okamido

With all of the ruckus between the Pro-Caesar and Pro-Alexander factions on the board, I thought perhaps a more in-depth view of Alexander should be considered. I myself find Alexander a fascinating person while still acknowledging his failings. He started with a bang but in the end began "believing his own press" so to speak, which only led to his own fall.

He, his armies, and his Hellenistic spread accomplished a great many things in the the ancient world as well as inspiring those who came later. So where shall we start?

okamido

The Siege of the Sogdian Rock

Alexander and 300 of his men laid siege to an impenetrable fortress high in the mountain ranges of Sogdiana. Outnumbered by 100 to 1, Alexander ordered them to surrender. The reply of the dfenders was that they were well supplied and fortified for a siege, and that Alexander would need "men with wings" to take the city. Alexander asked for volunteers to scale the cliffs that supported the fortress in the dead of night, when they completed their task they waved linen in the night sky, signalling their success. Alexander told the defenders to look up, the defenders saw the Macedonians above them and surrendered the city, without a single blow. A masterful use of psycological warfare that would make Sun-Tzu proud.

~Tawananna~

Loved your remark about Sun-Tzu
Oh, and btw nice avatar.

okamido

Thank you

gaius valerius

I find him fascinating to, a (near) genius though a flawed one, I'd never see him as the greatest genius of the classic era, but I would always put him number 1 in being the guy living up to his megalomaniac dreams (like reaching the end of the known world and such), one must give him the willpower to endure on that ridiculous yet amazing ideal.

okamido

I'm not even sure if I would claasify him as a genius, and I am in the "pro-faction". I will say that I believe him to have been a true force of nature, and perhaps that is why he was so beloved, his pure will and the superhuman drive of his armies.

gaius valerius

I wouldn't exactly use the term either, not without serious doubts though... I mostly seem him as a genius in terms of mindset, the tasks he set himself to do and which he did pursue to the friggin end of the world. If not a genius I would still classify him just below, still seriously flawed. His greatest assets was his personality (his dreams his vices and all the rest), which isn't necessarily positive of course, but rather I'd call it fascinating and intriguing.

okamido

With this, I can agree wholeheartedly with you.

avon

What is 'great'? What is 'greatness'? What is 'genius'?

the_accursed

He wasn't. He was a mediocre general, a poor soldier and an extremely poor king. Few Macedonian kings before or after weakened the Macedonian empire as much as Alexander III did. He was probably the worst king ancient Macedonia ever produced. During his short career, his own people tried to kill him a number of times and seem to have hated him more than even his enemies did. So much for his supposed "charisma". And when not committing genocide in India, he kept busy by murdering his own generals, sometimes with his own bare hands.

The question I ask myself is: why the obsession in this sub-forum with Alexander III of Macedonia? Why not, say, Philip II vs. Julius Caesar, Seleucus I vs. Germanicus, and a Greek army led by Parmenion vs. a Roman army?