/lit/ - Literature

>Roman writers did not merely debate the character of Alexander, they did not merely take him as model, they more or less invented the “Alexander” that we now know—as Diana Spencer came close to arguing in her excellent book The Roman Alexander (2002). In fact, the first attested use of the title “Alexander the Great” is in a Roman comedy by Plautus, in the early second century BC, about 150 years after Alexander’s death. I very much doubt that Plautus himself dreamed up the term, but it may well have been a Roman coinage; there is certainly nothing whatever to suggest that Alexander’s contemporaries or immediate successors in Greece ever called him “Alexander ho Megas.” In a sense, “Alexander the Great” is as much a Roman creation as “Pompey the Great” was.

>Even more significant is the character and the cultural background of the surviving ancient accounts of Alexander’s life. It is repeatedly said that these accounts were all written much later than the events they described. True; but more to the point is the fact that they were all written under the Roman Empire against the background of Roman imperialism. Diodorus Siculus, whose account is the earliest to survive, was writing in the late first century BC. Arrian, now the most favored source, was born in the 80s AD in the city of Nicomedia (in modern Turkey), and undertook a Roman political career, becoming consul in the 120s, and later serving as governor of Cappadocia. Of course these Roman authors did not create the story of Alexander; and of course they depended on the writings of Alexander’s contemporaries, however good, or bad, they may have been. But they are bound to have seen this story through a Roman filter, to have interpreted and adjusted what they read in the light of the versions of conquest and imperial expansion that were characteristic of their own political age.

Yeah, only shame is he died too young to set up a proper legacy and ensure his empire didn't come apart. If he'd lived twice as long, shit would have been dope as fuck, the Middle East today might be culturally part of Europe.

>>6099580
He would have got his ass handed to him if he lived much longer. He had the good fortune of dying at the peak of his success, in contrast to say Napoleon or Hannibal.

>>6099592
>He would have got his ass handed to him if he lived much longer.
What makes you so sure of this? The greatest obstacle to conquest Alexander ever encountered was his army outright refusing go carry on further; if they didn't, then he would have ran into the same difficult the Persians did in the East (maybe), but in fact he turned back and focused on Arabia.

>>6099603
If he had gone west he would have encountered nations far more martial in inclination. The Persians were a bunch of pussies, beating them should have not been considered noteworthy.

>you will never be young Bonaparte at Toulon

>>6099620
Gone West, you mean through Europe? I doubt he would have done that in this lifetime, he was more interested in Asia and Libya.

You call the Persians pussies, but this is really a retarded thing to say considering they created a sizable empire.

>>6099628
Yeah but their skulls are thin as shit, they only created a proper empire when they teamed up with Iran and Turkey and bits that may or may not belong to Russia but who am I to argue with Putin? They weren't as pussified as Aeschylus makes out, but they weren't exactly durable either.

>>6099552
Considering how well he was respected by Romans and Egyptians ...the leading to the founding of Alexandria...the implementation of the Ptolemaic Dynasty....I'd say yes.

>>6099620
>If he had gone west he would have encountered nations far more martial in inclination.
No, he wouldn't. Not in his century, bud.

>>6099646
>Yeah but their skulls are thin as shit
Shut up Herodotus.

>they only created a proper empire when they teamed up with Iran and Turkey and bits that may or may not belong to Russia but who am I to argue with Putin?
A clearly opinionated fellow.

>They weren't as pussified as Aeschylus makes out, but they weren't exactly durable either.
Don't conflate the aristocracy's effeminate decadence with how most of the army functioned.

>>6099628
He wouldn't have gone through Europe or fought the Italians because he was a faggot and wanted to fight peoples he knew he could beat.
He was horrible at strategy and simply spammed the same tactic on the battlefield over and over again. He should not be compared to Napoleon, Caesar or Hannibal.

>>6099665
>He was horrible at strategy and simply spammed the same tactic on the battlefield over and over again.
Gotta love blanket statements from retards.

>>6099620
You do realize that Eastern, Central, and Western Europe was a shit stain on the world, full of barbaric creatures more similar to their ape like ancestors than actual human beings during the time period before the Romans.

>>6099665
Yeah, because le grand battery isn't spamming a military tactic.

>>6099665
>He wouldn't have gone through Europe or fought the Italians because he was a faggot and wanted to fight peoples he knew he could beat.
it was his intention to conquer the mediterranean, you dolt

>>6099665
>finds tactic that works great
>changes it to something else

>>6099664
Egypt wasn't exactly military genius land, but Persians were much more easily defeated by most everyone else, and a distinct Persian identity doesn't emerge until the middle ages because it's only when the aristocracy are into being prototypes of European decadents that they form an empire at all with their thin skulls and Farsi as a lingua franca in it.

>>6099677
Hence fighting the Italians
>>6099670
Still would have beat this upstart Macedonian faggot.
>>6099674
Napoleon's tactical and strategic movements have all the beauty and sophistication of a chess grand master playing his game.
Alexander's simplistic ideas convey him as the bloodthirsty barbarian that he was.
>>6099687
He simply took the tactics from his daddy. He was quite touchy about this fact too.

>people talking shit about historically and culturally important figures for no other reason than 'I don't like them'
even if he wasn't as impactful as its said he was (which would be a lie, considering the evident lifespan of the conquered territory), the simple fact is that his character was culturally important and influential to the greeks, the romans, the egyptians, and to medieval and byzantine romances. which alone, like king arthur, warrants a highly regarded reputation.

>>6099702
>Still would have beat this upstart Macedonian faggot.
Did he rape your mother or something?

>>6099702

>Persian Scum


Have you even read a book about his tactics? They changed depending on the situation just the same type of troops.

>>6099702
>Napoleon's tactical and strategic movements have all the beauty and sophistication of a chess grand master playing his game.
>Alexander's simplistic ideas convey him as the bloodthirsty barbarian that he was.
yeah man
because linear tactics and phalanx tactics are totally comparable, you don't come off as a mental deficient with a personal bias or anything.

>>6099702
Why do people keep replying to this obvious b8?

>>6099702
>He simply took the tactics from his daddy
Don't be retarded, from everything we know he changed his tactics and army formation many times over the course of his campaign, he wouldn't have been able to do what he did if he hadn't.

>>6099702
>Napoleon's tactical and strategic movements have all the beauty and sophistication of a chess grand master playing his game.
lol what the fuck are you talking about? Learned as much about his enemy as he could,, and his army was of better quality, and he knew how to focus artillery, that was the major difference. His tactics weren't elaborate, he just had a lot of will and put fucking serious effort into figuring out which tactic to use.

>>6099702
Its better to do something simple well than have a complicated plan that can go wrong if one part doesn't work

>>6099726
>has never studied napoleon's campaigns in depth
>>6099716
>>6099724
If the Persians had given Memnon adequate resources Alexander would have been defeated quite easily.
Any competent general would have crushed Alexander, his reliance on his companion cavalry was easily exploitable.

>>6099787
Damn you're stupidly simplistic.

>>6099787
No, if Memnon was a 'competent general' then he would have crushed Alexander.

>>6099787
>his reliance on his companion cavalry was easily exploitable.
it's easy to discredit something with the wisdom of hindsight

>>6099818
Memnon was not a great battlefield commander but his strategic ideas were quite sound.
>>6099821
By Gaugamela Alexander's tactical propensity had been made clear. If the Persians had been halfway decent they would have been able to exploit Alexander's one dimensionality and crush him.

>>6099832
>If the Persians had been halfway decent they would have been able to exploit Alexander's one dimensionality and crush him.
Oh, but they weren't.
Which makes him comparably good.
As was his empire compared to the entirely unorganized states west of Greece.
His Greatness is relative to his context, not to Napoleon, Caesar or Hannibal.

>>6099853
He wasn't good, he was merely competent.

>>6099857
>He wasn't good, he was merely competent.
Some hot opinions there, faggot.
That's right he wasn't good, he was great.
That's why we know him as such.

Go be an armchair general elsewhere.

>>6099862
You know him because he was an egomaniac who inherited a good army from his daddy and a bunch of generals who knew how to use it.
The Romans made him "The great" as he fitted their imperial ideals.

>>6099867
And you think you know better because you're an armchair general, we get it.

>>6099868
Armchair general? I will have you know sir, I am undefeated at rome total war.

>>6099552
He was a cool dude, but a bit overrated. Inherited a great army and a great state from his dad and pretty much all he did was hammer and anvil shitters all the way to India.

At least he went out like a champ. I'd rather have his death than Nappy's or Hitler's.

You kids seem to like Hannibal a lot
But after some amount of study, surely he was flawed as a general?
For instance, he failed to properly understand who he was fighting. Rome didn't surrender like he thought they would, because he was trained in Greek diplomacy where the accepted thing would be to surrender if a state was in the same situation as Rome.

>images.jpg
>every word is capitalized
>no content other than a question
>people still respond

come on. do your own homework, kid.

>>6099552
How Can We Know If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

>>6099665
>fought only those he knew he could defeat
>horrible at strategy
That's the peak of warfare according to Sun Tzu. There's nothing noteworthy about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, that's just setting yourself up for inevitable defeat. You fight to win, so fight when you can win.

>>6100933
he died like a stupid wino shitting his pants in fever.
it must have been a terrible death

>>6099687
>tfw someone uses your lindy

Napoleon III > Napoleon I

>>6102060
In French, Napoleon III's epithet is "The Small", in order to distinguish him from his greater homonym.

>>6099665
>He was horrible at strategy and simply spammed the same tactic on the battlefield over and over again

This is vidya's effect on the modern retards view of history.

>>6102065
The French are wrong and dumb.

>>6099552
How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

>>6099665
nigga u memein...?

>>6099552
He'd be better if he took a step or two to the left

>>6099665
> wanted to fight peoples he knew he could beat.
Sounds like a pretty sound strategy to me.