Just to add that Alexander didn't even replace other cultures with his own culture, but a bastardized version of Classical Athenian which he attempted to adopt but then warped it beyond recognition.

The man was an intense egotist - he commissioned loads of busts of himself - the first time realistic portraiture appeared in Western art (I say Western only because I don't know for sure about the rest of the world) - he claimed to be a god - yet said he walked in the footsteps of men such as Perikles, who would have thought him an abomination to everything they believed in.

If you're in any doubt as to the destruction of pre-existing cultures by Alexander, just look at how far Hellenistic (as opposed to Hellenic) architecture spread during that period. It can be found from Athens and Italy to Persepolis. Each new city founded (many called Alexandria) was pretty much a clone of the last, built upon the ashes of the old culture.

simple, he was a geat strategist and most of all, he had guts

well, the aztecs and mayans are pretty interesting to me (though the latter didnt conform an empire in the sense of the word). others that i find fascinating are the incas (south america), the egyptians and the chinese, especially during the first stages 700 to 200bc (when daoism and confucianism were developed) and the han and tang dinasties. oh, and to leave out greece is impossible, since they are the fathers of western culture.

and then some (or was it dim sum ?)</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=sky blue> That is pretty dim... :D Actually it's not very bright at all.

<font color = lightgreen>But Yorick, from where would many nations then get a sense of national pride if not from having a list of conquered enemies? Upon what foundation will they build their society if not on the crushed remains of other societies? :rolleyes:

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

I know what you mean. Unfortunately, you and I will not even be memories when--indeed, if--those views about war change. In the meantime, the striving towards the goal is the objective rather than the goal itself.</font>

I'd call being killed in battle being defeated.
On the general matter, agreed. He was obviously a great motivator, problem solver, and strategist, as well as showing exeptional management skills.

However those skills were geared towards destroying peoples lives. Not good. Destroying human achievements - cities, cultures. Not good. Killing his own citizens, by leading them into unecessary conquest. Not good.

Secondly he totally failed to set up an infrastructure that suceeded him. His empire fragmented immediately.

I simply fail to see why we should see Genghis Khan as a monster (the Mongolians see him as a hero) yet Alexander Great. How do Persians or Indians see Alexander? As a Hitler?

The winners write the history. The Greeks called him great. We call him great.

If we want to change human concepts regarding war then history needs to be reflected on with current values. War is a cancer. At times a vile necessity. One which should be avoided, and when necessary, viewed with distaste, not glorified.

A general who DESTROYS is nowhere near as great as the humble painter or chef who CREATES or the mother of a child.
That is greatness. Commonplace? Of course. But why should that which is rare be 'great' simply because of it's scarcity? Great things are found everywhere.</font>[/QUOTE]Great post once again Yorick ;)
I think that he didn't set up much for his successors because he was rather narcisstic and was probably convinced of his invincibility, as some of the great strategists do.
I think this is when they lose that title, for a truly great strategist has to keep a firm grip on reality, for example knowing when to withdraw.

yorik
"I'd call being killed in battle being defeated"

um I hate to tell you this but ALexander did not die in battle nor die of wounds from battle. He died from fever.

Although he did plant monuments to himself just as did any other leadre fo his time. He did not destroy cultures insteead he attempted to assimilate them into one culture.
AS for the fall of his empire I guess it depends on how you look at things. By the reasoning that Aleandres empire fell because it was divided among his generals who formed seperate kigdoms such as the Ptolemitic Egyption Empire. Then the Mongolian empire feel after Kublai Khan when it was divided first into 4 serpeate governments.

Oh to clear up one point at the time it existed the Byzamtine Empire was still considered the Roman Empire. The practice or referign to it as Byzamtine did nto come into practice until modern times. Which is why scholars consider that the Roman empire did not fall until 1453 with the fall to the Ottoman turks of Constantinople. The term is really used to refer to the switch from Latin to Greek as the "Official" language of the Empire.

<font color = lightgreen>But Yorick, from where would many nations then get a sense of national pride if not from having a list of conquered enemies? Upon what foundation will they build their society if not on the crushed remains of other societies? :rolleyes:

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

I know what you mean. Unfortunately, you and I will not even be memories when--indeed, if--those views about war change. In the meantime, the striving towards the goal is the objective rather than the goal itself.</font></font>[/QUOTE]Why do we need to have "us and them" in the first place? ;) Can we not have 'human pride'?

Yes striving for the goal is the important thing. Takes a longer perspective rather then expecting immediate gain.

Well no-one knows the truth Lanthir ;)

From wso.williams.edu:
The death of Alexander the Great is still shrouded in mystery to this day. It seems hard to believe that a 33-year-old man could die of natural causes that spring up out of the blue, and consequently, modern historians have made many attempts to explain exactly what happened. According to Plutarch, the events leading up to his death are as follows:

Alexander proceeded to Babylon, even after receiving word of several bad omens, such as ravens fighting each other over the city wall with some falling dead right in front of him, a man with a deformed liver being sacrificed in the king's honor, and his best lion was kicked to death by an ass. The god Serapis told a man to put on the king's robes and sit upon the throne. These all served as warnings to Alexander about what may lie in store for him, but they did not deter him.

Once in Babylon, he drank heavily at several banquets. One such banquet was hosted by his friend, Medius. In the Armenian version of the story, Psuedo-Callisthenes wrote that this banquet was a conspiracy involving Iollas, Cassander, and others who were unhappy with Alexander. They gave him poisoned wine, and immediately after drinking it, Alexander felt as if he had "been hit in the liver with an arrow." When he tried to throw it back up, he was given a poisoned feather, which ensured that the poison would reach his blood stream. He proceeded to get very sick and his condition deteriorated until his death. Plutarch did not believe this version, saying the sudden pain Alexander felt after drinking was a detail "with which certain historians felt obliged to embellish the occasion, and thus invent a tragic and moving finale to a great action. Aristobulus tells us that he was seized with a raging fever, that when he became thirsty he drank wine which made him delirious."

We will probably never know the truth, even though new theories are still coming out. We do know that on the 7th of June, 323 BC, the Macedonians were allowed to file past their leader for the last time and finally, three days later, he succumbed to the illness. Thus, on June 10, 323 BC, Alexander the Great died at the age of 33.

The theory I was familiar with, was illness as a result of a wound in battle. An arrow through the breastplate.

[ 05-08-2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

um mif you read what you pasted you see that they belive a sickness but possible a assination. Not tha the died from wounds froma battle. no biggy though