Alexander Moralia

[akritas]

Many times we have hear or read the Alexander biography. Double times we have also to same think regarding the Alexander character. Conqueror, bloodthirsty, clever, fool, liar, gay, bisexual, man e.t.c.

What from the above is right ? All these modern writers used as main sources the ancient writers.Names like Arrian, Diodoros Siculus, Kallisthenis and Plutarch are very familiar to every body. But all these modern writers have a common habit. They forget to quote the most known ancient work regarding the character of the Alexander.

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander
Περί της Αλεξάνδρου Τύχης ή Αρετής
Peri ths Alexandrou Tixis h Aretis

This work is forgotten from all, including and us. This book written from Plutarch and is a part from a general work that name as Moralia. Lets examine together some intresting points of this work.

I will start for the known question, a question that born in the middle of 20th century and has circulated all over the world.

Alexander sexuality

Plutarch had given to us a unique quote as about Alexander sexuality. He compared him with Socrates.


But let us compare the actions of men who are admitted to be philosophers. Socrates forbore when Alciviades spent the night with him. But when Philoxenus, the governor of the coastlands of Asia Minor, wrote to Alexander that there was in Ionia a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist, and inquired in his letter whether he should send the boy on to him, Alexander wrote bitterly in reply
«Vilest of men, what deed of this sort have you ever been privy to in my past that now you would flatter me with the offer of such pleasures?»
[Fortune, 12]


Any question as about the sexuality of Alexander dear modern writers?

The second one is the relationship with the other Greek tribes. We have hear many scholars like Borza-Baddian e.t.c that ancient Macedonians was not Greek and the Macedonians finally Hellenizing by adopted the ancient Greek culture. Plutarch had given a quote regarding the Thebes destruction from Alexander.


Again, however, Fortune stirred up Thebes against him, and thrust in his pathway a war with Greeks, and the dread necessity of punishing, by means of slaughter and fire and sword, men that were his kith and kin, a necessity which had a most unpleasant ending.
[Virtue, 11]


Any question as about the origin of Alexander dear modern writers?

One more critical point as about the Alexander character is what considers as barbarian. Barbarian according Icocrates is the one that has not adopted the Hellenic culture and education (panygirika 50). Plutarch had given to us a unique quote as about Alexander opinion in the barbarian.


For Alexander did not follow Aristotles advice to treat the Greeks as if he were their leader, and other peoples as if he were their master; to have regard for the Greeks as for friends and kindred, but to conduct himself toward other peoples as though they were plants or animals; for to do so would have been to cumber his leadership with numerous battles and banishments and festering seditions. But, as he believed that he came as a heaven sent governor to all, and as a mediator for the whole world, those whom he could not persuade to unite with him, he conquered by force of arms, and he brought together into one body all men everywhere, uniting and mixing in one great loving‐cup, as it were, mens lives, their characters, their marriages, their very habits of life.

He bade them all consider as their fatherland the whole inhabited earth, as their stronghold and protection his camp, as akin to them all good men, and as foreigners only the wicked; they should not distinguish between Grecian and foreigner by Grecian cloak and targe, or scimitar and jacket; but the distinguishing mark of the Grecian should be seen in virtue, and that of the foreigner in iniquity; clothing and food, marriage and manner of life they should regard as common to all, being blended into one by ties of blood and children.
[Fortune, 6]

…to be continued

[PhiliptheUniterchaeronea]

Good work Akritas. Very informative.

[The Blood of Dorus]

Some more from the Moralia:

The same quote on the sack of Thebes from the 1878 tranlation of William Goodwin, Professor of Greek Literature at Harvard University:

But then again spiteful Fortune stirred up the Thebans against him, and entangled him in the Grecian war, and in the dire necessity of defending himself against his fellow-countrymen and relations with fire and sword and hideous slaughter.

A comparison of Alexander with Pericles:

Pericles collected tribute from the Greeks and with the money adorned the Acropolis with temples; but Alexander captured the riches of barbarians and sent them to Greece with orders that ten thousand talents be used to construct temples for the gods. On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, II, 13

Alexander's assault on the citadel of the Mallians:

...that through Fortune the foreign host was prevailing beyond its deserts, but through Virtue the Greeks were holding out beyond their ability? And if the enemy gains the upper hand, this will be the work of Fortune or of some jealous deity or of divine retribution; but if the Greeks prevail, it will be Virtue and daring, friendship and fidelity, that will win the guerdon of victory? These were, in fact, the only support that Alexander had with him at this time, since Fortune had put a barrier between him and the rest of his forces and equipment, fleets, horse, and camp.

Finally, the Macedonians routed the barbarians, and, when they had fallen, pulled down their city on their heads.On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, II, 13

[akritas]

The Blood of Dorus
what is your opinion for Alexander Moralia and why all the modern writers never mention or quoted any fragment from this Plutarch work ?

[The Blood of Dorus]

The Blood of Dorus
what is your opinion for Alexander Moralia and why all the modern writers never mention or quoted any fragment from this Plutarch work ?

My personal view is that some writers already consider that the content of Plutarch's better known work, "The Parallel Lives", is sufficient to show that Plutarch considers the Macedonians as a Greek people.

Other writers have probably simply ignored or are not aware of the testimony contained in the "Moralia" - it is after all, a huge and varied work.

I also think that the interpretation of some other modern writers is that the "Moralia" only indictates that Alexander is a Greek (i.e. as a member of the Argead Royal House) while the question of the "Greekness" of the ordinary Macedonian soldier remains ambiguous.

[akritas]

I also think that the interpretation of some other modern writers is that the "Moralia" only indictates that Alexander is a Greek (i.e. as a member of the Argead Royal House) while the question of the "Greekness" of the ordinary Macedonian soldier remains ambiguous.
I will stay in your last quote and in what about Alexander or Plutarch consider as about the Macedonian soldier.


Read the below quote



But he said,
ʺIf I were not Alexander, IΒ should be Diogenesʺ;

that is to say:

ʺIf it were not my purpose to combine foreign things with things Greek, to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to disseminate and shower the blessings of Greek justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes.

But as things are, forgive me, Diogenes, that I imitate Heracles, and emulate Perseus, Band follow in the footsteps of Dionysus,the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorious Greeks should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage muntain tribes beyond the Caucasus......

[Fortune, 10]


As you know in pre -India campaign Alexander released the Greek allies from the Macedonian army and took Persian troops.

If Macedonians were not Greeks then in "whom" victorious Greeks Alexander-Plutarch focus ?:wacko:

The above quote I didnt see in none of the modern writers works regarding Alexander life.:)

[The Blood of Dorus]

Yes, this is a telling quote Akritas. Here it is in Goodwin's 1878 translation:

"Had I not designed to intermix barbarians and Greeks and to civilize the earth as I marched forward, and had I not proposed to search the limits of sea and land, and so, extending Macedon to the land-bounding ocean, to have sown Greece in every region all along and to have diffused justice and peace over all nations, I would not have sat yawning upon the throne of slothful and voluptuous power, but would have labored to imitate the frugality of Diogenes. But now pardon us, Diogenes. We follow the example of Hercules, we emulate Perseus, and tread in the footsteps of Bacchus, our divine ancestor and founder of our race; once more we purpose to settle the victorious Greeks in India, and once more to put those savage mountaineers beyond Caucasus in mind of their ancient Bacchanalian revels."

There is also more to be found in the Moralia which implies that both Alexander and his men are Greeks - for example:

In conquering and civilising the barbarians, both the cities established and the form of government, law and culture is Greek:

Yet no such busy wars as these employed their time in civilizing wild and barbarous kings, in building Grecian cities among rude and unpolished nations, nor in settling government and peace among people that lived without humanity or control of law. On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 4

But Alexander, building above seventy cities among the barbarous nations, and as it were sowing the Grecian customs and constitutions all over Asia, quite weaned them from their former wild and savage manner of living.On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 5

It may, however, be more justly averred of those whom Alexander subdued, had they not been vanquished, they had never been civilized. Egypt had not vaunted her Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia her Seleucia; Sogdiana had not gloried in her Propthasia, nor the Indians boasted their Bucephalia, nor Caucasus its neighboring Grecian city; by the founding of all which barbarism was extinguished and custom changed the worse into better.On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 5

But it behooves us also, as it were, to make a new coin, and to stamp a new face of Grecian civility upon the barbarian metal.On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 5

In the treatment and distinguishment of Greeks and barbarians:

But Alexander made good his words by his deeds; for he did not, as Aristotle advised him, rule the Grecians like a moderate prince and insult over the barbarians like an absolute tyrant; nor did he take particular care of the first as his friends and domestics, and scorn the latter as mere brutes and vegetables...On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 6

Nor would he that Greeks and barbarians should be distinguished by long garments, targets, scimitars, or turbans; but that the Grecians should be known by their virtue and courage, and the barbarians by their vices and their cowardice...On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 6

But I would gladly have been a spectator of those majestic and sacred nuptials, when, after he had betrothed together a hundred Persian brides and a hundred Macedonian and Greek bridegrooms, he placed them all at one common table within the compass of one pavilion embroidered with gold, as being all of the same family...On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 7

Note that I do not consider that Plutarch makes the above distinction between Macedonian and Greek on the basis of ethnicity - it is more made on the basis that Macedonians formed the majority of the army whilst other Greeks (whether Corinthians, Thessalians, etc) formed the remainder. It is a classification made more on the basis of geographical origin.

Next Plutarch tells us of the imposition of Greek religion:

Most admirable philosophy! which induced the Indians to worship the Grecian Deities...On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 5

But Alexander engaged both Bactria and Caucasus to worship the Grecian Gods, which they had never known before.On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 5

Of Alexander's descent, which would not be seen as "noble" in Plutarch's eyes if it was not Greek:

...the nobility of his Macedonian extraction...On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 9

And the ultimate revenge, to see a Greek king on the throne of Persia:

Therefore it was that Demaratus the Corinthian, an acquaintance and friend of Philip, when he beheld Alexander in Susa, bursting into tears of more than ordinary joy, bewailed the deceased Greeks, who, as he said, had been bereaved of the greatest blessing on earth, for that they had not seen Alexander sitting upon the throne of Darius. On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, I, 7

[pankration]

From his letters and speeches it is obvious to even a moron that Alexander freely mixed the terms Greek and Macedonian. It must always be remembered that Greeks were divided into separate kingdoms. This tribalism manifested itself in the many civil wars but there was never any doubt that culturally they were of the same stock and this extended to the scattered thousands of Greeks living in Asia, North Africa and Sicily. The favoritism shown by Alexander to the Macedonians is only natural: they were his childhood friends and companions and the army that his father built which solidified his hold over his countrymen and provided the base for his invasion of Asia. When Leonatus stayed behind in Thermopylae he kept HIS Spartans with him, not an integrated force. Even the Thespians who valiantly remained fought as their OWN unit. This was normal in those days. Why is such a simple concept so hard to understand?

[The Blood of Dorus]

From his letters and speeches it is obvious to even a moron that Alexander freely mixed the terms Greek and Macedonian. It must always be remembered that Greeks were divided into separate kingdoms. This tribalism manifested itself in the many civil wars but there was never any doubt that culturally they were of the same stock and this extended to the scattered thousands of Greeks living in Asia, North Africa and Sicily. The favoritism shown by Alexander to the Macedonians is only natural: they were his childhood friends and companions and the army that his father built which solidified his hold over his countrymen and provided the base for his invasion of Asia. When Leonatus stayed behind in Thermopylae he kept HIS Spartans with him, not an integrated force. Even the Thespians who valiantly remained fought as their OWN unit. This was normal in those days. Why is such a simple concept so hard to understand?

Its very easy concept for anyone to understand - unless your an ex-commie blockhead of course.

[akritas]

Many times we have heared or read that the best Great Alexanders statues were that sculpured from Lysippus.Who told that ?

of course Plutarch in the Moralia:)


And when Lysippus modelled his first statue of Alexander which represented him looking with his face turned towards the heavens (as indeed Alexander often did look, with a slight inclination of his head to one side), someone engraved these verses on the statue, not without some plausibility,

Eager to speak seems the statue of bronze, up to Zeus as it gazes
"Earth I have set under foot: Zeus, keep Olympus yourself!"

Wherefore Alexander gave orders that Lysippus only should make statues of him. For Lysippus was, it seemed, the only one that revealed in the bronze Alexander's character and in moulding his form portrayed also his virtues. The others wished to imitate the flexing of his neck and liquid softness of his eyes, but were unable to preserve his virile and leonine expression.
[Virtue, 2]


In the same work we have a small summary in when battles Alexander woonded.
""Gashed with wounds""


On the banks of the Granicus his helmet was cleft through to his scalp by a sword;
at Gaza his shoulder was wounded by a missile;
at Maracanda his shin was so torn by an arrow that by the force of the blow the larger bone was broken and extruded.
Somewhere in Hyrcania his sight was dimmed, and for many days he was haunted by the fear of blindness.
Among the Assacenianshis ankle was wounded by an Indian arrow;
that was the time when he smilingly said to his flatterers, 'this that you see is blood, not Ichor, that which flows from the wounds of the blessed immortals.
At Issus he was wounded in the thigh with a sword, as Chares states, by Darius the king, who had come into hand-to-hand conflict with him.

Alexander himself wrote of this simply, and with complete truth, in a letter to Antipater: 'I myself happened,' he writes, 'to be wounded in the thigh by a dagger. But nothing untoward resulted from the blow either immediately or later.'

Among the Mallians he was wounded in the breast by an arrow three feet long, which penetrated his breastplate, and someone rode up under him, and struck him in the neck, as Aristobulus relates.
[Virtue, 9]

[akritas]

below two links that you can read Plutarch Moralia , on the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander:)

Plutarch • On the Fortune of Alexander (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fortuna_Alexandri*/home.html)

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander (http://www.starkrealities.com/fortune.html)

[Spartan]

Good job Akritas, I have read that somewhere else as well about Lysippus being the only person Alexander gave permission to sculpt him. I am thinking from another ancient source??

[Anamika]

Can anybody help me get more details on these topics for Alexander or any websites i can refer to:
- Alexander using medical science in military / governance.
-explore looking leveraging sexuality
-diversity in building a large kingdom.

Thank You Guys.

[Slayer]

Hi Anamika

There is a search function you might want to try towards the top of the page.

I would also suggest browsing through the bookmarks at the top of the page.
If you can not find the information on here but do find it on another site then you are more then welcome to share what you find here.

Good Luck

[Lyssius]

The contention with his refusal to take the slave-boys comes back to his Aristotlian teachings. He doesn't want relationships based only on the needs of lust or procreation. This is why he marries Roxxane as opposed to macedonian wife first. He didn't 'civilise' the barbarians, in fact in almost every circumstance, he allowed them to keep whatever government he had before. Any Persian cities that where an oligarchy, become one.
If i'm not mistaken, is this topic about romanticizing Alexander?

[greece1988]

Look Alexander the great is GREEK fyrom is skopia that is the true name.....