I will read to you in class a few passages from Plutarch's On the Fortune of Alexander. Glance through the online translation of this work (you don't need to read the whole thing), and pick out any information that would help you in writing an essay on whether or not Alexander deserves to be called "great." Note that there are two different "Orations" on this site, both from Plutarch's "Moralia."
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Plutarch's On the Fortune of Alexander (extra credit)
I will read to you in class a few passages from Plutarch's On the Fortune of Alexander. Glance through the online translation of this work (you don't need to read the whole thing), and pick out any information that would help you in writing an essay on whether or not Alexander deserves to be called "great." Note that there are two different "Orations" on this site, both from Plutarch's "Moralia."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Annie Merkel
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading this, I found examples that would prove he was horrible and great. First, to prove he was horrible it stated, "I think that if Fortune should try to inscribe her name on his successes, he would say to her, 'Slander not my virtues, nor take away my fair name by detraction'" (384). Basically, this is saying that Fortune would not want to be in any way associated with Alexander because he does not show fortune. In contrast, to prove he was considered great, it stated, "But if you examine the results of Alexander's instruction, you will see that he educated the Hyrcanians to respect the marriage bond, and taught the Arachosians to till the soil, and persuaded the Sogdians to support their parents, not to kill them, and the Persians to revere their mothers and not to take them in wedlock" (394). And here it shows that Alexander did teach people many moral things, which is good. Therefore, I find it hard to decide whether or not Alexander the great is really great or not.
Heres a long passage but it shows what he overcame to go on to create one of the worlds greatest empires.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, there were the trials of the campaign itself: storms, droughts, deep rivers, the heights of the Birdless Rock,19 the monstrous shapes of savage beasts, an uncivilized manner of life, the constant succession of petty kings and their repeated treachery. Then there were also the difficulties before his expedition:20 Greece was still gasping over Philip's wars; Thebes staggering to her feet after her fall, was shaking the dust of Chaeroneia from her arms, and Athens was stretching forth a helping hand to join with Thebes. All Macedonia was festering with revolt and looking toward Amyntas and the children p389of Aëropus;21 the Illyrians were again rebelling, and trouble with the Scythians was impending for their Macedonian neighbours, who were in the throes of political change; Persian gold flowed freely through the hands of the popular leaders everywhere, and helped to rouse the Peloponnesus; dPhilip's treasuries were bare of money, and in addition there was owing a loan of two hundred talents22 (as Onesicritus records). In such poverty23 and in circumstances fraught with such uncertainty, a stripling, scarcely older than a boy, had the daring to hope for Babylon and Susa; nay more, to conceive the project of dominion over all the world, relying only on the thirty thousand foot and four thousand cavalry (389)
a kid can do all this? you have to be something special to go through all that and come out on top. What he did is pretty impressive, other then not picking a successor
Terry Kenny
ReplyDeleteWas Alexander "great". That would depend on your definition of "great" is. Oh oh. That was too clintonesque. Excuse me while I go slap myself...
Plutarch certainly thinks Alexander is "great". From his view point Alexander implemented the philosophical ideals of the great philosophers of Greece in his military campaign and his personal life.
Looking at Alexander from present day America I would have to say he was indeed "great". He basically brought civilization to places that were not civilized as well as expanding the Greek empire. He taught or was it made the Sogdians to support their parents instead of killing them. The Sogdians must have had their own version of the current presidents health care plan with death panels that determined which elderly person should die. He also taught the Scythians that eating their dead was not the proper thing to do.
On a much greater scale Alexanders expansion of the greek empire allowed christianity to flourish in years to come. As those of us who have seen "drive thru history" have learned.
All in all he probably deserves the title of "great". But democrats will say he was no Barak Obama.
I think that Alexander the Great deserved his title. He was one of the world’s best military thinkers and was able to create a large empire over a short time at a young age. To make it even more impressive, he did it with a small amount of supplies and soldiers. Plutarch says that when he started his campaign “Philip's treasuries were bare of money, and in addition there was owing a loan of two hundred talents.” And then he says that Alexander had only about 30,000 soldiers and 4000 cavalry. This makes his military achievements very impressive. Then, when he had conquered a nation he would not force them into slavery, or make them lesser members of the empire. Instead, he would try and make them feel welcome and accepted. As an example of this Plutarch says “As a philosopher what he wore was a matter of indifference, but as sovereign of both nations and benevolent king he strove to acquire the goodwill of the conquered by showing respect for their apparel, so that they might continue constant in loving the Macedonians as rulers, and might not feel hate toward them as enemies.” This is a very smart thing to do, and I think it adds to the greatness of Alexander. Another thing that Alexander did to earn his title of “great” was unite all the conquered nations under a Hellenistic society. Whenever he conquered someone he would teach them the ways of the Greeks and the philosophers before him so they might become, what he considered, a good and noble society. “You will see that he educated the Hyrcanians to respect the marriage bond, and taught the Arachosians to till the soil, and persuaded the Sogdians to support their parents, not to kill them, and the Persians to revere their mothers and not to take them in wedlock.” Plutarch claims that this encouraging of Greek society helped each of these conquered nations become more prosperous. He uses Egypt as an example, saying that with Alexander they would not have the city of Alexandria, which was indeed a great city. It not only had one of the best libraries the world had ever seen, it was also the site of an ancient wonder of the world, the Pharos Lighthouse. In addition to helping these societies prosper, it also brought about a common language throughout the known world. I think this common language helped unite everyone under the Greek flag by allowing them to be able to speak with anyone from almost any other nationality. It also had a big influence in later years by helping Christianity spread rapidly through the Greek world because they were able to use the Greek language to preach almost anywhere. I think that because of all these accomplishments, and his impact on the world after his death, Alexander does deserve the title.
ReplyDeleteJohn Rawerts
i think that alexander was great because he did many great things for many different types of people. Yes he may have done some nasty things to get done what needed to be done but you know what they say you can't make an omlet without cracking a few eggs. I also think you can't judge a good king by looking at the king himself you have to look at the people of the kingdom and their lifestyles, and by the way they described his kingdom it seemed that he was a good king. He turned savages into
ReplyDeletecivilized people, and he brought together many nations under his rule.
jon evenson
After reading through this writing I found many things that pointed to Alexander being a great man.
ReplyDeleteFirst Alexander, unlike other great kings, had the battle scars to prove he fought for his nation. In almost every battle, he had some sort of wound inflicted on him as he fought fearlessly.
Another point on Alexander is that he went through many heroic endeavours in order to establish his empire. These included a great number of storms, many attacks from savage beasts, and of course, a ton of battles.
Finally, Alexander was a very smart and philosophical man. He had a great amount of knowledge that he mainly developed from his teacher Aristotle. Along with being an excellent student he was also an excellent teacher. However, unlike Plato and Socrates who taught trivial things, Alexander taught more practical applications like how to till the land, laws in which to abide by, and moral values.
Peter Ryman
ReplyDeleteOk. So,,, supposedly the guy (Alexander) is great and always virtuous in all he does and goes for the "good" every time. Ok. I suppose then that's fine and dandy.
I recall a certain instance though about him that you read to us in class Professor Marmorstein, about how Alexander had a drinking problem??
He may have been virtuous and graceful (as the writer put it with all kinds of elegant and radiant terms to describe him),,, but he still had a problem. Why did he have this drinking problem? Would some say that it was inherited?? OR could it be that Alexander really was human and not so great. Just because he was a courageous leader and united a huge empire SHOULD NOT be an automatic claim to fame.
If he never came to believe that the God of the Hebrews was God of the universe, I don't think he was that great at all.
I'm not saying God didn't use him. Indeed he did a lot of good things and taught various peoples to do right and not wrong, as I looked back and read some of the other blogs. His expansion of the Greek Empire "allowed Christianity to flourish in years to come." Can't God use people to do great things even if they are not in a right relationship with him? I say He can.
But to say that Alexander himself was Great.......... ...... I .... wouldn't make the comment.
In any sense Alexander was “great”. There isn’t a man that doesn’t do horrible things, especially any man that has power. Alexander was a man of constant conquest. Things done in war aren’t going to be nice and they aren’t going to be necessarily humane. There isn’t a person who could try and strip his title away. Alexander wanted to bring out the best in all cultures and unify the world. That’s a pretty noble feat to try and accomplish. There has only been one man in history to take hold of the world without conquest and blood, but there was plenty to follow in his name. Alexander has as much a claim to his title as anyone else who bears it.
ReplyDelete-Matthew Peterson-
"Thus Alexander's new subjects would not have been civilized, had they not been vanquished; Egypt p397would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleuceia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Greek city36 hard by; 329for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence. If, then, philosophers take the greatest pride in civilizing and rendering adaptable the intractable and untutored elements in human character, and if Alexander has been shown to have changed the savage natures of countless tribes, it is with good reason that he should be regarded as a very great philosopher."
ReplyDeleteBy looking at this passage from the work, I think it is pretty obvious that Alexander earned the title of the Great. He spread Greek Civilization to many parts of the world and he spread knowledge all over the place. This passage clearly shows that Alexander is "Great".
Kirsten Saunders
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Alexander’s drinking problem… I would have a drinking problem too if “Many a night did he spend without sleeping, many a blood-stained day did he pass amid combats unceasing…”
Anyway, Alexander does have great qualities as well as some cruel flaws; however, a good indication of greatness, is understanding the greatness of others. For example, at the Battle of Maracanda Alexander attributes is life to other warrior such as Ptolemy and Limnaeus. Even though this is the least great element of Alexander’s character, he does not give himself all the credit. Additionally, Alexanders’ reverence to his tutors and the value he placed on education served him well. Plutarch illustrates some of Alexander’s qualities and values such as educating the Hyrcanians to respect the marriage bond, taught the Arachosians to till the soil, and persuaded the Sogdins to support their parents, support in this case meaning not killing them and respecting their mothers. I bet the Persians had some great “yo mama jokes”.
Finally, I think a very telling quality of Alexander is his effect on the people he conquered. Plutarch states, “Those who were vanquished by Alexander are happier than those who escaped his hand; for these had no one to put an end to the wretchedness of their existence, while the victor compelled those others to lead a happy life.” Of what I read and in spite of Alexander’s other character flaws he was a great…leader and conqueror and considering his objectives he was great.
In order to make an informed post, I looked up the definition of "great" on dictionary.com. Out of 23 different definitions on one was mildly related to that of being "good". With that bing said, yes Alexander deserves to be called great, because Alexander achieved things of remarkable stature (to use definition 6). Paragraph 3 speaks of the "trials" faced by Alexander adn his men. This is a perfect example of greatness. I consider any man that leads his men fearlessly through the line of fire to be great.
ReplyDeleteAlexander may have also done things not so great (definition 4: first rate: very good) but I'd say that one out of 23 isn't half bad.
Kelsey Leddy
I think that I could and did use his comparison of Plato and Alexander. Also, how he was able to time out his decisions precisely enough to gain the advantage.
ReplyDeleteKevin Nakajima