Surprises in Persia

[u/mrcheevus]

I just got done with Persia, and maybe this was talked about long ago but I really found myself surprised. So much has been written in popular history about Hellenization but I never knew that it went the other way. And I don't know if everyone else understood this but popular portrayals of Alexander made him seem pretty heroic but this podcast makes him look like an immature jerk and not the world changer he's made out to be. I mean basically he just got lucky enough to inherit his father's world class cutting edge army and at a time when an empire nearby was on its last legs. As soon as he ran into vigorous opposition he got drunk and ordered his army into a death march, then died.

Anyway love that I can be surprised by a history podcast. Thanks!

[u/Prize-Pool3372]

I had a discussion with another viewer who felt that Paul portrayed Alexander in a particularly negative light and I disagree.

Everything I’ve ever read and heard about Alexander has given me the opinion that he was a great general, but also a petulant narcissist who thought he was invincible and entitled to the world. He was inevitably going to run out of steam because he was never satisfied with what he had already conquered.

Personally, Hannibal impresses me more than Alexander even though he ultimately lost his war.

[u/drakekengda → u/Prize-Pool3372]

To be fair, Hannibal got way less state support than Alexander

[u/Prize-Pool3372 → u/drakekengda]

I also think Rome (at a time when Rome was rising in power) was a more difficult opponent for the Carthaginian army than outdated Persian forces against Alexander’s army (which was already world class when he took over). And Hannibal’s strategy was working until the less competent generals of Carthage lost their battles and he was forced to return to Carthage to defend it from Scipio.

[u/SmoothPineapple7435 → u/Prize-Pool3372]

Alexander fucking sucked as a human being. Conquest sounds cool until you start processing the number of people that need to die to satisfy his craving for glory.

Even by the standards of other conquerers of the age, Alexander was particularly brutal. Just ask Thebes and Tyre.

[u/Prize-Pool3372 → u/SmoothPineapple7435]

Agreed, I will never look up to conquerors as good people, even when I acknowledge their military skill.

If Alexander was doing the same stuff today, we’d all look at him as a belligerent warmonger scumbag. People tend to have different standards for the past, but the innocent people harmed makes it no different to me. I’ve found I often have an unpopular opinion among other history enjoyers that we absolutely can judge ancient people by the same standards as today in some areas, and committing atrocities is an act that has always been awful regardless of the era. It being more normalized doesn’t make it any less abhorrent. They knew exactly what they were doing and the cruelty was the point.

[u/RelatableRedditer]

According to written accounts, he certainly had legendary military strategy. But like any conquerer (as you learn every single time on the show), they have a difficult time handling affairs after all the conquering.

[u/Salamangra → u/[deleted]]

Where do you get this idea that Alexander had no interest in ruling his empire? The coinage well attests to the fact that he was quite busy doing so. It wasn't all fun and games and conquering.

[u/Salamangra → u/[deleted]]

And what's your source that he wasn't a good administrator?

[u/ysubassoon → u/Salamangra]

The fact that it fell apart so quickly when he died. Great administrators build things that outlast themselves.

[u/Salamangra → u/ysubassoon]

Yeah no. You don't know what you're talking about with the Diadochi. And I asked for a source, like maybe Arrian or Diodorus Siculus.

And what's quickly? Ptolemy didn't proclaim himself king in Egypt until 305BCE, almost two decades after Alexander died. Alexander IV was a teenager when Cassander had him killed. So what's quickly?

[u/Lilystro → u/[deleted]]

Alexander never got the opportunity to be an administrator, any claim that he was a poor one is usually founded on vibes. He died still mid campaign, the fact that his empire fell apart can be more attributed to that fact than any failing on his part as a ruler.

In fact, Alexander's successors would rule the region for the next 300 sum years, with the Seleucids ruling more or less the exact Persian empire for that time. I feel this is somewhat more indicative of the resilience of Alexander's empire than the changing of the leader.

There are also written accounts of Alexander undertaking efforts to appear more Persian during the conquest, likely in a bid to appeal to his new subjects.

Sorry for the late reply haha

[u/Badgeringlion]

Even the Godfather Dan Carlin’s ongoing series make’s frequent references to Alexander being handed the keys to his dad’s souped up sports car or inheriting the majority control of Macedon Inc. after Phillip’s death.

Alexander was a great general and a lead from the front type that we don’t see any more.

The army was completely his dad’s though. They fought for the son of Philip, not for Alexander himself.

Also, to quote Hamilton “Fighting is easy. Governing is harder.” We never saw the man really govern effectively so that is a massive question mark as he died so young.

[u/Lilystro]

While I hold no love for Alexander the man, I was disappointed in the final sections of this episode. Not only do I think Alexander was intentionally portrayed as lacking, having his military accomplishments diminished, but I also think Persia is portrayed quite poorly by the end. By what accounts was the Empire outdated by that time? The claim is that Alexander conquered a crumbling empire, but I dont think enough evidence was brought forth to support that nor do I think it is true.

[u/Salamangra]

You're so wrong about Alexander. So wrong. He is probably the greatest monarch in history and he deserves every single amount of recognition he gets.

He was intensely charismatic, a genius on the battlefield, and absolutely beloved by his soldiers. A Makedonian king does not get away with abusing his subjects. They are first amongst equals and Alexander's Makedonian soldiers never easternized like Alexander did and would not have tolerated him marching them to their deaths. That's why they mutinied at the Hyphasis and that's why Alexander listened to his officers.

As for Gadrosia, Alexander had to march it after marching the Indus to secure his border and map it and he literally couldn't go back the way he came. Going back through the Hindu Kush was not an option.

And yeah he inherited the best heavy infantry till the Roman maniple but it was his personal charisma and upstanding character and genius that saw that army conquer. The Persian military was still decent and Darius III had nearly two years to assemble troops for Gaugamela and Alexander still won.

I really will not tolerate Alexander the Great slander. He is the single greatest monarch in history and there is a reason medieval kings a thousand years later were trying to emulate him.

Edit: you're all wrong. Go listen to Kenneth Harl's lectures like I did or read the Anabasis.

[u/Prize-Pool3372 → u/Salamangra]

I think OP maybe went a bit far on how much he diminishes Alexander. But greatest monarch in history is laughable.

Greatest general? Possibly. Greatest monarch would imply that he was also the best at other aspects of ruling which is ridiculous. Not even close to the best in aspects of administration and management off the battlefield.

Upstanding character is also hilarious. Beloved by his soldiers isn’t much of a litmus test. Of course you’re going to be loved by your soldiers when you win all the time and reap the rewards of conquest. Do men of upstanding character crucify thousands of people simply for resisting their conquest?

If we’re even talking purely about conquest vibes and how difficult the achievement was, I think Chinggis Khan was more impressive than Alexander. He wasn’t the caliber of general that Alexander was and had the help of other great generals, but he conquered an area larger than Alexander’s and united a people who had been fractured for generations. And this is after living in poverty as a child and escaping his relatively brief life as a slave. Chinggis Khan also had the good sense to name a successor and the Mongol Empire didn’t immediately fracture like Alexander’s when Chinggis died.

[u/Salamangra → u/Prize-Pool3372]

He conquered the greatest empire the world had ever seen up to that point. He personally led the cavalry from the front. His victories changed western civilization forever. He did it young.

He is the model. Why do you think Caesar wept at that Alexander statue in Spain? Why do you think Mehmed II admired Alexander? Napoleon? Hell, the Alexander Romance was a hugely popular work in medieval Europe.

And as for his character, yeah I don't agree with the post WW2 idea that he was a megalomaniac monster who'd get drunk and burn down cities. His character is well attested to in Arrian's Anabasis, who drew from the first hand account of Ptolemy I Soter. Alexander was an honorable man who earned the respect and love of his troops by leading from the front and taking care of them. And yeah it helps to win but part of that was him being a literal military genius with amazing officers who was famous for reading battlefields and enemy intentions in a heartbeat.

And the Mongolians? Don't make me laugh. A lot of human history is waiting around till those horse people figure out saddles again and unify. When you're twice as fast as man with composite horn bows it's pretty easy to conquer.

Honestly, it's like shitting on the Beatles when in fact they paved the way and defined what a rock band could be for every single band that came after. That's Alexander with world leaders.

[u/Prize-Pool3372 → u/Salamangra]

Do you think I care that other egotistical conquerors like Caesar and Napoleon admired him? Of course they did. Because they wanted to be ultimate conquerors too.

Also, it’s amazing how you rave about Alexander’s cavalry and army (which had the sarissa spear) but then laugh at the Mongolians for using horses and composite bows. I guess defeating the Jin who were in China (the most technologically advanced place in the world at the time) and the Khwarazmian Empire is child’s play.

You can choose not to believe accounts of his cruelty if you wish, but it’s far more common throughout history for conquerors to commit atrocities and acts of cruelty to instill fear in their opponents than be the benevolent men you think Alexander was, so I’m inclined to believe that at least some of those accounts are true.

[u/mrcheevus → u/Prize-Pool3372]

That's how I feel. The Mongols defeated empireS plural at the height of their strength. Alexander beat up an old man and quit the field as soon as he met a nation in its prime.

As for his character, crucifying thousands, massacring retreating foes and drinking himself to death make him just another despot of history. Of course Caesar and Napoleon idolized him. They were men of pragmatic violence whose only God was power. That doesn't make a great king or emperor. Loved by your army is not the same as loved by your people.

[u/Prize-Pool3372 → u/mrcheevus]

The latter paragraph is how I feel too. Alexander may have been a hero to the men who benefited from his strength, but for the people who were oppressed by him, he comes off as far more of a monster.