battles against the Persians and their defeat. There is also no account of him ever going drunk into battle (so no -2 command penalty for him due to "heavy drinker" vice ~;p ) and he probably died of some infection, as is generally accepted, and not from alcohol overdose.

About not judging historical personalities with the standards of the present, sure, i agree but still, there are some time-enduring behaviours of the human beings that need to be taken into account. To be more precise, most humans in a position of power tend to seek ways in order to retain this power or even increase it. In order to do that, they are usually eager to sacrifise a lot and this lot tends to be other people's lifes.
Of course, modern-day authorities have discovered more subtle ways in order to keep their good grip on power; ways which don't necessarily include the killing of thousands (although they sometimes do). Therefore, these authorities, be it states or military leaders, are seen as more gentle or less cruel than their older counterparts (and this is due to the usual mistake that you mentioned; judging by today's standards). In fact they are just the same with their ancient analogs, as the later, having no camera's and tv to use as means of propaganda, had to actually kill a lot more people to make sure that their will is enforced. The goal, however, and the ruthlessness needed to achieve it were just the same.

Under this perspective, it is obvious (to me) to see Alexander as just another very successful military and political leader (there have been quite a few throughout history) who, not unexpectedly, based his ambitions and tremendous power on the deaths of many thousands of people, just like any other person with the same goals and ambition would do in his place.
Still, i can't admire him for that.

[Beelzebub]

Not surprising he died of alcohol or drugs, he was severely wounded on his way back from india (in a rather impressive display of personal valour on his part), you can read an account here:

http://www.historynet.com/mh/bl_alexander_the_great/

The good part is on the 3rd page. With that kind of a wound, I'd probably be hitting the booze pretty heavily also.

[King Azzole]

I think you guys are forgetting what made him so great. It was the fact he brought greek culture throughout the world he conquered, which ultimately led to much of our culture today. The romans adopted alot if not most of the greek culture, which we emulate today in our politics even in western powers. So by conquering and doing these deeds he probobly was the single most influential person on western culture today. Just my 2 cents...

[Silver Rusher]

To be honest King Azzole, I think that Ceasar was a lot more influential on WESTERN culture, you can take examples from lots of things like how the roman alphabet is used in every country from here to Poland, and how so much of the culture we share today was created by the Romans.

Alexander could have been, but he was more interested in conquering Asia than Europe. Maybe the Macedonians didn't know that there was more of 'Europe' back then... But I hardly think that's likely.

[Colovion]

Not surprising he died of alcohol or drugs, he was severely wounded on his way back from india (in a rather impressive display of personal valour on his part), you can read an account here:

http://www.historynet.com/mh/bl_alexander_the_great/

The good part is on the 3rd page. With that kind of a wound, I'd probably be hitting the booze pretty heavily also.

Thanks for the link - that was awesome to read. ~:)

[King Azzole]

To be honest King Azzole, I think that Ceasar was a lot more influential on WESTERN culture, you can take examples from lots of things like how the roman alphabet is used in every country from here to Poland, and how so much of the culture we share today was created by the Romans.

Alexander could have been, but he was more interested in conquering Asia than Europe. Maybe the Macedonians didn't know that there was more of 'Europe' back then... But I hardly think that's likely.


Ceasar wouldnt have even existed if the greeks didnt do what they did. Again my meaning was that the "root" of most of western civilization comes from Alexander. Hence he is ultimately more influential than any roman.

[lars573]

You want to know something more interesting? Well I'll tell you as much as we here in the west love Alex-the-drunken-sodomizing-hillbilly-king-of-everything-he-pounded-6-inches-into-the-dirt-ander the persians hate him. Every year they still burn him in effigy in the more rural areas of Iran ala Guy Fawkes in england

[Beelzebub]

They're just sore losers. I hope the USA and Britain hurry up and invade them.

[Colovion]

You want to know something more interesting? Well I'll tell you as much as we here in the west love Alex-the-drunken-sodomizing-hillbilly-king-of-everything-he-pounded-6-inches-into-the-dirt-ander the persians hate him. Every year they still burn him in effigy in the more rural areas of Iran ala Guy Fawkes in england
they still burn Alexander effigies? holy cow that's hilarious

[Pruneau]

I loved the historical resume at historynet.com, but I simply adored this trilogy, which is a romanticized (and very accurate as far as i can tell) biography of Alexander from his childhood at the court of Philippos up to his death.

Alexander, child of a dream
Alexander, the sands of ammon
Alexander, the ends of the earth

by Valerio Massimo Manfredi, a professor of classical archaeology at Milan University. He is also a journalist and essayist, and that mix makes for a wonderful read.

Sorry about the plug :D

[Ludens]

One- the fact that Alexander's army slaughtered perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocents along the way- for example, when he reached Persepolis, he offered amnesty to the city if it surrendered, then let his troops loose to slaughter all the city's inhabitants when it accepted his offer.
Actually, Alexander was accused of being to merciful by the Athenians. He only sacked a city twice: Thebes and Persepolis. At Thebes he commanded a coalition of forces, most of which had a grudge to settle with Thebes and were not as loyal or as disciplined to him as the Macedonians. In effect: he could not have stopped the sack even if he tried. At Persepolis the story goes that he encountered the Greek slaves before he entered the city and was so moved by their pitifull appearance (because most of them had been mutiliated in some way) that he set his soldiers on the city. AFAIK the city had not surrendered, in fact authority had collapsed and people were loothing the palace. Alexander has accepted surrenders from ALL other cities (an exception was Tyre, but IIRC Tyre had killed Alexander's emmisaries, including a personal friend of his). Alexander was famous for accepting surrenders. He even recruited part of the Greek mercenaries that fought against him with Darius.


Entire cultures ceased to exist.
Exactly which cultures are you talking about?


Two- Alexander was insanely paranoid, and over the course of time had all of his high-level subcommanders executed or straight out killed them. Once, he killed one of his most devoted followers by spearing him during a party, in a drunken rage.
All of them? In case you haven't noticed, Ptolemy, Seleuces and another of Alexander's main generals survived him and started fighting amongst themselves. The ones who did not survive him are Parmenion, his son, Kleitos (the one speared at the party) and Hephaistion. Parmenion's son was part of a plot to kill Alexander. According to Macedonian law and practice, his relatives were to be killed as well to prevent a blood feud. There is even a historical evidence that indicates that Alexander first tested Parmenion for being part of the plot before killing him, but this could be 'wishfull interpreting'. Hephaistion died of disease, and Alexander went mad with grief. (Because Hephaistion was supposed to be his lover. Before anyone comments, homosexuality was encouraged in Greek society.)


Three- Alexander died because of his gross excesses on drugs and alcohol- mostly alcohol, as he appears to have had a case of severe alcoholism.
Yes, he probably drank a lot. All Macedonians drank a lot. Wine was the only thing to drink; you couldn't trust the water and people were a lot more resistant against alcohol than we are now. That doesn't say anything. Alexander performed some remarkable feats of physical endurance and survived wounds which would have killed most ordinary men. Hardly a drunkards constitution, isn't it?

There have been said a lot of bad things about Alexander, but these are almost secondary sources. The primary ones (Ptolemy and Aristobolous, transmitted to us through Arryan) seem to be very positive about him. Yes, the probably were baised, but his main detractors (the Athenians) were no less so and Alexander has been a favourite target of moralists ever since.
There is an aura of exagaration around him in both directions: the invincible, 'chivalric' warrior, or the paranoid, ruthless tyrant. Any book which shows only one side is thoroughly biased.


I have read Valerio Massimo Manfredi's books, but I wasn't that impressed by them. I didn't mind it much that he showed only the positive side of Alexander, but when Alexander comes to spend a night with the Queen of the Amazons ( ! ) , I decided I had enough.

[lonewolf371]

Alexander has to be at least one of the greatest leaders in history, but sometimes I think he is a bit overrated. There is a link on the .Org homepage to site which has a lot of interesting information about Alexander. By the time Alexander finally decided to conquer it, Persia was already in decline. In terms of tactics he actually didn't change his strategy hardly at all from battle to battle, generally he followed the Greek philosophy of smashing your enemy with overwhelming-superior-trained forces. His victories in India IMO were probably his most well-earned. As an adminstrator I also believe he wasn't quite as effective, he and his generals still offended many Persian customs. During his reign he attempted to blend Greek and Persian cultures but under the circumstances this was pretty much impossible, but Alexander ignored signs that hinted at this. All in all, I believe in his time Julius Caesar out-did more enemies and won greater victories than Alexander in his time.

[Suppiluliumas]

Penguin has a good, well balanced and well documented book on Alexander's life by Robin Lane Fox. I recommend it for any who are interested in the subject.

[PFJ_bejazuz]

Known to force his amorous attentions on swans when drunk too ...

Wasn't oppossed to crucifixion either.

Probably why his name hasn't filtered through history as Alexander the Nice.

I suppose 'Great' is a fairly subjective non de plume & open to various interpretations.

[Steppe Merc]

I admire Alexander, if only for his military genuis, and his bringing cavalry into the western military system.

To be honest King Azzole, I think that Ceasar was a lot more influential on WESTERN culture
Ceaser was nothing but a politician. I have little respect for Romans, save perhaps Scippi Africanus, if only for him being lucky against Hannibal.
And can you blame Alexander for wanting to go to Asia? It was far more rich than Europe.
While I know that Alexander was a drunkard, and killed many people, he was also a military genius.

All in all, I believe in his time Julius Caesar out-did more enemies and won greater victories than Alexander in his time.
It could also be said that the Gauls were in decline by the time that Gaius Julius Caesar decided to invade,

[oblivious maximus]

I admire Alex's accomlishments on the field but would never put him ahead of Caesar. Alex inherited an empire that soon crumbled, Caesar built one that lasted for centuries.
It was Persia that was on the decline after many wars with the Greeks.

Is there really enough evidence to convict this guy?