10-26-2010, 02:38 AM
The problem in making these kinds of assertions, Macedon, is that "we possess only a very little direct evidence on Alexander" notes Claude Mossé in the introduction to his 'Alexander: Destiny and Myth' (2001). The written accounts by his contemporaries have not come down to us and "the extant accounts of his extraordinary epic were written three or more centuries after his time". Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Q. Curtius and Arrian of Nikomedia constitute our principal sources. "Moreover," writes Mossé, "in the course of the four or five centuries that separate them from their hero, the legend surrounding him had been growing ever richer and the image, or rather images, that they have transmitted to us are clearly marked by that enrichment". Picking the hyperbole and legend away to reveal the true man is, thus, a great challenge. One who has attempted to is John D. Grainger in 'Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire' (2007). He reveals Alexander as a flawed commander and king. As the publisher's summary states:
This assessment reveals Alexander 'the Great' to have been a man blessed by little in the way of strategic genius or long term vision, much less political genius, and graced with an impulsive even unstable personality that in the end made him the destroyer of the very empire he sought to build.
Quote:for all his military prowess and success as a conqueror, John Grainger argues that he was one of history's great failures. Alexander's arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death; and he was personally culpable for the failure of his imperial enterprise. For Alexander was king of a society where the ruler was absolutely central to the well-being of society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded, something which had happened every generation for two centuries before him and happened again when he died. For the good of his people, Alexander needed an adult successor, but he refused to provide one while also killing any man who could be seen as one. The consequence was fifty years of warfare after his death and the destruction of his empire.
This assessment reveals Alexander 'the Great' to have been a man blessed by little in the way of strategic genius or long term vision, much less political genius, and graced with an impulsive even unstable personality that in the end made him the destroyer of the very empire he sought to build.
