11-16-2010, 02:50 PM
I really do not understand how any of your comments work against my arguments. Have I ever doubted the genius of Philip, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Scipio or anyone else? Have I ever proposed that Alexander alone and not relying on his father's achievements accomplished his great deeds? Have I ever suggested that Alexander never was favored by any circumstances? I think Paralus that you are debating some kind of discussion completely on your own without letting us know what it is about. Are we to establish exactly how far Alexander was aided by his father's exploits? Are we to debate on whether it was Alexander or Parmenio's family that led the anabasis? No, we are to just make a comparison and nothing else. I agree with many of your points but I do not see any relevance with the question. Are you trying to doubt Alexander's exploits on the grounds that he had a great father who paved the way to Asia, so you are proposing that Alexander was less a commander than Philip? Or are we to scold him because he had very good and experienced commanders? Are we to say that he has achieved nothing because he had a very good (and experienced) army? I am at a loss here. And this only to come to the conclusion that Alexander "created little"? How about a new chapter in World History, art, letters... the Hellenistic era. How about a number of kingdoms that shaped the history of the region for centuries to come? Why do you limit Alexander's achievements in an area between Larisa and Amphipolis?
And you very easily come to the conclusion that Philip had achieved lasting supremacy. You tend to forget how easy it was at these times to lose everything, since all Greek states, Macedon included, were only a fragment of the Greek world and the balance tended to continuously shift about. No, Alex had to reestablish himself, to show he was fit to walk in his father's sandals. This is why he embarked north and why he had to crush revolting Thebes. And if you see a Parmenio or an Olympias or anyone else whispering to Alexander's ears, this again has nothing to do with Alexander's greatness, especially since we only try to diminish his ability because we cannot excuse his youth. We simply seem to not be able to accept that such a young man did so much in such a little time and have to find others working in the shady background, but it seems we do this out of scorn and not because we really have any evidence to that other than speculation and personal opinions.
If we are to discuss Alexander's ability and course in depth, we can do that in a new thread that doesn't have to do with comparisons.
And you very easily come to the conclusion that Philip had achieved lasting supremacy. You tend to forget how easy it was at these times to lose everything, since all Greek states, Macedon included, were only a fragment of the Greek world and the balance tended to continuously shift about. No, Alex had to reestablish himself, to show he was fit to walk in his father's sandals. This is why he embarked north and why he had to crush revolting Thebes. And if you see a Parmenio or an Olympias or anyone else whispering to Alexander's ears, this again has nothing to do with Alexander's greatness, especially since we only try to diminish his ability because we cannot excuse his youth. We simply seem to not be able to accept that such a young man did so much in such a little time and have to find others working in the shady background, but it seems we do this out of scorn and not because we really have any evidence to that other than speculation and personal opinions.
If we are to discuss Alexander's ability and course in depth, we can do that in a new thread that doesn't have to do with comparisons.
