Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon--was he really so great?

[Pscipio]

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.

So you do believe the good of Napoleon achievements outweighs the bad? I know such is a tricky question, but you talked the same way about the Mongols, that's why I ask it about Bonaparte as well.

Lars

[LordBest]

I do, despite the loss in life without the Napoleonic wars, and his modernisation of Europe, the modern world would be very, very different and probably a lot worse. The constant squabbling of the European nations would have drained Europe of resources and arrested their development socially and technologically. Of course there are other schools of thought, such as if Napoleon hadnt destroyed the power of all Europe bar Prussia and Britain, no power could have become dominent and the 19th century would not have been a "unipolar" world.
                                                          LordBest.

[baseball_7]

Sure Napoleon was good for Europe, but he probably had a negative affect on the rest of the world. If the Europeans had continued to squabble with each other, perhaps they wouldn't have had as many resources fro colonization. Because of European colonization, many countries still suffer. A perfect example was the genocide in Rwanda. Had the Germans/Belgians never colonized Rwanda, tensions between the tutsis and Hutus would never have escalated to a massive genocide. So sure, he was great for Europe, but what about African, South American, and Asian nations? Did they benefit from Napoleon? As for arresting their social & technological development, it still would have occured. Maybe a little bit slower, but keep in mind that many technologies were taken or adapted from Indian or east Asian ideas.

Ben

[Ecgþeow]

colonization took place both before and after Napoleon, so I don't think his existence had too much of an influence over that sector of history.  It would have happened regardless.

[mdelvalle]

I believe that Alexander receives the name of The great because the history is written by the winners (and in this case the winners were us the occidentals), of having written the History the conquered ones would have been called the murderer or something similar.   
And as example of this to the Mongolian or Huns savages and criminals are called (because in this case were us the loser). On the other hand is right who said that of having continued live, surely in something serious it would have failed and maybe another would have been the history. 
Is my opinion. This without demerit of the capacity personal or/and luck of Alexander.   
Let us don't forget that All the histories have two truths, according to from where look at it.

Mario

[Numerianus]

Mario,

It seems that your ideas have a reason  (the biased interpretation of the history by winners and protagonists).
However, generalization (we, the occidentals) are erroneous; "criminals" could not be applied to Mongols etc.
In the specifical case, the personages under discussion  (Alexandre, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon) were highly appreciated and admired even by adversaries.   Napoleon,  now,  is more popular in Russia than in France.

I would like to get some comments on the warfare hoping that Lordbest can clarify the situation.
The famous phalanx, was it operational or it is just a legend?
It seems that  it should be extremely vulnerable from the rear.  It is also hard to believe that the order could be maintained during the battle...  Some writers indicate that Roman emperors (Commodus), obsessed by the glory of Alexandre, were trying
to use this formation but no succeses were reported. 

[Lawrence Woolslayer]

The traditional Greek phalanx was transformed over time. These readings may be found interesting:

The traditional Hoplite phalanx:
http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html
http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/athnlife/warfare1.htm#phalanx

Philip and Alexander at Chaeronea
http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/battle/chaerone.html

Alexander continues reform of the phalanx: an essay (The Phalanx paragraph explains flexibility of trained unit):
http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/04.shtml

"You carry your helmet for you, but you carry your shield for the entire line."

[Pscipio]

I strongly disagree with the point that Napoleon has left behind a positive heritage. It is true that he introduced modern laws and structures, but times were changing anyway; and if one remembers the millions killed and all the destructions in a war fought for his personal glory, I can hardly see anything positive in his doings, neither for France, nor for Europe. Modernisation is not something initiated by Napoleon, it continued despite of Napoleon's wars.

Lars

[Numerianus]

Thank you! The reference
http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/04.shtml
gives quite a definitive answer.   In fact, I have in mind  a Greek
type phalanx which at that time became obsolete.

In fact, accusation of Napoleon in millions of deads and destruction is an anachronism,
it was not the main issue against him in 19th century. This is the point of view of 20th century
(paradoxically, at this time to nuke a city and kill hundreds of thousands women and children  was considered
as acceptable action to spare lives of soldiers).  One should not forget that Napoleonic wars were a logical
continuation of the revolutionary wars, the wars started  by the  conservative Europe to crush the revolution
which was a breaking event of the history. On the other hand, at this time, the old dream of reunification of Europe  (in the spirit of Roman emprire) was not a fantasy.   

[Pscipio]

One should not forget that Napoleonic wars were a logical continuation of the revolutionary wars

That may be your opinion, but not a commonly accepted assumption. I do not agree, and I can not see any evidence which supports this thesis. Napoleon is not the French Revolution, and the French Revolution is not Napoleon. The French Revolution seeked for freedom, civil rights and - yes! - peace; what Napoleon established was quite the opposite, even for his own people.

If you talk about French domination over Europe - won out of wars and maintained by depression and torture of entire people - as reunification, that is kind of sarcastic. I do not say that Napoleons enemies were saints, but he wasn't either. And I personally believe that accusing somebody of killing millions of people can never be an anachronism.

Lars

[LordBest]

Napoleon was protecting the meritocracy brought about the French Revolution, when the monarchy was restored and the meritocracy disbanded, it led to great resentment which was one of the causes of the revolution of 1848.
You also have to remember that it was Napoleons enemies which continued to press him to war because he was an "upstart" in their eyes, Napoleon was the apotheosis of the REvolutionary system, a foreign peasant (in the eyes of the rest of europe) who rose to rule europe, that was a threat to existence of their aristocratic system. If you think money and birth should dictate what a person can achieve, then by all means Napoleon was evil.
                                                    LordBest.

[Pscipio]

If you think money and birth should dictate what a person can achieve, then by all means Napoleon was evil.

I really wonder where you think to have found such a statement in my postings 

[LordBest]

I haven't, but you cant seperate Napoleon and protection of the meritocracy, he fought to protect that system, and by fighting gave it enough time for people to became enamoured of it and not be too pleased when it was taken away after the restoration of Louis XVIII.
                                                       LordBest.

[Pscipio]

IMO, Bonaparte mainly fought for one thing: Bonaparte. I feel very confident in separating Napoleon from the goals of the French Revolution; there's nothing to glorify about Napoleon.

Lars

[Numerianus]

It  seems that there was here a nice quote from Gogol?  Was it removed?

In this discussion  I take part  of Lordbest.

The revolution  and the society in move is a terrible thing, like an avalanche (do you feel this).
Who can ride an avalanche?
 Indeed, ``Bonaparte mainly fought for one thing: Bonaparte". It is not so bad as one can imagine
(Stalin fought for himself? No!).
Napoleons achievements were due to the fact that his goals were endossed by the society.

I think that many people now cannot appreciate Napoleon because they transpose modern
paradigm with such concepts  as democracy, totalitarism etc. to that period.
Postfeodal structure of Europe was obsolete and had no chance to survive.
It  had a destiny to be destroyed in bloody wars with or without Napoleon.
The history  has chosen him  to accelerate the process...
Can you imagine what a charisma had Napoleon? Gaspar Monge, a great mathematician (and
by the way, the Navy minister), infitely devoted to revolution, was charmed by Bonaparte to such extent
that followed all  his adventures. He was a tough guy. 
On a way back from Egypt,  it was an episode when Monge, as the
most  reliable and decisive person, took a position with a gun to exploded the ship and avoid a capture.   

 

[virtvsprobi]

It  seems that there was here a nice quote from Gogol?  Was it removed?

Google for Gogol!

It's on page 1. I'm sure he would have much more to say after reading this thread.
Also lots of choice stuff about Napoleon!

"Napoleon is a torrent which as yet we are unable to stem. Moscow will be the sponge that will suck him dry." -General Kutuzov, in a speech, Sept. 13, 1812

G/<