Was Alexander Great?

Feb 2019
345
California
#1
IMHO, though far from perfect (indeed) the closest thing to a living god there ever was. ALWAYS leading from the front. Fighting CONSTANTLY. Winning EVERY SINGLE BATTLE. Winning EVERY SINGLE SIEGE. And there were the conquests......

Yet I sense so much revisionism around here whenever his name comes up. So, was Alex truly the loser that y'all seem to think?
 
Jul 2018
497
Hong Kong
#6
He was incredible, definitely. But it was obvious that many satraps / nobles / local prominent leaders within the Persian Empire had no desire to sacrifice their life and status just for "fighting-to-the-death" with Alexander the "Great" and his dreadful Macedonian-Greek army, as well as masses of Persian soldiers and civilians. If they really thought so, Alexander won't be able to conquer the Persians with just several crushing victories.

In fact, they even defected to Alexander the Great en masse when the situation went downward for the Persian Empire. This factor should not be looked down. I remembered the "queen" of somewhere in Asia Minor adopted Alexander as his "son" ? During the Siege of Tyre, Alexander earned 100+ vessels which played a crucial role to the fall of Tyre. Egypt surrendered and welcomed him as the "liberator" without a fight ! The Sogdian warlord Spitamenes who bitterly fought against Alexander with guerilla raids even once "temporarily cooperated" with him !

Of course, we always attribute the success of military conquest to a single hero who was so awesome. Indeed, things is certainly not that simple. If Alexander the Great could not obtain the vast support of subjects / satraps / nobles within the Persian Empire, do you think he could achieve his imperial dream ? That's why he dedicate so much effort in winning the heart of the Persians, and also of the Medians, Egyptians, Indians, other ethnics...he was extraordinarily great not simply because of his excellent military leadership — he thought far farther beyond any ordinary person nowadays.

Alexander the Great's victory was not simply the result of his military awesomeness, but the consequence of great game of plentiful of players. The ancient historical works always focus on several prominent heroes or villains, or several crucial battles and sieges for protruding their greatness or incompetence. Indeed, every person is bornt with blood and brains. The entire situation was always far much complicated beyond our comprehension — you surely know this when studying the modern history because the information is as much as flakes of snow filling the sky.

Of course, he was great, but that doesn't mean his greatness was far greater than numerous of contemporary prominent people — or you seriously think that his genius reached the level that none of the contemporary people comparable with him ? And we should not forget the fact those royal-bornt princes always received the best education under the guidance of best tutors. In cite, Alexander had Aristotle as his great mentor.

When we analyze is someone great or not, we have to focus on multiple people, more better, for weaving the more accurate picture.
 
Feb 2018
205
US
#8
Alexander the Great was easily among the most renowned, quite possibly the most renowned, person across a large swathe of Eurasia, even well into the medieval period. Has any non religious text/story ever had the impact of the Alexander Romance? Whether it was Scipio and Hannibal's admiration for him, or the powerful imprint his tales made on even the western Christians and nomads of the medieval period, his legacy burned brighter than virtually any other. It is very difficult to argue that someone with that extraordinary of impact was not great.
 

Similar History Discussions