Go to the alexander-the-great.co.uk homepage
alexander-the-great.co.uk
Talk about the Oliver Stone movie "Alexander"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Alexander the Accursed

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the man
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Korosh the great



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:55 pm    Post subject: [size=12][size=18][size=9]'Alexander the Accursed' [/size][/ Reply with quote

I would respectfully suggest that any reference to Alexander be not as 'the Great'. Western historians gave him the title because of his conquests at a young age. However, he allowed his soldiers to burn and pillage the countries he conquered, rape their women and take the children as slaves. This is certainly not Great behaviour or character.

he is / should be referred to as 'Alexander the Macedonian' or 'Alexander the Conqueror' which befits him more that the apellation of the Great. I have also heard him referred to as 'Alexander the Accursed' by some scholars which i think it's the best one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChristianMacedon



Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 211
Location: Portsmouth, United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Alketas



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what makes you so Great then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nikas



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'The Great' was bestowed on him later by the Romans who admired the scope of his conquests.

Nonetheless, Cyrus was certainly not viewed as 'Great' by the peoples he conquered either. So to be consistent, no military leader should ever be referred to as the 'Great', don't you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikader



Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:32 am    Post subject: Re: [size=12][size=18][size=9]'Alexander the Accursed' [/siz Reply with quote

Korosh the great wrote:
I would respectfully suggest that any reference to Alexander be not as 'the Great'. Western historians gave him the title because of his conquests at a young age. However, he allowed his soldiers to burn and pillage the countries he conquered, rape their women and take the children as slaves. This is certainly not Great behaviour or character.

he is / should be referred to as 'Alexander the Macedonian' or 'Alexander the Conqueror' which befits him more that the apellation of the Great. I have also heard him referred to as 'Alexander the Accursed' by some scholars which i think it's the best one.


Oh yes my dear, it IS a very Greek behaviour. Don't forget that the Athenians conquered the island of Milos and sold all of the Milians, just because they refused to side on the side of the Athenians, and chose to be neutral instead. That took place a century before Alexander the Great's army burnt Thebe, Tyre or Persepolis, during the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta.

Even earlier, Herodotus in his histories wrote of the Greek colonists in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) who boasted of their Greekness, but neglected to mention that their ancestors, who were the first Greeks to set their feet in there, did not bring any women with them. They massacred all the men they found and married their wives, sisters and daughters. The latter avenged the death of their kin by vowing that they would never eat at the same table with their husbands ever...

...So Alexader was Alexander the Great, even more because he was one of the few military leaders of his time who dared to constrain his troops from pillaging and killing the people whom they subdued, something that he succeeded with few exceptions.

The norm at his time was for the conqueror to treat the conquered in whatever way they liked, and that was to last for many centuries, until very recently, so the pillaging and rape and massacre and enslavement was not the exception of the rule, it was the rule. The exception was Alexanders' treatment of the mother and wife of Dareius, whom he did not mistreat at all, to the point that the mother of Dareius committed suicide when Alexander died, or his grace towards Porus, the king od India whom he defeated in battle, but did not banish afterwards. Instead, he reinstated him as a ruler of his territories, only subject to Alexander himself...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pinelopi



Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is common in History that the men called Great are usually dictators, killers, plunderes, conquerors. owbody called Great Plato or Leonidas, Spartacus or Tse. Graet are called Alexander, Napoleon, Ekaterini (of Russia), Karlomagnos, Theodosius, Konstantin, all of them could be compared to criminals and plunderers.
What is the story of your Great name?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tino



Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Evidently, you are a hater of Alexander the Great. You are entitled to your opion, but you've already started a topic about your dislike of anything to do with Alexander, no need to start a new one on a weekly basis, especially when your arguments are the same in every post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Alexia



Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Posts: 80
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"The Great" is a Persian title, not a Western one.

And I still believe that Alexander was great, not just The Great. No one is perfect, and I challenge you to find a military leader who did not engage in military action. Afterall, that is the essence of the military life.

What would you call the rule of Darius III, and if Alexander was so horrible, why did the Egyptians open the gates and allow him to come in and take over when they could have kept him out simply by flooding the delta?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peritas



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alexander was pretty tolerant actually,not only by the standards of his day,but of days much later too.Maybe because his troops did not rely in plunder,but were payed by Alexander himself.This'centralised plunder'led to less atrocities being committed by troops out to loot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the man All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group