mEtaLL1x Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Based on their accomplishments, you can. Surely you agree that Alexander the Great was a greater man than you and me. He wasn't called 'the Great' for nothing, you know. Pretty irrelevant, because I was not denied the greatness of person, i was just saying that you can't find only ONE TEH GREATEST person evar in some culture... you can't compare the greatnesses of different persons!
DemonKing Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Based on their accomplishments, you can. Surely you agree that Alexander the Great was a greater man than you and me. He wasn't called 'the Great' for nothing, you know. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He was called "the Great" for shipping a whole bunch of his somewhat reluctant countrymen to the Middle East to butcher hordes of the locals, so if that is the measure of greatness, then I guess we might as well have "Dubya the Great" as well. Actually - there was one difference. Alexander led from the frontlines and actually risked his own life, frequently getting wounded. Imagine that! Seriously though, everyone who ever got the label "the Great" after his name got it for butchery (eg Pompey the G, Peter the G etc), which is not really a valid measure of greatness in this day and age, IMHO.
213374U Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Pretty irrelevant, because I was not denied the greatness of person, i was just saying that you can't find only ONE TEH GREATEST person evar in some culture... you can't compare the greatnesses of different persons! Yes, you can. He was called "the Great" for shipping a whole bunch of his somewhat reluctant countrymen to the Middle East to butcher hordes of the locals, so if that is the measure of greatness, then I guess we might as well have "Dubya the Great" as well. Actually - there was one difference. Alexander led from the frontlines and actually risked his own life, frequently getting wounded. Imagine that! Seriously though, everyone who ever got the label "the Great" after his name did it for butchery (eg Pompey the G, Peter the G etc), which is not really a valid measure of greatness in this day and age, IMHO. That's right. One morning he woke up and realized it was a nice day to kill some barbarians. So he just took the train for Susa and went to murder some random persians, which thought themselves pretty tough with all their huge empire and stuff. It seems you 'forgot' to mention quite a few things. Namely that he rallied most of the ever-squabbling Helenic nation-states into a pan-helenic alliance, that he was one of those few true military geniuses that History has produced, that he resisted the Persian expansionism that was so close to overrunning the Greek civilization. Like it or not, he was one of those few men whose actions forged the future. That is what made him deserve that 'label'. But all that has no place in your overly simplified world. Or perhaps you were just twisting reality to make a point. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
DemonKing Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 It seems you 'forgot' to mention quite a few things. Namely that he rallied most of the ever-squabbling Helenic nation-states into a pan-helenic alliance, that he was one of those few true military geniuses that History has produced, that he resisted the Persian expansionism that was so close to overrunning the Greek civilization. Like it or not, he was one of those few men whose actions forged the future. That is what made him deserve that 'label'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well if you want to get specific, of course you can argue that Alexander did a lot of great things - founding cities, uniting the Greek world to a common purpose (albeit briefly), trying to integrate Persians and Hellenics into a single empire and so on. However, he also butchered one of his best friends in a drunken rage, got his mates to knock off someone who had actually helped him rise to power because he was too gutless to do it himself, and fought countless campaigns for no strategic reason (what the Hell was he doing in India???) until even his most loyal troops revolted. I also believe there is pretty strong evidence he was involved in the assasination of his own father. A final point...he was called the Great in the ancient world because of his military successes - not because he tried to get his Macedonian troops to marry persian women and all live happily ever after. That was considered rather eccentric!
213374U Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 However, he also butchered one of his best friends in a drunken rage, got his mates to knock off someone who had actually helped him rise to power because he was too gutless to do it himself, and fought countless campaigns for no strategic reason (what the Hell was he doing in India???) until even his most loyal troops revolted. I also believe there is pretty strong evidence he was involved in the assasination of his own father. What was he doing in India, you ask? Well, I think it's called conquest. That's one of the things they used to do in the old times, since they had no video games. And his implication in his father's death is nothing but speculation. If you think there is 'strong evidence', I suggest you write a paper and send it to somebody who can get it publised. You may get a prize or something. A final point...he was called the Great in the ancient world because of his military successes - not because he tried to get his Macedonian troops to marry persian women and all live happily ever after. That was considered rather eccentric! Eh. That 'marriage policy' was actually put to practice with great results in Europe during the 15th-18th centuries. So, if you must evaluate that particular decision, Alexander was a visionnaire. I haven't stated that he was without flaws. He is probably one of the most controversial characters of History. But his greatness is undeniable. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Laozi Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 His boyfriend things so too, but he was probaly if not totally responsible, in the know about his fathers assassination. Alexander was a man with an incrediable thirst for power, and the means to quench that thirst one the battlefield. To some he might truely be great, but to others he was just a tyrannt bent on conquest. He was a lucky man too, which is essential to any "winner" in history. To be completely honest if one was to judge history by Alexander's standards then Napoleon was atleast equally as great, especially since he was born a commoner and not the son of a king. People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Even so, it's unlikely in todays society that any millitary leader would be considered great. Britain does have a soft spot for the Iron Duke though. Although I'm not sure where he placed in the 100 greatest Britains thing. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
DemonKing Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 What was he doing in India, you ask? Well, I think it's called conquest. That's one of the things they used to do in the old times, since they had no video games. I always thought conquest meant occupation and absorption of a defeated enemy's lands? Alexander won a few battles in India, but he didn't stick around - it was just meaningless conflict in the end. And his implication in his father's death is nothing but speculation. If you think there is 'strong evidence', I suggest you write a paper and send it to somebody who can get it publised. You may get a prize or something. Already have. I don't have the paper with me but the main points of my argument are based around the fact that the assassin of Philip was rapidly dispatched trying to escape by Alexander's own bodyguard (not Philip's) and that there was a guy waiting around with a bunch of horses indicating that there was more than the solitary assassin (who was just a patsy) implicated in the plot. Also, the people with the greatest motivation to have Philip dead were Alexander and his Mum. Eh. That 'marriage policy' was actually put to practice with great results in Europe during the 15th-18th centuries. So, if you must evaluate that particular decision, Alexander was a visionnaire. Not disputing that - he was ahead of his time in many ways. I haven't stated that he was without flaws. He is probably one of the most controversial characters of History. But his greatness is undeniable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you measure greatness in being a successful (and lucky - as someone else pointed out) general then yes, he was great...and that is why the anicents gave him the title to begin with. Was he great at anything else? Not really, IMHO.
213374U Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 I don't have the paper with me but the main points of my argument are based around the fact that the assassin of Philip was rapidly dispatched trying to escape by Alexander's own bodyguard (not Philip's) and that there was a guy waiting around with a bunch of horses indicating that there was more than the solitary assassin (who was just a patsy) implicated in the plot. Also, the people with the greatest motivation to have Philip dead were Alexander and his Mum. I don't think so. By the time Philip was murdered, he and Alexander had already reconciled, if I'm not mistaken. He had also many enemies among the greek, who considered him a barbarian tyrant and not one of them. That's one of the reasons he had Aristotle be Alexander's tutor. Really, I don't see those facts as evidence. They are just being interpreted in a way that accomodates your hypotheses. But then again, I can't prove he didn't have anything to do with it, either. If you measure greatness in being a successful (and lucky - as someone else pointed out) general then yes, he was great...and that is why the anicents gave him the title to begin with. Was he great at anything else? Not really, IMHO. Well, that and being a great thinker were the only ways to leave a tangible mark in History back then so yes, I guess he deserved the title. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
213374U Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Naw, he's Irish. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
kumquatq3 Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Naw, he's Irish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My gowd! It's actaully true then! Whiskey was actually made to stop the Irish from ruling the world!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now