This movie tries hard to make Alexander into a great hero, but he just comes off as completely insane. His mommy and daddy issues tearing his mind apart and his senseless, endless drive into Asia, are these supposed to be the features of a sane mind and great ruler? This movie did a great job of making Alexander appear totally nuts.
shareAlexander was not "nuts" as you so ineloquently describe his behavior.
May I suggest you read about the man, the ruler, the companion, the son, before you form an opinion based on a movie,many regard as flawed?
He was driven,highly emotional,and like most of us, affected by events or circumstances in childhood. A complex young man, prone to "hissy fits", who wanted to love and be loved.
Thus too was Marcus Antoninus, but who calls him "nuts"?
Sane? I'd say so, and a great conqueror, leader of people and brilliant general, and strategist.
That Alexander was nuts is a common view, shared by many historians. Like, for example, Victor Davis Hanson, Richard A. Gabriel, Ian Worthington and many others. To me, you seem far too defensive when you write about Alexander. Even in antiquity, Alexander was labelled "murderous and melancholy mad" and a decadent and cruel king. The Greeks hated him, many of his own Macedonian soldiers came to consider him a traitor, and the Romans seem to largely have considered him a king who was corrupted by his successes and who became a cruel and decadent tyrant. So the view that Alexander was nuts is one that has a long history.
I must admit, when I read your posts, I wonder just how much you'd even care about Alexander and his life if he'd been heterosexual. I think then perhaps you'd have expressed more sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who died because of Alexander, many of them civilians. Some of them, like the Branchidae, approached him and his army unarmed, with flowers in their hands. I believe they were about 40.000. They too were men, women, sons and daughters, with hopes and dreams and who wanted to love and be loved. Alexander had them all massacred. Just one of countless of massacres of civilians during Alexander's brutal and bloody reign.
Given the fact that his defender mentioned nothing of his sexuality, one has to wonder if perchance YOU are the one obsessed with it.
shareExactly. Thank you.
shareThat Alexander's sexuality is the main reason for why ronfirv is a "defender", as you put it, of Alexander is utterly obvious, and this opinion is based on his many other posts on this board, not merely on the post in this thread.
Had Alexander been heterosexual, he and many other of Alexander's apologists would likely have cared considerably less about Alexander's supposed need "to love and be loved", and more about the hopes and dreams of the many men, women and children that Alexander massacred.
Alexander the Great saved Western civilisation by his conquests, for which until today we must honour him. He was not the aggressor, per se, but a defender of Greece and the rest of Europe as it then was.
I admire his self-confidence, his military strategies, his leadership skills, his verve & outstanding charisma.
He was ruthless, as he had to be ; his was a war where both sides could not afford the luxury of taking prisoners - too much at stake, by far.
Pity many of our politicians in Europe right now didn't have even a small streak of his resolve & abilities to defend their (& our) countries.
[deleted]
I agree in as much as Alexander's aim was not to save the West but that was the result.
He took pre-emptive action so only to that extent(& we're splitting hairs now)he can be termed an aggressor. The Persians wanted to conquer the Greek city states,so they were an ever-present threat. The young king seized the initiative & against all odds, levelled them. For that, hail Alexander!
The destruction of Persepolis was very unfortunate but in war, we all witness silly mistakes or errors of judgement. S*** happens!
Horrible man? I wouldn't go as far as to write that of him. He had warts of course but don't we all?
[deleted]
I did admit the destruction of Persepolis was unfortunate.
You judge Alexander by the standards of the 21stC., when we should be judging him by the standards of his times, which is what I have tried to do. Vile? No. Ruthless? Yes, but great leaders usually are,always have been.
His name has lasted for thousands of years and will last into eternity.
After all, to the victor the spoils............(it's not, never has been about being "a nice man",or a decent fellow).
As for executing some of his troops for suspected treason - would you allow an enemy, living beside you, a second hit at you, by devious,nefarious means at a time or place of his choosing? He eliminated a clear and ever-present threat to preserve his Life. That's human nature. I would like to think that in his shoes I would have had the courage to have done the same. I am all but sure his Companions would have found enough circumstantial evidence against the miscreants before Alexander called for their deaths. There are a few modern examples of eliminating a threat by pre-emptive strikes, usually extremely effective.
Alexander didn't save western civilization and was certainly not a defender of Greece. If the persians had conquered all the greek citystates in the Persian Wars, it wouldn't have been the end of the westeren civilization, because the persians didn't care about which goverment system their subject states employed, as long as they paid their taxes and provided solders to the persian empire, the persians would be content. This is evident when you look at why zoroastrianism didn't spread outside the persian empire, because they didn't force their religion upon other people. Furthermore more greeks fought against Alexander than with him, Darius III employed about 50 000 greek mercenaries, where Alexander only had 7000.
Alexander also didn't care about democracy or winning the freedom for the greeks living in Ionia. He used these causes as a pretext for gaining support for his campaign against the persians. This becomes more evident when you see that he had no qualms about destroying Thebes and why he was apprehensive about using the athenian navy fleet, because he distrusted their loyalty.
However he was a great leader and a military strategist
This comment just reeks of homophobia.
share