tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post454763556884317951..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Alexander the What?The Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-79040759367871487312016-11-10T06:38:03.297-08:002016-11-10T06:38:03.297-08:00It was Charlemagne's son Louis that split the ...It was Charlemagne's son Louis that split the kingdom. Charlemagne's lasting legacy is probably the modern boundaries of France and Germany, and a lot of medieval literature about his knights.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-78824111966882592612016-11-10T03:59:03.187-08:002016-11-10T03:59:03.187-08:00I think Macedon was a kingdom that needed a king t...I think Macedon was a kingdom that needed a king to make it work, in the sense that everyone else was just a power hungry noble.<br /><br />As for Charlemagne, didn't he split the kingdom on his death?The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-61498416611429794322016-11-09T14:09:49.778-08:002016-11-09T14:09:49.778-08:00Very true. It is easy to look at the past with mod...Very true. It is easy to look at the past with modern eyes.Ben Catohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00132734496369774300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-49381403151218975052016-11-09T12:16:04.354-08:002016-11-09T12:16:04.354-08:00Isn't that the case with any warrior kingdom? ...Isn't that the case with any warrior kingdom? Back full circle to Macedon again.<br /><br />I forgot about Charlemagne. Lasting legacy = France? If so, that's a reasonable claim to 'greatness'.nundankethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12895608927860103442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-69725826051941258132016-11-09T03:49:57.643-08:002016-11-09T03:49:57.643-08:00Yes, pretty much too many heirs. It's a common...Yes, pretty much too many heirs. It's a common story in Scandinavian kingships; the heirs either slaughter each other or things fall apart. There were also external forces at work that made things worse.<br /><br />You could be right about the personal aspect. The empire needs something more than one charismatic leader to endure. I sometimes think that it is the bureaucracies that really hold empires together.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-19003646079197818892016-11-09T01:58:56.481-08:002016-11-09T01:58:56.481-08:00Didn't Cnut's empire fall apart because of...Didn't Cnut's empire fall apart because of an oversupply of heirs who didn't agree? <br /><br />Perhaps all empires which are 'personal' are destined to fail, one way or another. Which makes Charles V's decision to split the Hapsburg empire between Spain and Austria look more sensible. after all, most of the territories were only held because he happened to be someone's son.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-74131345352274081502016-11-09T01:51:20.995-08:002016-11-09T01:51:20.995-08:00Agreed, it's relative to the country and it...Agreed, it's relative to the country and it's a retrospective judgement. If one were inclined, there might be some mileage in checking how and why these leaders gained the epithet, who assigned it, and what those people gained from doing so.<br /><br />Cnut's an interesting bod. It's his fault that London is the capital of England, and there are various institutions that result from his reforms and laws. He ruled a mini-empire that included Norway, Denmark, England, the Faroes, Shetland and Orkney. Unfortunately, it all fell apart after his death. I sense a pattern here ...Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-51702960486165203432016-11-09T01:03:56.322-08:002016-11-09T01:03:56.322-08:00Interesting, yes. The most I know from school abou...Interesting, yes. The most I know from school about Cnut was the thing about the waves.<br /><br />'Greatness' seems to be relative to the country, and seems usually to be retrospective. It also seems to attach only to leaders; we rarely get great attached to, say, prime ministers.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-45355157034384411712016-11-09T00:58:42.553-08:002016-11-09T00:58:42.553-08:00I suppose that, from the Greek perspective and the...I suppose that, from the Greek perspective and the heirs to that - Romans and successor western states, he is Great, having spread Hellenistic ideas across the Persian world. On the other hand, the Greeks kept rebelling against his rule.<br /><br />Funny thing, history. The more you look at it, the more complex it gets.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-70018265115199021352016-11-08T23:34:36.407-08:002016-11-08T23:34:36.407-08:00Don't forget Cnut the Great, the other king of...Don't forget Cnut the Great, the other king of the English who had that epithet. :)<br /><br />Charlemagne (Carolus magnus) too.<br /><br />Greatness will always be limited in one way or another. Alfred's work had a lasting effect in England, yet some students have not even heard of him these days. Cnut's regime also affected the shape of England today, although he was not taught as 'Great' when I were a lad. If we insist on a global context though, I'm not sure anyone counts as 'Great'.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-89385444448613631452016-11-08T23:28:52.182-08:002016-11-08T23:28:52.182-08:00Yes, understanding the context for the epithet giv...Yes, understanding the context for the epithet gives you a position from which to examine it, and then to consider other aspects of his reputation.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-21222469203447045552016-11-08T15:43:10.039-08:002016-11-08T15:43:10.039-08:00Oh, and how many other 'the Greats' deserv...Oh, and how many other 'the Greats' deserved the epithet? Apart from Alec, what about Frederick? Catherine? Alfred? And outside England (and the Anglophone world?), is Alfred known as the Great? And how come Napoleon isn't?<br /><br />I can't think of any Fritzian legacies that last to our current day (as achievements). Catherine's territorial legacy has largely gone (though is seeing a resurgence under Uncle Vlad). Apart from that she left a nice gallery in St Pete's. Alf seems to have done a lot of good with the written word, but beyond England does that amount to much? That probably just leaves Peter.<br /><br />Within narrow frames of reference they all do deserve it to an extent. But still?nundankethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12895608927860103442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-35372815892174890332016-11-08T15:33:33.729-08:002016-11-08T15:33:33.729-08:00I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. I...I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. In the 'West' he is generally thought of as the Great and the educated talk of his merging of Greek and Persian culture. As I understand it, in modern 'Persian' culture (Iran and the wider Farsi sphere) there are folk tales of the evil Iskander and what he might do to naughty children (much like the Austrian Santa Claus).nundankethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12895608927860103442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-75008246244803408012016-11-08T06:17:26.472-08:002016-11-08T06:17:26.472-08:00Thank you, useful. I, of course, am also a useless...Thank you, useful. I, of course, am also a useless potter, so can I be great? After all, as a solo wargamer, I never loose a battle either...<br /><br />I doubt if we can lose the great bit, but I do think that a bit more of a critical eye should be cast over the reputation. 'Great' for whom? The ordinary Persian on the Sardis chariot? The slaughtered Greek mercenaries at Granicus? The inhabitants of Tyre?<br /><br />Of course, the reputation depends on your 'frame'. If your criterion for great is conquering the known world, then Alexander deserves it. If your criterion is creating a long lasting dynastic empire, he doesn't.<br /><br />The chronicles, presumably those the Plautus knew about, had a given focus - thus he was great. reading against the grain of that historiography asks the questions about what greatness means, but can't, ultimately, answer them, I suspect.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-60930387954630663082016-11-08T01:59:13.672-08:002016-11-08T01:59:13.672-08:00I did a bit of looking around. He appears to have ...I did a bit of looking around. He appears to have acquired the epithet 'Great' some years after his death, and it appears to have been because he never lost a battle. The earliest reference appears to be Plautus. If this is right, then examining his reputation outwith his generalship/luck is probably not a useful frame for determining if the epithet is accurate. After all, as Ben wrote earlier, he was probably Alexander the Useless Potter too.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-54533451103250519352016-11-08T00:42:27.330-08:002016-11-08T00:42:27.330-08:00Well, usually, cutting reputations down to size oc...Well, usually, cutting reputations down to size occurs when they've got a bit inflated. From a military and tactical point of view, Alexander was good. Strategically, Issus is a bit iffy, at least. In terms of more or less everything else, he did fail, and probably left the world a worse place than he found it. The problem with history, of course, is that we can never re-run the world to see what would have happened otherwise.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-87428454960819730732016-11-08T00:40:11.712-08:002016-11-08T00:40:11.712-08:00I'm not disputing any of this, except, perhaps...I'm not disputing any of this, except, perhaps, that the pikemen didn't carry their pikes all the way, but I do suspect that the reasons the Macedonians followed Alexander were not, particularly, because they found him inspiring, but because he was the king. <br /><br />It is a thing about frames again: we don't know the mindset and worldview of a Macedonian pikeman. Calling Alexander inspiring (or rubbish) is, at least in part, framing him in modern terms of leadership. Given what I have seen of modern leadership initiatives, that does not fill me with confidence...The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-10307867981229384512016-11-07T23:19:23.331-08:002016-11-07T23:19:23.331-08:00I think that he has to have been a great leader. L...I think that he has to have been a great leader. Looking at a map showing the distance that he covered with his army is very awe inspiring. <br />Getting an army ladened with 20 foot pikes to walk that far and fight and win many battles is a pretty amazing effort and I think just for this earns his place in history.<br />The fact that they eventually said "no more" should not take away from his going as far as he did.<br /><br />He must have been an inspiring leader.Ben Catohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00132734496369774300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-5288148289615064322016-11-07T08:25:13.255-08:002016-11-07T08:25:13.255-08:00Issos didn't turn out too badly in the end, an...Issos didn't turn out too badly in the end, and that's what counts. People love to cut great reputations down to a more manageable size, but his achievements still inspire awe in me.Prufrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17659918463589870423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-51732678658894592542016-11-07T01:36:10.468-08:002016-11-07T01:36:10.468-08:00I've no idea who invented 'the great'....I've no idea who invented 'the great'. But if you say 'Alexander III of Macedon' no-one knows who you are talking about. I'll see if it says anywhere, but my suspicion is that, probably Alexander invented it himself...<br /><br />As to the frame, exactly. But even within the frame of his reign alone, the evidence is not all 'great' - the near fiasco at Issus being a distinct point against wonderful generalship. But hero-worship is very forgiving.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-56593966949089462242016-11-07T01:24:52.267-08:002016-11-07T01:24:52.267-08:00It really does depend on your frame, doesn't i...It really does depend on your frame, doesn't it? A narrow frame focused only on the battles might see him as a great tactician, although even there I have read snippets suggesting that he was more lucky than great. A broader frame looking at his empire building makes it easier to construe him as really not so great after all because it all fell apart after his death. To add some context to the debate and to provide a suitable framework for judging him, it might be worth considering when and where he acquired the epithet 'Great'. Who gave it to him? And for what? From this you can decide whether he is worthy of the title. From what you write, neither Hammond nor Grainger have considered this, and I think it is particularly relevant for judging him.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-26380197630189543052016-11-06T13:48:26.649-08:002016-11-06T13:48:26.649-08:00Can he be both?
Alexander the Great general
A...Can he be both? <br />Alexander the Great general<br />Alexander the Mediocre empire builder<br />And also maybe<br />Alexander the Useless potter<br />Alexander the Great historical subjectBen Catohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00132734496369774300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-37721479547657159942016-11-05T22:32:46.803-07:002016-11-05T22:32:46.803-07:00Make mine Hammond, thanks.Make mine Hammond, thanks.cturnitsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08380005283710973072noreply@blogger.com