Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

[Claude]

This is a pretty straightforward question.

In my opinion Alexander is so overrated it's saddening. As a general he was more lucky than tactical and I attribute a lot of his successes to the stupidity and arrogance of the Persians. Few battles like Tyre do I truly applaud his ingenuity.

On a personal level I detest Alexander. His actions and attitudes following the death of Darius are so outlandish that they're almost comical. This really bleeds through into his politics too which honestly require a whole new post to explain how bad they were.

So what do you lot think?

PS this question popped up because I met a Hellene about two years ago who worshiped Alexander as if he were Hercules or Theseus which I just thought was insane and hubris

[Riothamus12]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

This is a pretty straightforward question.

In my opinion Alexander is so overrated it's saddening. As a general he was more lucky than tactical and I attribute a lot of his successes to the stupidity and arrogance of the Persians. Few battles like Tyre do I truly applaud his ingenuity.

On a personal level I detest Alexander. His actions and attitudes following the death of Darius are so outlandish that they're almost comical. This really bleeds through into his politics too which honestly require a whole new post to explain how bad they were.

So what do you lot think?

PS this question popped up because I met a Hellene about two years ago who worshiped Alexander as if he were Hercules or Theseus which I just thought was insane and hubris

Genius though he was in battle, Alexander who wept when he saw he had not conquered a single world was stricken with madness and hubris.He thought himself a God when he was but a mortal with particular lust for cruelty and bloodshed who perhaps only ever loved his mother, Hephaestion, his horse, and his dear Roxana as human beings. Iskander the destroyer who though masterful in the ways of violence who sought to elevate himself above all others gave into depravity and the slothfulness that often comes with the luxury of kings. Aye Alexander, slayer, megalomaniac, king fell from the heights of power before had even lain in his grave.

Brilliant though he was with regards to military matters, you are right. His actions even by the standards of his day were rather detestable in many regards and to my own perceptions deserves less praise than he receives.

[Louisvillian]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

Does he deserve his current level of:
Fame? Yes. Gods, yes. He was probably one the most important human beings in history. Not just Western history; human history.

Praise? Shit, no. He was a slaughterer, murderer, butcher, conqueror..a warmonger, who would be reviled and detested in modern day. Even in his own time, the vastness of his conquests and battles, the bloodshed, was overwhelming and criticised. And his inability to truly construct a solid empire was seen as a tragedy, a folly of his own excesses and love of combat.

[Claude]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

Why do you believe he is so important?

[Louisvillian]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

Why do you believe he is so important?

In a nutshell: he and his immediate successors spread Greek culture across the Mediterranean, Near East, and Persia. His reign singlehandedly started the Hellenistic period. And thus he can be ascribed credit for all that accompanied it: the Roman Empire, Western Civilization, the Renaissance, Imperialism, and Modernity. For good or for ill, those are some pretty big things.

[Unus Mundus]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

I'd liken Alexander to Hitler, incredibly "infamous/famous," bloodthirsty, a conqueror, loved in a very strange way. He may not have done "good things" but he did memorable and world-shaping things.

[Riothamus12]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

I'd liken Alexander to Hitler, incredibly "infamous/famous," bloodthirsty, a conqueror, loved in a very strange way. He may not have done "good things" but he did memorable and world-shaping things.

This precisely.

[Claude]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

In a nutshell: he and his immediate successors spread Greek culture across the Mediterranean, Near East, and Persia. His reign singlehandedly started the Hellenistic period. And thus he can be ascribed credit for all that accompanied it: the Roman Empire, Western Civilization, the Renaissance, Imperialism, and Modernity. For good or for ill, those are some pretty big things.

I think assuming that without Alexander the Romans would not have been what they were is a bit of a stretch. Also I've always felt that Alexander was a massive failure at spreading Hellenism. He adopted Persian dress and customs after the death of Darius and his successors did little to further Greek culture. The Ptolemies in Egypt almost completely went native. The Seleucids were the only ones that you could really point a finger out and say ya that's Greek.

[Louisvillian]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

I think assuming that without Alexander the Romans would not have been what they were is a bit of a stretch.

The Romans may have spread as they did, but they wouldn't have spread Hellenistic culture. And a great deal of Roman civilisation was Greek-influenced, especially as time went on.

[Claude]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

See now you have to define Hellenism and point out the Hellenistic aspects of Roman culture. :P

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

See now you have to define Hellenism and point out the Hellenistic aspects of Roman culture. :P

I'd agree with your position considering Alexander was Macedonian which was not part of Hellenic Greece which most would attribute to Athens, Sparta, etc not Macedonia which would be closer to Thracian in influence. If I was looking to a figure that supposedly influences Roman perspective from Hellenic influence then I'd select the stories of Orestes and how that changed a lot of Roman perspectives though I also acknowledge a lot of Roman perspective also derives from Etruscan influences more than Hellenic.

[Watchful Wanderer]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

Well, he at least deserves more credit than all of Rome combined.

[thalassa]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

Well, he at least deserves more credit than all of Rome combined.

I disagree completely. Area of land conquered does not an empire make. His generals and heirs practically started carving up the lands he'd taken over before his body even had a chance to cool.

[Claude]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

Well, he at least deserves more credit than all of Rome combined.

Once again inaccurate statements. Alexander deserves far far less credit than all of Rome. If you believe that he furthered Hellenism then you are sadly mistaken. There is no question among scholars that he was thoroughly Easternized after taking Persepolis and Babylon. That's part of the reason why there were so many attempts made of on his life by his own Macedonian generals. They were sick of being ruled over by someone who had abandoned his ancestral customs.

[Louisvillian]

Re: Does Alexander the Great Deserve as Much Fame as He Has?

The argument isn't that he himself spread Hellenic culture; quite frankly, he didn't stabilize his empire well enough to spread any particular culture and solidify it. The argument, I think, is that he set the stage for the broader Hellenization of the Mediterranean and the Near East by conquering those areas and letting them end up inherited by his Hellenistic-inclined generals.