Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?  (Read 16725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cleisthenes

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • "not unlike a clamberer on a steep cliff," Newman
    • Swimmin' Lessons
Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« on: February 28, 2006, 06:20:47 am »
I hope some of you are interested in this topic.  Does Alexander the Great actually deserve his epithet?  So much of my recent research/reading has left me, well, ambivalent. 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Nullum Gratuitum Prandium!
"Flamma fumo est proxima!"--Plautus
 :Chi-Rho:

Offline slokind

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6654
  • Art is an experimental science
    • An Art Historian's Numismatics Studies
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2006, 01:51:35 pm »
Alexander son of Philip was the right man at the right time to pull off something that proved decisive in history, and then died in 323.
Alexander the Great is, like the heroes of Troy, more and other than any young man who had an army to lead and led it.
We are much better informed about the formation of the Alexander myth and its long afterlife than we are about Philip's son.  He cannot have been untalented or uncharming, but neither, like a few other kings' sons, can he have been what cultural needs created out of him.
IMHO.
Pat L.

ember

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2006, 02:23:12 pm »
Hi,

I find it interesting that you are undecided towards ATG.  Most folks either love him or hate him. ;)  He was just a man, and a flawed one, but he conquered a vast area, and for the most part, kept the moral of his men up during some hellish experiences.  As far as military leaders go, he would rank better than "pretty good", I would guess. :)

Darcy

Offline Ecgþeow

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
    • my gallery
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2006, 05:23:56 pm »
As a military commander, Alexander absolutely deserves his title.  He is almost unsurpassed in history as a leader.

baseball_7

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2006, 07:33:56 pm »
Without a doubt he deserves it as a general. He was a military genius (Just look at the battle of Gaugamela where Alexander defeated Darius III and 250,000 soldiers, with under 50,000 troops. The tactics used were ingenious.) He also played a big role in ushering in the use of siege equipment (the battle of Tyre). Not to mention he expanded his empire 2500 miles eastward in only 10 years. He also  spread Hellenistic culture and knowledge throughout the middle-east and central Asia. For example, if you look at most statues of Buddha from that time period they are dressed in chitons, and you can clearly see the hellenistic influence. Although his motives for his conquest is questionable, he was obviously a great leader, for his military and cultural legacies.

Ben

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2006, 08:06:23 pm »
Looking at him from a military and cultural perspective, the answer has to be yes, he does deserve the title. He might have been a bit of an uncultured git himself (thugh we dont actually know) but through his actions he spread Hellenistic culture accross a massive area and shaped the development of all the nations in that area, Turkey, Persia/Iran, Egypt, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India etc all developed from a synthesis of nativeand Greek culture to some extent.
Militarily he never lost a battle (that we know about) and conquered the ancient "hyperpower" of Persia at the height of its power. In my opinion, the only military leader to surpass him is Napoleon Bonaparte, but he surpasses every military leader, and A3 is still a close second.
                                                              LordBest. 8)

Offline Ecgþeow

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
    • my gallery
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2006, 08:20:42 pm »
I don't know, LB, at least Alexander's empire lasted until his death.  Napoleon's empire collapsed completely even before his death, and he spent the rest of his life in exile.

Offline AlexB

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • The meek shall inherit the earth..so buy a meek
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2006, 08:26:44 pm »
Hi

He forced the release via coinage of he massive reserves of Gold and Silver kept in the Persian treasurery albeit via the soldiery initially. This helped boost the trade and interaction within the 'known world' which brought about greater prosperity or more misery depending on your point of view and situation no doubt.

However, it could be seen as the first attempt at globalisation, inline with our current trade orientated economies (again for better of worse!).

And yes he wasnt a bad general/statesman either at the highest level. Napoleon, great as a tactician, never got the strategic bit quite right...

Brgds

AlexB
'Never has so much been owed, to so many, by so few' - Mervyn King, Governor, Bank of England, 20th Oct 2009

virtvsprobi

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2006, 09:06:11 pm »
In my opinion, Alexander was about as great as Temüjin. No one ever says anything nice about the spread of the Mongol culture, it's always "hellenistic this" and "hellenistic that". What would we ever do without airag? Sheesh!

Genghis /<han

Offline slokind

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6654
  • Art is an experimental science
    • An Art Historian's Numismatics Studies
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2006, 10:51:03 pm »
Well, his lifetime certainly is a watershed...What I always wondered about, reading of his conquests, was whether those wonderfully capable generals of his (wouldn't the father that brought Aristotle to teach him make sure he had great chiefs of staff on his campaigns?) weren't the real military geniuses.  I don't say that the boy wasn't an apt pupil; I don't know.  It took a lot of strategy and logistics, however, not to end up as badly as Xerxes had done in Greece.  It is one thing to look great on a horse or in a chariot (facing Darius V), quite another to manage and consistently lead a bunch of men twice your age in some cases, not nearly so delicately reared, not to mention all the cliques and interest groups in a large army.  I tend to think that Caesar was a more seasoned general than Alexander, and didn't he have trouble sometimes?  (the thoughts girls think waiting their turn to recite in Greek class).  Pat L.

Offline AlexB

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • The meek shall inherit the earth..so buy a meek
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2006, 10:54:08 pm »
Hi

Im pretty sure Temujin did not take a small, select, highly trained army cross an empire beating all opposition through skillful use of resources and leadership. I suspect he battered all opposition into submission with a massive hoard of horsemen!!

Did he leave a lasting legacy except fathering hundreds of children that many can trace their genes back to now? Or was that another Mongol hoard?!

Not, in my view, comparable though ignorance on subject willingly admitted.

 ;D

nb. Pat - I too think his advisors paid a massive part in it but as they say, the Chief Executive must take the ultimate credit or pay the ultimate price in any venture.

Alex
'Never has so much been owed, to so many, by so few' - Mervyn King, Governor, Bank of England, 20th Oct 2009

virtvsprobi

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2006, 11:17:54 pm »
Not, in my view, comparable though ignorance on subject willingly admitted.

I was joking. However, I have exactly the same amount of admiration (none) for Alexander, Ghenghis Khan or Napoleon.
All the "greats" were typically a great pain in the... ah...  collective unconscious.

As for Napoleon's lasting legacy... There's the cognac.  :laugh:

G/<

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2006, 05:10:39 am »
Talking about the military perspective, I have my doubts whether Alexander or even Napoleon should be regarded as most genius commanders of all time. Napoleon should already be disregarded because he lost his empire - sounds harsh, but being a real military genius involves strategy, and somebody who looses a war obviously had the wrong strategy; no matter how many battles he won. Alexander could heavily draw upon the work done by his father and upon his generals, above all Parmenion. Surely he himself was a strong and inspiring leader, but he also was careless and stubborn, mistrustful and envious, and the longer his conquest lasted, the more he lost his grip on reality. Look at his march through the southern Persian desert, with not even cities to conquer, and where almost half his army died. "He did because the army had revolted against him", many historians say - but is that strategy? And who wonders about his men, revolting after such a long time and thousands of miles of marching and fighting in unkown lands? They had been told they would fight the Persian Empire - now they marched for Alexander's glory, not for their country.

Alexander, beyond doubt, is one of the most fascinating rulers of all time; he started his conquest almost as a youth, he conquered the world, he died young. But that is just one side of the medal. The other side shows a restless and aimless young king, not knowing any limits, expanding his initial goals to the infinite. The world had to become Alexander, and Alexander the world. It is obvious that if he had not died that early, he would have failed at some point, be it on conquest of southern Arabia, or fighting usurpers and invaders, or by the knive of one of his "friends". People are often blinded by the vast empire he had conquered, but they tend to overlook the problems that arose, and those that would have arised in the near future.

A real military genius does not only win the battles, but he has an accurately defined goal he tries to achieve, and he does so by following a strategy. Alexander expanded his goal to the infinite, and I can not detect any strategy in his actions other than conquering everyone and everything. Where is the goal of achieving a better peace for his own people? Why did he not stop after Dareios got killed? The initial goal of the war - defeating the Persian Empire and "revenging" the sacrileges of the Persian invasions of the early 5. Century BC - had been achieved, he could have returned home in full glory; or he could even have stayed in Persia ruling both Persia and Makedonia. Instead, he decided to march on, to get everything. That desicion made him immortal, but it does not make him a better ruler.

Nevertheless, of course he "deserves" the title "the Great", but I think looking at him as the most genius military leader of all time is wrong, and so is the perspective of looking at him as the most genius ruler of ancient times. For Alexander, he was the best, but he was not for his people.

Restrain from overestimating your own and your people's strength, work hard in order to achieve the best for your people, and you become a good ruler. Achieve something unimaginable, die young before it collapses, and you become immortal.

Lars

PS: I apologize for any language mistakes. Talking about coins in a foreign language is one thing, but explaining historical problems in it is a bit more difficult.
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline AlexB

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • The meek shall inherit the earth..so buy a meek
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2006, 06:00:36 am »
Hi Lars

If you talking ancients military achievements there are only a few greats...Alexander is def one of them.

For my money Hannibal (tactically only) was no.1. Caesar no.2 - both cases because they were fighting Romans at some stage, well drilled ones at that. Alexander maybe third.

As for greats that looked after their people whilst knowing their limits - can't think of any! Saladin maybe?

AlexB
'Never has so much been owed, to so many, by so few' - Mervyn King, Governor, Bank of England, 20th Oct 2009

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2006, 06:36:08 am »
I dont think the loss of the empire matters in the least, really. Napoleon shaped the future of the entire modern world, and conquered all but one of the world superpowers, an even that one (Britain) was a close run thing, his abject defeat and exile was not a historical certainlty like mainy Anglo dominated historians make out. :) Strategically Napoleon did make some errors, but ironically he nearly always recovered from them, had he deployed his cannon earlier at Waterloo, it would have been the  Pax Francais not the Pax Britannica which dominated the next 110 years. ;)
Alexander never lost a battle that we know about, sometimes less through his genius than through the incompetance of his enemy admittedly. But still, impressive. Sure he utilised his lesser commanders abilities a great deal to win the battles, but as Napoleon said (paraphrased somewhat) "It isnt soldiers who win battles, its commanders who use them adroitly". ;) I say Napoleon was the greatest because he utilised his men, and the entire capacity of his nation to such an extent he not only defeated, but succeeded, for a decade, in occupying all Europe. You think 10 years doesnt sound much? For an occupation against highly nationalistic peoples who are your technological equals, its an immense achievement. Alexander and Macedon atleast had technogical superiority over the Persians.
Caesar in my list comes in third, Hannibal i personally believe to be one of the most overrated military leaders in history. He suceeded in causing damage but he never posed a significant threat to Rome. He also made the very common mistake of leaders who arent as clever as they think, in assuming the people of the opposition would welcome him as a liberator.
1) Napoleon, tactically, strategically, logistically, historically (ie his actions influence on events).
2) Alexander the Great, tactically, stragically, historically.
3) Caesar, tactically and logistically. (not historically because his legacy would have been nothing without Augustus/Octavian)
4) Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé
5) Arthur Wellesly, Duke of Wellington. (to my shame, a distant relation)
6) Baibars (being the only military commander to defeat the Mongols at the height of their power, and decisively no less, that)
7) Jean d'Arc. Its easy to underestimate how effective this lass was, but the only 16 year old girl to command the military forces of an entire nation, and command them damn well, deserves a spot on the list too. anyone read the fairly new theory that Joan was an alias for a well bred aristocratic woman, trained in the arts of war and combat already, and some poor peasant girl wad burnt in her place as the English didnt know? Interesting, if doubtful.
EDIT: 8.) Friedrich Borrusorum, Frederick the Great. how could I have forgot him? The man who turned Prussia from a backwater to the dominent German state, taking on the greatest military powers in the world with a tiny little country, and winning. Eventually. Also had rather too much fondness for canines than is usually considered healthy.
                                                          LordBest. 8)

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2006, 07:09:47 am »
Such a list must be subjective (and - to be honest - pretty useless), of course, but I'd also name Dschingis Khan, Subatei, Tamerlan, Scipio Africanus, von Mannheim, Nelson, Narses etc. And I do not agree with putting Napoleon on 1. and Caesar on 3. rank. The problem is: what is a military genius? IMO, a military genius does not only win battles, but he serves a strategy and achieves his goal, he also behaves in a responsible way (as far as that is possible in war) towards his men and his people, and he knows when to stop. It does not matter how many battles Napoleon won; what remains is that he lost the war and his empire, and he definitely destroyed French domination in Europe. Hannibal lost the war and destroyed Carthage power as well (though I do not agree with your statement that he did not pose a significant threat to Rome), Caesar was a horrible strategian, Baibars did only win one single battle against a smaller part of the Mongolian army because those had retreated with their main army to attend the kuriltai to elect a new Khan; you name it. There aren't many general who did not make big mistakes (remember the saying: "the general who makes least mistakes, wins the battle"), and amongst them one has to name Scipio. As a pacifist, my admiration towards him does not result out of his military achievements, but out of his politics, personal behaviour and cultural views, but nevertheless I agree with Liddell Hart who puts Scipio on first place of all ancient generals, if not on first place of all generals of all time.

Lars
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2006, 07:34:24 am »
I agree the list is highly subjective, but thats what makes it fun. ;) If you want to take pure, simple military genius in terms of battles, wars and outcomes, then Friederick the Great is number one, instead of Napoleon, I put Napoleon in top place because of his enormous impact on history, which was a result of his incredible military success. Its interesting really, Napoleon made fewer mistakes than Wellington, but Napoleons mistakes were more catastrophic. Invading Russia, Annexing Spain, refusal to forgive Murat and delaying the deployment of his artillery. The first two he recovered from,the third would have removed the fourth from considerations, with Marachel Murat contributing to the war effort it wouldnt have gone as far as Waterloo. As for French dominence of Europe, it was not eally lost until 1871.
Baibars inflicted a devestating defeat on the Mongols, and they could not counterattack due to the Khans death, but even if they had Baibars could have defeated them again, he had the tactics, the troops, and he had shattered the Mongols momentum. I have to admit i'm rather disparaging of Mongol military achievements, they managed to conquer a lot of empty space or fragmented states, with the big exception of China. but again, the Chinese military of the time was pathetic and the Mongols had mastered the cruder forms of population control (ie, genocide).
Timur/Tamerlane and his "predecessor" Mahmud Ghazna were also very impressive military leaders.
                                                             LordBest. 8)

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2006, 07:52:29 am »
Talking about the Mongol military achievements as "conquering a lot of empty space" is a common error made in the west; as it is common to equal the Mongols with the Huns. There is China, there are the Hsi-Hsia, Kara-Kitai, there is Persia and the Baktrian lands, Russia, Eastern Europe, the Kalifat... remember that some baktrian cities (like Balch, Buchara, Samarkand etc.), for example, were much larger than Rome or Paris at that time, containing garrisons of at least several ten thousands of soldiers.

All those people and states named were far from being empty space, and the Mongolian army was far from being an unorganized horde. A mongolian general commanded a better equipped, better trained, better organized and more disciplined army than any other general of that time; and, besides that, if you compare the war tactics of european kings with those of mongolian generals, it is like comparing a barbarian chief with a trained general.

I agree, Tamerlan was an impressive general who never lost a battle, but he did not create something lasting. Dschingis Khan and his early successors did. But we are getting off-topic  :) Alexander was great, without any doubt. But if I had to name the greatest ruler of antiquity, I'd name Hadrian on 1. place.

Lars
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

virtvsprobi

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2006, 11:04:16 am »
Alexander was great, without any doubt.

There's a great passage in Gogol's "Inspector-General" of which I always think when someone starts frothing about Alexander:

"GOVERNOR. And then I must call your attention to the
history teacher. He has a lot of learning in his head
and a store of facts. That's evident. But he lectures
with such ardor that he quite forgets himself. Once
I listened to him. As long as he was talking about the
Assyrians and Babylonians, it was not so bad. But when
he reached Alexander of Macedon, I can't describe what
came over him. Upon my word, I thought a fire had
broken out. He jumped down from the platform, picked
up a chair and dashed it to the floor. Alexander of
Macedon was a hero, it is true. But that's no reason for
breaking chairs..."

Thanks for the all the sanity, Lars.

G/<

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2006, 11:16:20 am »
1. The answer to the question whether  AIII was  great is very simple - yes.
(Numismatically, also, yes).
He was extremely charismatic leader who could lead the nation and the army.
He could reshape the world: ellinistic states lasted at least 3 centuries after his deaths.
The targets he  aimed and his people where happy with him untill the end.
Was he a  genius as a military commander?  It is not so obvious. He inherited a perfect
military machine and it is not clear  how it functioned  in reality. Some experts have doubts about efficiency of the falanx...
What was the role of generals and advisers?  Alexandre was not a mature person when he started the conquest, a teenager
with all problems for such an age... 

2.  Contrary to Alexandre, Caesar was a military genius, also highly charismatic but with extraordinary
aptitude to tactics and strategy. Caesar was extremely popular and beloved leader (hated only by a narrow group of senators). 
His legacy is the Roman empire,  extremely stable and poweful organization (surpassed only now).
I recall a documentary there the authors claimed that he orchestrated  his deaths to achive this goal  and it was done.

3.  Napoleon was a military genious who had in his disposal  resources of the whole nation (like Alexandre who had the from the very beginning,
unlike Caesar).  His charisma was unlimited. Father of Louis Pasteur, an old Napoleon soldier, considered him ``more than a human".
One should take into account that  victories of revolutionary armies and, later, of  the Empire, were well-conditioned.
It is not so well-known that  France at the period  of Loius XVI (by the way, the most intelligent and human king of the dinasty, so
unfortunate)  had military forces as large as the military forces of the remaining Europe. The revolution promoted the most talented
officers independently of their social status.  As a political leader Napoleon failed (and this was a disater for France) but he
reshaped the world. 

 

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2006, 03:23:50 pm »
Napoleon failed strategically, since he couldn't defend both ends of his empire at the same time. I do wonder what ATG could have done though in the same situation. Genghis was the son of a minor chieftain, he lost his father at the age of nine, and he fought his way back up from nothing. Then he conquered everyone in sight, much as ATG did, defeating not one major empire, but two. I think he belongs in the same league.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2006, 04:45:34 pm »
Incidentally, i'm well aware of the  populated areas the Mongols conquered, however they were all isolated and not united, it was the Mongols sacking individual city states effectively, except when they hit Mesopotamia and Persia, which were fairly united but still fairly fragmentary. It would be interesting to speculate how well the Mongols would have done if they had attacked while the Islamic world was still united, perhaps only divided into the Abassid, Fatimid and Spanish Ummayad dynasties, instead of the 40+ states which were around at the time of the actual Mongol invasion.
                                                             LordBest. 8)

baseball_7

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2006, 04:47:05 pm »
In my opinion Ghenghis Khan was one of the greatest military commanders of all time. Most of you have prior assumptions about him, but I did my term paper on this last year, and researched it a lot. Here's a summarized version.  While he did kill off huge numbers of people (but who didn't back then), It WASN'T genocide like lordbest said (that's a killing of a specific ethnic group. Khan killed everybody). However, he did ensure his people led good lives. If a citizen becam injured or disabled, he had programs that ensured they would have enough food and supplies to survive. Some nations today are not able to accomplish this. If a soldier was killed in battle, a fund would aid his children.. He had the equivelant of wellfare. He allowed people of all religions to worship freely, and was actually one of the most religiously tolerant rulers of this time. One of the laws he made prevented torture, in war or peace, against friend or foe. He also created a very organized government. He had a central administration that represented many of his subjects, and he also had subdivisions of the government. He conducted some of the first censuses, in order to make better policies and make a more effective tax system. He made a postal system so efficient it could send a message accross the empire (5000 miles) in just one week. This allowed him to react quickly to situations. In fact it was so effective it was in use until 1949. He also helped the economy in conquered places, by making paper money backed by silk or gold, which made trade safer and easier. He created a standard measure of currency, allowing easier trade. So the transition was easy, local currencies were still used but tied to the unit (much like currency exchange today). He also created a very effective legal code called the yasa. It incorporated relevant traditional laws, and new ones that were relevant to conquered areas. It was unique because it didn't revolve around religion. It forbade kidnapping of women, lying, stealing, public drunkeness, enslaving mongols, and also made many laws giving women more rights/protection. He made an effective system to ensure there would be enough food/ animals to hunt for the winter. He created a system of succesiion, which had rules to make sure the candidates couldn't kill each other off. Another law guaranteed that government positions were given the the most qualified person, not just the rich.
         Because of all his policies, the empire Khan created lasted for over a hundred years (unlike the empires of most of the other rulers here), and it was the largest land based empire ever. Given all of these facts, you can't question the fact the he was on of the greatest leaders ever (militarily, economically, socially, culturaly, and in most other ways). He also knew when to stop, and didn't over-expand his empire (unlike the others). However, because most of what was recorded about him was written by his enemies, most people have the perception that he was a brutal, stupid, and pure evil (because that's how the very scared europeans felt about him.) In reality, he fits all of the qualities everyone here says a good leader should have, and I think he was better than all the people listed here. If anyone wants further evidence or a copy of my term paper, send me a pm.

Ben

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2006, 06:06:26 pm »
I'd be interested in that; I've been an admirer of his for many years. I always felt his name had been unfairly blackened. It was said that during the reign of his grandson Mongke. a virgin with a pot of gold could cross his empire unmolested. If they were really the barbarians of popular myth, nobody would have said that at all, even if it was an exaggeration.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2006, 07:00:01 pm »
I said genocide as population control, in the various regions under his control he did practise genocide against the specific groups living there, taking the empire as a whole it was simply mass murder. Yes, the Mongolian empire as impressive, but it did not last one hundred years, it began splitting up immediately after his death as the lands were divided amongst his heirs. His cultural achievements were immense, but from a military perspective his success was more a result of the fragmentation of his enemies, the one time the Mongols went up against a unified government with its military might well organised and well supported, the Mongols were defeated. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer, i'm disparaging of Chingiz Khan's successors, the man himself I quite admire. Interestingly enough the Mongol tribal system of government lent itself very well to governing a large, land based empire. You do have to remember the depopulation and destruction of huge swathes of the empire, mostly the original heavily populated areas like Mesopotamia and Persia, was a key to the Mongols success. Depopulation may be an effective way of conquering massive territory, but given that it took nearly two centuries for trade in the Mongol dominated areas to recover (excluding China and some of the eastern areas with more docile populations, who were not treated quite as bad), I dont see it as efficient. The irrigation system in modern Iraq has never recovered from the Mongol invasion, before it was one of the most advanced and efficient in the world. the Mongols destroyed some of the most cultured civilizations in human history, vast amounts of knowledge and people, and I really dont view what he replaced it with in those empires as any particular improvement. The "Oriental" areas certainly benefited from his rule however.
The virgin with the gold story was also said about Vlad Tepes, a ruler of another crimeless state.
I have studies the Mongols, im not just speaking from ignorance or misconceptions, but I really have trouble seeing how the good of his achievements outweigh the bad. Napoleon, alexander and the like conquered vast areas of territory without massive depopulation, of the civilian population atleast, and that is what sets them apart.
                                                                  LordBest. 8)

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2006, 03:57:01 am »
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2006, 08:04:21 pm »

baseball_7

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2006, 09:01:36 pm »


Offline mdelvalle

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Mi nombre es Mario
    • My collection on the web
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2006, 11:19:53 pm »

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2006, 01:22:38 am »

Lawrence Woolslayer

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2006, 01:49:17 am »

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2006, 04:11:39 am »
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2006, 04:45:19 am »

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2006, 05:05:18 am »
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2006, 05:18:40 am »

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2006, 09:55:23 am »
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2006, 02:25:53 am »

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2006, 02:36:11 am »
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2006, 04:10:45 am »

virtvsprobi

  • Guest
Re: Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2006, 04:24:14 am »

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity