Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Let's talk about Alexander the Great leaving his empire "to the strongest"

Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:34 am
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
33214 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:34 am
If he actually did say that on his deathbed

That's gotta be one of the stupidest decisions in world history. I get that Alexander wasn't exactly a careful guy who thought everything through. I also realize the chances of his empire staying together after his death were very very low.

Even still many conquerors spent tons of time planning secession and trying to find ways to keep what they conquered together after they died.
Alexander actually was telling his successors to fight each other for control, what kind of an idiotic decision is that? (If it's true)
Posted by The Mick
Member since Oct 2010
45139 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:35 am to
Maybe he DGAF and enjoyed barbaric conquest.
Posted by athenslife101
Member since Feb 2013
20519 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:37 am to
People talk about how great Alexander is all the time, but honestly, he's overrated. If you can't build something to last, did you actually build anything.
Posted by Phat Phil
Krispy Kreme
Member since May 2010
7560 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:43 am to
Alexander's empire disappeared like right after his death. Genghis Khan's empire lasted for centuries and 1 in every 16 people in the world today have Genghis's DNA
Posted by CoachDon
Louisville
Member since Sep 2014
12409 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:43 am to
It's speculated by historians that he may have actually said the name Krateros, a Macedonian general rather than Kratistos, meaning "the strongest".

quote:

People talk about how great Alexander is all the time, but honestly, he's overrated. If you can't build something to last, did you actually build anything.


The dissemination of the Greek culture is Alexander's greatest legacy.
This post was edited on 3/4/16 at 7:46 am
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58289 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 7:57 am to
Nope.

Even dumber was Marcus Aurelius changing the secession to favor his son. Ended the silver age
Posted by To the Dome
Member since Aug 2015
680 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 8:09 am to
Is it not more fun to build an empire than to maintain it?
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
135017 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 8:19 am to
quote:

If you can't build something to last, did you actually build anything.
Enough about Mark Richt......
Posted by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
59307 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 8:20 am to
It's crazy that he founded Alexandria. His empire really was huge. I guess he needed a strategic chokehold between north and south louisiana
Posted by soccerfüt
Location: A Series of Tubes
Member since May 2013
75053 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 8:24 am to
It worked out for Alexander-

Posted by WalkingTurtles
Alexandria
Member since Jan 2013
5913 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 8:49 am to
Alexander the Great to me is the historical embodiment of Robert Baratheon. He could win wars but he couldn't rule.
Posted by SpqrTiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2004
9723 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 8:54 am to
If he did actually say and mean that on his death bed, it would actually be a natural outcropping of Greek cultural spirit.

Some might look back on it and see "one of the stupidest decisions in world history," but we have a tendency to apply our modern standards and modern hindsight upon people in the past without those viewpoints and benefits.

It's not idiotic. It's just... Greek.

The Greek agonal spirit, the spirit of competition, permeated every level of the ancient Greek cultural experience, from the upper to the lower classes. Competition drove these people in every single thing they did. That's one reason why this particular culture created the Olympics: to celebrate the very concept of competition (agone) and celebrate the excellence of the individual (arete). When Greek competitors faced off in the Olympics, for example, they didn't represent Athens or Sparta or Corinth. They competed as individuals.

Likewise, when Alexander conquered his territories in the Middle East and Asia, he didn't do it for Macedon. It wasn't "Macedonia." It's was Alexander's empire. Alexander, therefore, wouldn't just hand over what's his to a single subordinate and say "okay, Ptolemy's in charge now." That would be an insult to his generals, who were also very competitive people. Alexander, having no heir, would be denying his generals the chance to compete for their share of the empire. Alexander honored the Greek tradition of competition by giving them the opportunity to compete.

In this manner, Alexander is elevated, knowing that for all their efforts, his generals would never be able to match his arete, his personal excellence. The highest hope that one of his generals could have is to come closest to what Alexander achieved. By encouraging competition, Alexander assured his place at the top. Which is what a Greek individual wants most of all. The lasting nature of his empire is not Alexander's goal. The lasting nature of his excellence is what matters most to Alexander. That's why he sets the structure for everyone following him to fall short of him.

It's a little hard for modern folk to see it, but ancient ways are not our ways. We come close, but we are not the same.
Posted by fouldeliverer
Lannisport
Member since Nov 2008
13538 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 2:25 pm to
That sounds like a bunch of liberal mumbo jumbo. Sure it sounds like it could be true but I just don't by your fancy theory. I think it's simple: everyone knows before he died he was having all night drunk orgy parties cuz he was sad his gay lover died. When he was on his deathbed he was just in a drunken/hangover stupor and didn't care anymore. Just said frick you generals fight over it.
This post was edited on 3/4/16 at 2:27 pm
Posted by SpqrTiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2004
9723 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 2:30 pm to
quote:

That sounds like a bunch of liberal mumbo jumbo. Sure it sounds like it could be true but I just don't by your fancy theory. I think it's simple: everyone knows before he died he was having all night drunk orgy parties cuz he was sad his gay lover died. When he was on his deathbed he was just in a drunken/hangover stupor and didn't care anymore. Just said frick you generals fight over it.


Wow, I had never thought of it that way, until you explained to me. It's all so clear now.

It's about damn time somebody brought this age-old mystery to a close. to you, brah.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
95760 posts
Posted on 3/4/16 at 2:35 pm to
quote:

That's gotta be one of the stupidest decisions in world history.


Maybe, but in context it makes sense. How much do you know about Alexander or what Greece and Macedonia had been before Philip - his father forged what was to become the "Greek" Empire, however brief?

quote:

I get that Alexander wasn't exactly a careful guy who thought everything through.


Ya think? Do you know how he won most battles? His handpicked Vanguard/Royal Guard would cut a path for him to the opposing general, whom Alexander would then defeat in single combat. He was seriously wounded 9 times in battle.

quote:

I also realize the chances of his empire staying together after his death were very very low.


I see it like this - leave it to the strong - even if it fractures, the sections will have strong leaders - whom he saw as, more or less, in his image. (He was just short of his 33rd birthday at death.)

quote:

Alexander actually was telling his successors to fight each other for control, what kind of an idiotic decision is that?


Even though he came out of Macedon, he did admire the Spartan tradition of allowing the strong to survive at the expense of the weak. It doesn't make sense to modern society - we go out of our way to protect the weak and innocent. During the Bronze Age this was considered a weakness itself - they could not afford the feeble, frail or infirm. Women must be healthy to bear children and maintain the hearth. Men only have value in their agricultural production or place in the phalanx, hoplon and spear at the ready.

It makes perfect sense - in context.



first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram