Top 10 Reasons Alexander the Great Was, Well ... Great!

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. He did -not- spread civilization to the Persian empire. for one, the civilization was already there, they had a road system to match the romans, they built palaces and cities more than the equal of anything greece built, and for another, he left everything pretty much the way it was. He didn't change any governing systems, he kept almost all the former rulers in charge, he supported and paid for Eastern culture to flourish, he most certaintly didn't spread the greek language.. how much more must I go on?

Well it depends if you put limitations on the definition of the term civilization, if you believe its strictly defined by buildings, then I'll partially agree that we can put some restrictions on the extent of influence Alexander had even though I simply couldn't ignore the fact that only after Alexander did the region see structures like libraries and theaters which are by definition related to civilization.. But if we were to give a much broader definition to the term and include refinement of thought, manners, restaints.. then the issue is totally different as a couple of quotes will indicate:

Plutarch's "On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander":

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. O wondrous power of Philosophic Instruction, that brought the Indians to worship Greek gods, and the Scythians to bury their dead, not to devour them! dWe admire Carneades' power, which made Cleitomachus, formerly called Hasdrubal, and a Carthaginian by birth, adopt Greek ways. We admire the character of Zeno, which persuaded Diogenes the Babylonian to be a philosopher. But when Alexander was civilizing Asia, Homer was commonly read, and the children of the Persians, of the Susianians, and of the Gedrosians learned to chant the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides.

on government, while it was based on the Persian model, we can't simply state that nothing changed.. an example:

"The near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Times" by Michael Ivanovich Rostovtzeff

In the pre-Persian and Persian times the peasant was a bondsman, a serf or even a slave of his overlord, be it the gods worshipped in the temples, the kings, or the feudal landholders. Under the Hellenistic rulers and under the Romans religious, legal, and traditional bondage gradually disappeared, to reappear again in the changed form of the Roman colonate in the third and fourth centuries of our era.

Finally on language, you are mistaken..

R.Ghirshman, Iran, 1954, p. 229-30.

The Hellenization of Persia durfng the Seleucid Period was considerable and the Greek language was used extensively. Even during the rule of the Parthians, an Iranian dynasty from the northeast that came to power in the middle of the third century B.C., Hellenic influence continued, lasting well into the third century

[admin]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. He did -not- spread civilization to the Persian empire. for one, the civilization was already there, they had a road system to match the romans, they built palaces and cities more than the equal of anything greece built, and for another, he left everything pretty much the way it was. He didn't change any governing systems, he kept almost all the former rulers in charge, he supported and paid for Eastern culture to flourish, he most certaintly didn't spread the greek language.. how much more must I go on?

would help if you used references, you are making very general statements that are not well supported by historical facts - see the reply a few posts from a Orphic here
http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...html#post42416
Admin)

[MAKEDONELLHNAS]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. He did -not- spread civilization to the Persian empire. for one, the civilization was already there, they had a road system to match the romans, they built palaces and cities more than the equal of anything greece built, and for another, he left everything pretty much the way it was. He didn't change any governing systems, he kept almost all the former rulers in charge, he supported and paid for Eastern culture to flourish, he most certaintly didn't spread the greek language.. how much more must I go on?

Are you serious?
He did bring the Greek civilization/culture all the way to India, and this can be seen today by all the remains, for ex. Temples, theaters and other artifacts and how can you say he did not spread the Greek language??? The Greek language was like how English is today because of Alexander's conquest

[Lyssius]

The -slight- Hellenization of foreign lands was not because Alexander spread them, it is because the cities he founded became populated by Greek soldiers. Hamilton, in his last chapter gives an excellent account of this. The evidence indicates, his restoration of the temple of Bel, his burgeoning insistence on proskynesis, his wedding in Persian fashion show how empathicly he did not spread greek culture. Perhaps I should have more clearly shown the -he- part, but none the less, I feel 'credit' is being given where it isn't deserved

[Truth Bearer]

So why then did the Greek langaue become lingua franca throughout the whole region where Alexander conquered??

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

The -slight- Hellenization of foreign lands was not because Alexander spread them, it is because the cities he founded became populated by Greek soldiers. Hamilton, in his last chapter gives an excellent account of this. The evidence indicates, his restoration of the temple of Bel, his burgeoning insistence on proskynesis, his wedding in Persian fashion show how empathicly he did not spread greek culture. Perhaps I should have more clearly shown the -he- part, but none the less, I feel 'credit' is being given where it isn't deserved

Actually its because the cities he founded became cultural and economic centers populated not strictly by soldiers but also by mainlanders in seek of a new future but the fact of the matter is that it was he who founded them and thus their effect on the region is correctly attributed as one of his achievments.

Now while of course there was never a full Hellenization of the local populations and the core of their culture remained relatively the same, it was obviously far greater than anything defined by the use of "slight" as a description. Noone can deny the formation of this new type of culture, a type of "Hellenic Orientalism" that was the product of Hellenic thought and customs intermixing with those of locals (see proskynesis which you mentioned above), something similar to the notion of Greco-Buddhism seen as a result of Hellenic norms and customs intermixing with those of Buddhism.

But exactly what evidence is the temple of Bel? While it was indeed restored you neglect to note that its after the restoration role, character and appearance was purely Hellenic, dedicated, not to some M.Eastern God but to Zeus.

[Reaper]

The opening post mentions he was blond. But the closest we have to a picture of alexander shows him to have dark hair. Which is it orphic?

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Reaper

The opening post mentions he was blond. But the closest we have to a picture of alexander shows him to have dark hair. Which is it orphic?

Ptolemy made an interesting reconstruction of what he might have looked like here

[Lyssius]

Quote, Arrian;
"In Babylon stood the great temple of Bel... Like other ones in the city, it had been destroyed by Xerxes... Alexander proposed to rebuild it
There is nothing there about him dedicating it to Zeus. What is more, Alexander paid for it to be rebuilt.
You may be confusing things, because later on, when trade became more pronounced between the regions after AtG's death, the greeks adopted Bel as synonymous with Zeus, but not till After this event

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

Quote, Arrian;
"In Babylon stood the great temple of Bel... Like other ones in the city, it had been destroyed by Xerxes... Alexander proposed to rebuild it
There is nothing there about him dedicating it to Zeus. What is more, Alexander paid for it to be rebuilt.
You may be confusing things, because later on, when trade became more pronounced between the regions after AtG's death, the greeks adopted Bel as synonymous with Zeus, but not till After this event

I really don't know where you got the Arrian quote but there is no reference to "great temple" nor to a proposal. They had surrendered and were viewed as his subjects, the only correct term of what he did was exactly as Arrian defines it: (προσέταξε) "ordered"

Anyway, I may be mistaken but I did clarify that I'm speaking about "after its restoration" and nowhere did I claim that he did the dedicating, actually we know that when in Babylon he had sacrificed to Belus under the customs of the locals, so suggesting he did the dedication is out of the question.

Now while synonymous or identifying Belus with Zeus since he's his counterpart doesn't indicate adoption of a religion/diety, I really don't understand the significance in his paying for it.. they had surrendered, their country, money and even lives were his to do with as he'd choose, so who should we expect would do the paying if not their ruler?