Alexander the Great

How good is Alexander the Great on a scale of 1-10?

  • Total voters
    40
Perun said:
None of the extant sources were written by anybody who saw his eyes, so I'd be careful with that.
Click to expand...

Except that the sources of those people were contemporaries and friends of Alexander who lived with and wrote about him. Now their works maybe lost but at the time of Plutarch and Arrian should be available.
I refuse to accept that extremely important people like the above (Plutarch was a high priest of Delphi, Arrian a consul and in Senate) made such an unusual claim without solid references. And let's not forget that ~300 years after the time of his death there were way more works on Alexander available than today. Not even close.
So it's quite likely to be accurate as far as I am concerned.
 
____no5 said:
So it's quite likely to be accurate as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the quoted statement is already on shakey ground when we're talking about things that happened in the last 100 years. When we're talking about sources from thousands of years ago, that talk about things that happened centuries removed from them, the obvious thing is to take absolutely everything with an enormous pile of salt.

As for Plutarch being a high priest of Delphi, or Arrian a consul and in Senate: So what? As if religious and political leaders all through out history haven't been notorious for being untrustworthy. Important people lie all the time, to protect and further their interests. Hell, look at how stuff like this happens nowadays. Politicians claim things and lie shamelessly, even though we can prove their lies with their very own tweets from a month or a year ago. To think that important people didn't lie in a time before the internet and before widespread books, sounds like wishful thinking.

Also, let's not forget that a bunch of historic texts from that time are filled with completely made-up stuff. I'd regard all information about a person like Alexander very critically.
 
Well, I guess eye colour would be impossible to know for certain I’ve mainly seen him described as having light coloured eyes, or one eye darker than the other.

Of course it’s possible the one eye darker the other light could be metaphorical, ie could see the good and bad. Reality of description was rather more fluid.

Usually it’s best to see why someone would say something that’s not true, not saying the truth tends to have a motive - it could be related to the evil eye or indeed Horus or Ra. (From memory Phillip was supposed to have lost an eye).

I suppose the Roman Empire might have been inspired by Alexander’s conquests in a state of one upmanship and the Greek history around large areas of that part of the world might have made the empire building in that area a bit easier so indirectly paved the way for Christianity but an extreme stretch.

But it’s a song written by a lad from East London who left school in his mid teens, not a PHD on the interaction of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. Who gives a fuck. The song fuckin rocks (esp live) and inspired me to pick up the history books aged 11!!!
 
Vaenyr said:
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the quoted statement is already on shakey ground when we're talking about things that happened in the last 100 years. When we're talking about sources from thousands of years ago, that talk about things that happened centuries removed from them, the obvious thing is to take absolutely everything with an enormous pile of salt.
Click to expand...

At the time they were written it was only 300 years ago that isn't that much. And since we are talking of Alexander who was practically worshipped by then there were a ton of references available that now is lost. Plutarch mentions the sculptures of Lysippus who was contemporary of Alexander. Sculptures were painted and should show the color of the eyes. Colours could be preserved for a few decades enough to be models for new sculptures and so on. Plus now lost texts for his appearance. This chain of living tradition is quite likely to have been uninterrupted for 300 years, no Christianity or any major cultural discontinuity by then. Especially for someone like Alexander.

Vaenyr said:
As for Plutarch being a high priest of Delphi, or Arrian a consul and in Senate: So what? As if religious and political leaders all through out history haven't been notorious for being untrustworthy. Important people lie all the time, to protect and further their interests. Hell, look at how stuff like this happens nowadays. Politicians claim things and lie shamelessly, even though we can prove their lies with their very own tweets from a month or a year ago. To think that important people didn't lie in a time before the internet and before widespread books, sounds like wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Good point but both are well regarded now and then and I don't see what interest they could protect by mentioning such a detail. As a matter of fact I have never read something similar for anyone, so why those 2 risking their reputation -which there's no doubt they did care about- by mentioning such an extraordinary detail if it weren't based on good references or it wasn't even a common ground by then?

Vaenyr said:
Also, let's not forget that a bunch of historic texts from that time are filled with completely made-up stuff. I'd regard all information about a person like Alexander very critically.
Click to expand...

Sure, but again. Arrian is regarded as the best source there is and there are modern historians who seem to accept Alexander's heterochromia iridum condition and take it as a given.
Anyway, we can not be sure if it was either truth or not but we have some positive confirmations from credible sources that it was. And surely we don't have anyone contemporary of Arrian to deny or challenge it.

For all the above I'm more inclined to believe it than not.
 
____no5 said:
And since we are talking of Alexander who was practically worshipped by then
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. And he wasn't "practically woshiped by then", he was worshiped even towards the end of his life. There were actual cults dedicated to him. That is why this sort of information must be subject to scrutiny and source criticism. There were established topoi about divinised people in antiquity, and it's funny how often people like Alexander or Caesar have strange physical features or suffer from things like epilepsy. It's almost as if there were certain canonical literary or iconographic tropes meant to make the depiction of a person specifically recognisable. No wait, it's not "almost as if", it's what happened. Could Alexander have had two distinct eye colours? Sure. But we know too much by now about ancient literature and iconography to just blindly accept it as established fact.

But again, if this is a matter of belief to you, then go ahead and believe what you want.
 
Perun said:
Yes, exactly. And he wasn't "practically woshiped by then", he was worshiped even towards the end of his life. There were actual cults dedicated to him. That is why this sort of information must be subject to scrutiny and source criticism. There were established topoi about divinised people in antiquity, and it's funny how often people like Alexander or Caesar have strange physical features or suffer from things like epilepsy. It's almost as if there were certain canonical literary or iconographic tropes meant to make the depiction of a person specifically recognisable. No wait, it's not "almost as if", it's what happened. Could Alexander have had two distinct eye colours? Sure. But we know too much by now about ancient literature and iconography to just blindly accept it as established fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get your point, it’s logical and in order.
Since you brought Cesar up, Alexander body was mummified and available in a shrine for people to visit. Octavian, even broke Alexander’s nose. Roman emperors continued to visit the shrine by the time Plutarch and Arrian were alive.
Thus features of his appearance were there for elite people to see for centuries. If such a claim of heterochromia iridum was inaccurate it would have been indeed subject of scrunity and dismissal from the same elites that Plutarch and Arrian belonged.

Perun said:
But again, if this is a matter of belief to you, then go ahead and believe what you want.
Click to expand...

I always thought Plutarch and Arrian were reliable, at least some modern historians don’t seem to doubt it and for all the reasons I mentioned neither did I. If you call this a matter of belief so be it.
 
I don't even want to argue about his eye colour. My original point was about the idea of a "facial reconstruction", a term which gives a false sense of scientific accuracy. It's just a digital painting without any new information, nothing more, nothing less. Alex may have had differing eye colours, he may not have. I don't think we can know, because none of the sources we have can be double-checked. The problem is that I won't be able to get my point across here without going into a lecture about source criticism, because saying Plutarch and Arrian are "reliable" or "unreliable" depends on so many factors and approaches you would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top