h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Welcome to the second Mustapha Initiated Discussion. This discussion is in relation to the Link of the Week "Alexander the Great - or was he?"

Alexander was a GREAT military man, with an astonishing degree of success on the battlefield. That much is undisputed.

But was he really a GREAT king or leader? He abandoned his own subjects to go on a seemingly endless quest for conquest. He killed anyone who disagreed with him. He twice drove his army to the point of rebellion. He forced his own people to relocate to his new territories. Certainly the people he conquered didn't think he was all that wonderful, and even today their descendants don't call him Great, but 'the Devil'.

Yes, I AM judging him by today's standards. But what makes a great leader by those standards? Has there ever been a truly great leader, or are they all just a bunch of power hungry w@$kers?

Was Alexander really great? Before I answer that, I think I must warn you all that I am in fact Macedonian. I don't mean that I am a reincarnated soul, I mean my family is from Macedonia. They left Macedonia in the early part of this century and immigreated to the United States. Both of my parents are Macedonian, and the language in spoken in their home. As a result, I may be slightly biased in the following thoughts. Fair warning.

Yes, Alexander really was Great. Why you ask? First, he did something that up until then no one else had. He conquered the known world. By todays standards, anyone who does something previously unheard of is usually called Great. Just ask Wayne 'The Great One' Gretzky.

I noticed that the article linked did not reference the library he founded in the city that still bears his name. Alexandria. I may be mistaken, but I believe that before it was destroyed by fire, it was the largest known repository of knowledge anywhere in the world. I'd call that some pretty impressive (great) philanthropy to say the least. Alexandria itself was a center of arts and culture if I remember correctly.

I will admit (though a bit grudgingly) that he was rather rough around the edges. But lets also remember that he was very young. He died before he had time to mature, or to gain wisdom. It might be interesting to draw parallels between Alexander and some recent celebrties/athelets who shine brightly for a few years and meet untimely ends.

And finally, very few leaders who have had 'the Great' tacked on to their names were really nice guys. Charlemange could get pretty rough, or so I have heard. I don't know enough about the Tsarina Catherine to offer any thoughts. Can you think of some others?

First of all, let me say thanks for dropping by and taking part. I had no idea Alex's cultural descendents would be joining in but if anyone's going to bat for him I couldn't think of anyone better qualified.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the man. I wouldn't mind taking over the known world by the time I'm 30, but at the moment my greatest victories include finding a carpark at the supermarket and winning $20 in the lottery.

However starting a debate does entail taking up the role of devil's advocate (OK, I actually enjoy that part quite a bit).

But back to Alexander. The main argument is with the use of the word Great, which adds a positive spin to the man and everything he did, good, bad or great. And it is a word that is applied arbitrarily and often culturally (re: Alexander as viewed from a Western perspective).

If I were to compare you to Alexander the Great, you may well take that as a compliment. If, on the other hand, I were to compare you to Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan (equally accomplished military types) you might take offense. Just on the wrong team I guess.

Oh, and K Alfred of Wessex and Popes Leo (good mate of Attila's) & Gregory

No offfense taken at all. I have been known to (gleefully) play devils advocate from time to time as well.

And I think you have made a good point. I can't expect all the peoples he rolled over to think as highly of him as we Macedonians do. And I think I would aslo agree that in most of Europe, his reputation was well kept, if not enhanced by the Romans who came after. After all, he set an example for them and at the same time left them largely unmolested by his appetite for conquest.

I am however going to stick to my guns and maintain that he deserved the honorific Great. No leader, ancient or modern, no matter how positive their accomplishments has pleased all people simultaneously. Sure, some were better than others, and some were just terrible. Ivan the Terrible springs to mind.

While Alexander conquered, he was spreading his culture all over the place. But he wasn't committing genocide. Conquered territories were allowed to maintain at least some of their traditions and goverments etc. Thats exceptionally rare, even today.

So even when Alexander was getting a bit out of hand, either with wine or blood lust, he was nowhere near as bad as he could easily have been. I maintain that his contribution to posterity was,in the broad view, positive.

Alexander's "Great," like so many leaders after him, was a self-styled affectation. Meaning, he told everyone to call him that, and they did so because of the massive army at his back that never seemed to lose.

However, if you consider the impact he had on Western culture, his greatness must be respected. His father conquered Greece, and saw that it was good, so he adopted the Greek culture, and raised his son in it. Alexander's subsequent adventures spread that culture to the ends of the known earth. The result is an early renaissance, with Arabic, Egyptian, and Greek knowledge being pooled together in Alexandria. It also set the stage for the Hellenization of the Roman Republic, which would grow to become the greatest nation in history.

This means, of course, that Alexander's true "greatness" occurred mostly by accident. But did Russia's Peter or Catherine accomplish so much?

The affectation of "the Great" is an interesting one, and certainly in early medieval times one that was usually applied by others posthumously. Charles "the Great" (Charlemagne) was given later (though not much later - see Einhard), as was Alfred the Great.

I actually think that Alfred stands out in the Team of Greatness as a guy who really did nothing more than defend and re-establish his domain - the only people he may have offended were the Scandinavian invaders, but frankly they probably deserved it. He was also responsible for something of a literary and cultural renaissance.

The Alexander points have all been well-made. I would agree that Greatness really depends upon the sphere one is talking about AND upon one's particular interests and biases. Genghis Khan was "Great", for example, but not to non-Mongols who had to deal with his flair for territorial expansion.

Good idea these weekly discussions.

Cheers
Bran.

But without the menaces of Genghis, would you still have the necessary ingredients for nationalism that led to the formation (or at least the solidification) of a number of Eastern European countries. Such internal influences are regarded as heroes (and thus great), external ones are seen as evil.

Yes ... one could ask the same question of the Vikings. Would we have had a unified "Angle-land" without the Vikings having dispatched the Kings of East Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia ... thus leaving Alfred in Wessex to rebuild and for his successors to form (eventually) England? Were the Vikings the real unifiers here and not the dynasty of Alfred?

I guess the appellation of "greatness" pre-supposes that the individual in question is great in all aspects of their life ... which is ususally not the case in reality. To a certain extent it is a moral judgement about a person's actions ... and a highly loaded one. Interesting ...

Cheers
Bran.

I think that particular point is moot, as William the Conqueror would have unified the country, and had an easier time of it if it was still split into factions.

Actually it was because England was still split by power struggles that William had the good luck/good timing to take on Harold Godwinson when he did, barely a month after the Battle of Stamford Bridge with the Earl of Northumbria and Harald Hardrada of Norway.

But Duc Guillaume is an interesting point. Why isn't HE called Great? Why is the final solidifier of the English nation, its first modern king and indeed Edward the Confessor (Harold's predecessor) first choice as successor, called Conqueror and regarded, along with his Norman kin, as an invader?

It is an interesting question as to whether William would have had an easier time of the country was split into separate kingdoms (leaving aside the fact that he would not have been born if there had not been a unified England anyway ... too many paradox's there). In some respects, he was able to claim the entire country after one major battle, as opposed to the several he would have had to fight if he was after separate kingdoms. I would actually argue that the whole process would have been a great deal longer if England was not already at least nominally one kingdom. William was thus able to affect a complete Norman ascendency within one decade - all the important secular and ecclesiastical leaders were Normans by 1075-80.

I'm not sure who called William "Conqueror". It would be useful to find out in order to answer your question Mustapha. Oh, you asked me a question about Merovingian genealogies a few weeks ago, and I have lost it or forgotten it. Do you happen to remember what it was?

Cheers
Bran.

Yeah, I found a couple of them on the internet, one goes back to before Christ. Actually someone pointed them back out to me with links in a separate discussion thread on my Merovingian Entry, check it out, it's the one entitled Le Bon Roi Dagobert.

I don't remember my exact question at the time but it probably would've been "Is it an authentic Frankish genealogy?" and if so where did it come from. Whether or not the Franks themselves got it right or not is irrelevant.