alexander the great was poisoned?

[DaciaJC]

Later on in his life, Alexander's megalomania, but mostly his blatant and repulsive absolutism was what turned people away. He became a despot of Stalinist proportions, and the fact one of his philosopher-companions reasoned that Alexandros' decisions were just and right merely because Alexander thought/said so, was not comforting at all.

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

Heh, I like that comedy troupe, but they are perpetuating yet another popular stereotype: Iskander's main weakness was his megalomania. Not really. It was his tyrannical, despotic, heavy-handed, bloody, and irrational rule at his last years that turned everyone against him. Seriously, everyone was relieved when he died. Not a good sign, hmmm-ah? (+10 if you get the reference )

[kekailoa]

Actually, I just read a book called Alexander the Great Failure, and I liked how the author wasn't kissing up to Alexander like everyone else. I guess kind of the opposite of what the OP's author was talking about...

[Aemilius Paulus]

I liked how the author wasn't kissing up to Alexander like everyone else

Odd that you say so. I never saw a serious book with the author not tempering the sweet approval of Alexander's early genius with bitter criticism or more accurately, bitter shaming, of Iskander's late "dementia". Every serious book usually starts of with a positive, yet sometimes scolding (Alexander's brashness and impatience) tone and then gets progressively darker - all of which was the reality with Alexandros.

And why in the bloody heck did the Horrible Histories claim "Iskander" is Turkish? It is not. It is Arabic, and I use it to reflect the double nature of Alexander. Alexandros the Greek hero is a shining legend of Hellenic greatness - the most heroic, epic tale of the glorious conquest of an empire to rival anything else. Achilles is the individual of mythology, a single warrior, yet no one greater there is than him. But Alexander is the creator of a Greek global hegemony, the wildest wet dream of the local nationalists - which are quite active these years in Greece.

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

[Vasiliyi]

I read the argument and rebuttal at work and I find it quite interesting, but i dont think Ill be adding anything to this arguement, as my knowledge on Alexander is limited. Dont want to end up getting flamed.

[kekailoa]

Odd that you say so. I never saw a serious book with the author not tempering the sweet approval of Alexander's early genius with bitter criticism or more accurately, bitter shaming, of Iskander's late "dementia". Every serious book usually starts of with a positive, yet sometimes scolding (Alexander's brashness and impatience) tone and then gets progressively darker - all of which was the reality with Alexandros.

And why in the bloody heck did the Horrible Histories claim "Iskander" is Turkish? It is not. It is Arabic, and I use it to reflect the double nature of Alexander. Alexandros the Greek hero is a shining legend of Hellenic greatness - the most heroic, epic tale of the glorious conquest of an empire to rival anything else. Achilles is the individual of mythology, a single warrior, yet no one greater there is than him. But Alexander is the creator of a Greek global hegemony, the wildest wet dream of the local nationalists - which are quite active these years in Greece.

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

Well, to explain, most authors tend to display Alexander as the best thing since sliced bread, but corrupted by the influences of the east and his own personality defects. (At least in my experience). Also, most people who have read a little of history but not extensively tend to bathe Alexander in a golden light also, without looking at the whole picture. I dislike how much how authors and novice historians make Alexander out to be the most amazing historical figure ever. Not to say his accomplishments were not amazing and incredible (all but impossible for anyone before or after), but there was, like you said, a powerful dark side to Alexander and while of course you can recognize his talent and prowess, to really understand him you have to examine the while picture, not just the pretty stuff. A lot of authors, in my opinion, tend to gloss over that to continue the image of the golden Alexander.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

Well, Alexander was a conquerer, the greatest of all times, and a certain ambivalence is the nature of all conquest - one side gets the fame and the other one the grief.

I have often thought of what would have happened if the Great had stopped in Babylon, leaving Iran alone. There would have been a truly different empire. A cohesive Makedonian empire that would have been much stronger than the successor states. But knowing where to stop requires great wisdom, and going to the extremes in every aspect was a central trait of Alexander's character. If he had stopped, he would not have been the Great as the greatest of all times, just a mere Frederick II. Who's great enough in my opinion, and more successful in the long run, but with just that Alexander could have never been satisfied. He wanted everything, and yes in that regard his death was a relieve. Empires take time, the slower they grow, the longer they last.

[antisocialmunky]

Perhaps Alexander became ill and then everyone decided to poison him so it would just look like he got sick and died.

[The General]

Empires take time, the slower they grow, the longer they last.

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

Hmm, this requires an unambiguous definition of "continuity". What is it? late Byzantine Empire and Roman Republic differed far too greatly. What defines a continuing institution? One may say the government, the fact that the Byzantine considered themselves Romans. Hence the name of Byzantium - Nova Roma. Constantinople was the unofficial, popular name.

That is splendid, but what shall we make of Charlemagne's Empire? Or that of Otto I? What is the difference between Holy Roman Empire and that of the Byzantines? Both considered themselves as the continuation of Rome.

Or if you truly wish to make a farcical argument, then why not consider the Tsardom of Russia? After all, Ivan III, the Grand Duke of Muscovy married Sophia Paleologue. And she was the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Konstantinos XI Palaiologo. This and the fact that Moskva was the only remaining major (the Southern Slavs in the Balkans were subdued by the Ottomans) Eastern Orthodox capital made Kremlin adopt the "Third Rome" doctrine. Basically, Russia was the heir of Rome, even though it was in a rather more religious context. "Tsar" entered the Russian usage, derived from "Caesar".

Next, Mehmed II, the vanquisher of the Byzantines, was likewise not immune to self-flattery. After his momentous conquest, he self-styled himself as a "Caesar" (Kyiser) of the Romans (Rum). Evidence aplenty exists that he did aim to conquer Rome itself, but then he was killed. It is regrettable that the subsequent Sultans did not care for the significance of their past conquest as much, or to be accurate, at all.

All throughout history numerous figures and nations have claimed themselves the continuation of Rome, so a definition is needed. Otherwise, Russia has not too shabby of a claim that it was the third manifestation, third continuation of the fabled Roman Empire. That is obviously a nationalistic, pompous pretence, but without a valid definition of what constitutes as "continuation of an empire", the claim is as good as any.

[antisocialmunky]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

I don't want to start this debate but ERE was more of a continuence in institutions directly created by the Roman Empire rather than the same Roman Empire. More of a Rome In Name Only which everyone knew and talked behind their backs about. You could argue that the attempt at reconquering the Empire was the death of the Roman Empire when that failed because it was at there point, the Byzantines went their own way and gave up on the past.

EDIT:
Whoops, looks like someone already started it lol.

[Andros Antonius]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

It is true that slower growing empires last longer, and I think even the true Roman empire without the Byzantines lasted long enough, and their legacy definitely lives on today. No wonder so many later nations tried to consider themselves their spiritual successors. Besides, for the later half of the Byzantine empire, it was more Greek in character than Roman.

But if you really want to think of a long running empire or nation, don't forget Ancient Egypt, which I think maintained a consistent culture for over 2000 years, even though the dynasties and kingdoms weren't always continuous. Or better yet, China is one of the oldest cultures that has survived intact for millennia, with the same people ruling except for a few occasions like the Mongol conquest.

[Atraphoenix]

I recently saw a pretty funny video portraying Alexander's megalomania.

I confirm that it is really true İskenderun means "of Alexander" in old Turkish, it just changed to "İskenderin" in modern Turkish. Arabic "Iskenderiye" with phoenic notation IPA TR: ıskɛndɛru:n ARB: ıskɛndɛri:jɛ... (correct me if mistaken with IPA)

[Andros Antonius]

I confirm that it is really true İskenderun means "of Alexander" in old Turkish, it just changed to "İskenderin" in modern Turkish. Arabic "Iskenderiye" with phoenic notation IPA TR: ıskɛndɛru:n ARB: ıskɛndɛri:jɛ... (correct me if mistaken with IPA)

Is that all based on his Persian name?

And I doubt Ptolemy was really responsible, but who knows. I always thought that poison was one of the main accepted causes of death, aside from the actual fever. Anyway, I haven't read up on Alexander in years but it's an interesting topic.

[Atraphoenix]

Is that all based on his Persian name?

And I doubt Ptolemy was really responsible, but who knows. I always thought that poison was one of the main accepted causes of death, aside from the actual fever. Anyway, I haven't read up on Alexander in years but it's an interesting topic.

AFAIK all derived from old Persian, Skandar or Iskandar.