Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
He probably wouldn't have been an obsessive compulsive waraholic like his son, and may have known when to stop invading, and start consolidating. 
Sorry, I just don't believe Alexander the destroyer should be called "The Great". He destroyed a nation that took generations to build, and his own replacement 'Empire' did not last after his short life. Homer, Plato, Pericles, and even Philip, all contributed to human culture. Alexander was a destroyer of culture.
|
I don't know how much you could say Philip contributed to culture. He razed a number of cities in Chalcidice for one. And although he did unify Macedonia, he may have done so at the expense of local customs and traditions, all in the name of conquest of Greece (and eventually Asia). We also don't know what he was planning to do in Asia - perhaps Alexander was merely carrying out his father's plans.
Although I do agree that Philip may have been better at the infrastructure of an empire than Alexander. he certainly displayed considerable skills in reorganising Macedonia. But Alexander died prematurely. When he died, he had finished campaigning (at least temporarily) - he may have been going to start organising then. He wasn't all bad either - some people he left behind to govern were extremely capable - Ptolemy for one.
I also disagree with the notion that Alexander completely Hellenised Asia. He actually was a big fan of Eastern culture, and it was a major sticking point with his inner circle of Macedonians that he adopted as much Eastern culture as he did, and that he used Easterners in positions of power.
[ 05-08-2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Aelia Jusa ]