John Maxwell O’ Brien contends that Alexander the Great’s personality suffered a metamorphosis after the battle of Gaugamela in 331BC. This statement places O’ Brien on one side of an ongoing debate about the personality of Alexander. This contention is that Alexander was a good man and leader until he crossed into the East, where he became power-mad and corrupt. The other side of this argument has a more sympathetic view on Alexander’s behaviour in the East, whereby his actions can be explained as one of a cultural unifier. When discussing which side of these arguments holds more truth, one must discuss the elements of Alexander’s personality and behaviour after the Battle of Gaugamela, which gives credence to O’ Brien’s metamorphosis theory.
The first and most obvious place to start is Alexander’s newfound ‘orientalism’, after his conquering of Persia. This included Alexander wearing elements of Persian dress, the appointment of 30,000 Persian ‘Epigoni’ and the attempted introduction of Persian customs, such as ‘proskynesis’. This caused much resentment towards Alexander from his Macedonian and Greek subjects, who saw this as Alexander favouring Persian ways over Macedonian. Issues arose from Alexander’s new Persian ideals such as bowing down before him (proskynesis), as Persians did to their King. This was something which the Macedonians were not accustomed to and “did not perform the act, considering it appropriate only for gods and, when performed for the Great King (who was not a god, though everything just short of it) as a mark of Oriental servility.” The historian Callisthenes was a loud voice in the objections to this practice and his denouncement of the act of proskynesis, and as he saw it, Alexander’s new god-like self-opinion, would find him implicated in a plot to assassinate Alexander.
The Essay on The Persian Letters Montesquieu God Religion
The Persian Letters The book The Persian Letters by Montesquieu is a fictional novel that was written by the author so he could comment on the society in which he was living. This novel has served as a good example of the ideas that were present during the early Enlightenment. There are many ideas and themes that Montesquieu discusses by using the point of view of two Persian travelers in Europe ...
The ‘Pages Plot’ was important because it shows how formerly devoted followers of Alexander were suddenly compelled to plot against his life. The incident which supposedly led to this showed a difference in Alexander’s treatment of his people as Arrian described. “He was led to copy Persian extravagance and the habit of barbaric kings of treating their subjects as inferior beings.” Hermolaus orchestrated the plot because of his humiliating disciplining by the king after a hunting incident. When the plot was discovered Callisthenes was implicated and put to death like the others involved, although his involvement seemed unlikely. Before his death Hermolaus declared “That it is no longer possible for a free man to tolerate the arrogance of Alexander”. This declaration clearly shows a vast change in how Alexander was viewed by his subjects, and this can be traced to how Alexander was now treating them. It is difficult to accept that Hermolaus’s actions and words represented the majority of the Greeks and Macedonians, but it is clear that more of them were turning against Alexander because of his new Persian attitudes.
The execution of Philotas and the assassination of his father, the general Parmenion, was a vital and often divisive incident in the history of Alexander. “Few problems in the history of Alexander the Great have been a greater vexation to the historian than the execution of Philotas and the murder of his father, Parmenion, events that shed unfavourable light on Alexander’s character.” The execution of Philotas occurred because of the lack of warning he gave to Alexander, after apparently hearing of a plot against his life. He was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death. Parmenion was then brutally killed by Alexander because the Macedonian blood-feud would have meant that Parmenion would try to kill Alexander. The view of O’ Brien to this entire incident could be described as a gratuitous display of violence and brutality by Alexander against old and trustworthy friends. This however is not a fair assessment of this incident and the portrayal of it as a malicious act against innocent men is unlikely. Alexander was very loyal to old friends throughout his life, and he never brought such accusations against any of his other officers. Another point which refutes the arguments of the anti-Alexander writers on this subject is the fact that Alexander never seems to have felt any regret over his decision to execute Parmenion. This is odd in light of the fact that Alexander displayed a “bitter shame” over any actions he believed he had committed unjustly. Therefore, it stands to reason that the king felt entirely justified in his actions by the guilt of Philotas and his father Parmenion.
The Essay on Alexander Iii Persian Greek Horse
Alexander III According to Plutarch, Alexander was born on the sixth of Hecatomb aeon (July) in the year 356 B. C. He was the son of Philip, king of Macedon, and Olympias. Supposedly on the day he was born the temple of Artemis burnt down, signifying his future glory. Not much is known of the youth of Alexander. Itis known that he was taught by Aristotle and had a love of the Greek epic poems. One ...
An incident which did leave Alexander with regret was the killing of Cleitus by his own hands. Cleitus was one of Alexander’s closest friends and had actually saved his life at Granicus. The argument started with a clash between the pro-Persian Macedonians and the old-guard (including Cleitus) at Maracanda. Cleitus insulted Alexander, particularly about his new ‘Oriental’ ways and he sneered at Alexander for preferring the company of servile types who “would prostrate themselves before his white tunic and his Persian girdle.” The argument resulted in Alexander running Cleitus through with a spear. This brutal murder of one of his closest friends is often pointed to as evidence of a change in the character of Alexander. He could no longer accept any criticisms or disagreements and this killing proved that nobody was safe from his egomaniacal rages. However the fact that he was so upset about this incident, to the point of suicide, demonstrated that he had not metamorphosed into this egoistical tyrant that some would have you believe. This incident reveals a man who was capable of making horrendous mistakes when inebriated and in the heat of anger. It clearly shows that Alexander was not a saint, but it does not in any way demonstrate that he had changed into a power-mad tyrant given to casual murder.
A final relevant incident which took place after the victory at Gaugamela was the burning of Persepolis in 330BC. According to Arrian, Alexander burnt it in order to gain revenge against the Persians. “Alexander replied that he wished to punish the Persians for their invasion of Greece, their destruction of Athens, the burning of the temples, and all manner of terrible things done to the Greeks; because of these things, he was exacting revenge.” There is no good reason to doubt that this was the reason for the burning of the city, despite claims that it was done after a drunken celebration. These claims state that Alexander was swayed after an impassioned speech by an Athenian courtesan, Thais. Thais is never mentioned in Arrian’s account of this incident, therefore it is difficult to put any credence to this theory. By removing the theory of alcohol in the destruction of the city, one can only contend that its destruction was an act of policy. How does this fit in with O’ Brien’s metamorphosis argument? It would be fair to say that Alexander had a sound political mind and that the burning of Persepolis was done to garner credit from the Greeks and especially the Athenians. It was not the action of a man whose character had suddenly transformed, and it was always in the character of Alexander to be so rootless in one place in order to gain someplace else.
The Term Paper on Alexander The Great Persian Empire
Alexander the Great By Tina Leacock Long before the birth of Christ, the land directly above what we know as Greece today, was called Macedonia. Macedonia still exists, but it is now Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and modern Greece. Macedonia was considered to be part of ancient Greece, but the people of these two countries could not be more different. No people in history ever gave so much to the human ...
It is difficult to state whether Maxwell O’ Brien’s statement about Alexander’s character is agreeable or not. In some instances there is obviously a clear change in the behaviour of the king. This is especially true in his newfound ‘Orientalism’. The reasons behind this can be explained differently to the contention that he was becoming more egotistical and self-aggrandising, although there is some undoubted truth in that as well. Could Alexander simply have been trying to create a merger between the cultures which he was now the ruler of? In some instances, such as the wearing of Persian clothes and the Epigoni, this is probably true. However such instances like the attempt to introduce proskynesis, point to a man whose success and power had started to get the better of him.
Alexander’s character is such a complicated one, which has been debated exhaustively over the years that, it is almost impossible to fully understand. There are many conflicting accounts offered to every incident of note in the life of Alexander. This means that somebody could make a compelling case to say that Alexander was anything between a saint and a megalomaniacal butcher. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. The only thing about Alexander’s character which can be said with any certainty is that it has engaged some of the greatest historical minds to try and comprehend it for over two thousand years and it continue to be debated for centuries to come.
The Term Paper on Alexander And The Great Crusade Alexanders Legacy
Alexander and the Great Crusade, Alexanders Legacy (1) Alexander the Great was born on July 21, 356 A.D. in the capital of Macedonia, Pella. He was a son of King Philip II of Macedon. According to a famous legend, Alexanders birth was being prophesized by the Oracle of Athens, who predicted future Macedonian king to become the greatest military leader of all times. However, at the time when ...
Bibliography
Borza, Eugene N., ‘Fire From Heaven: Alexander at Persepolis’, Classical Philology, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Oct., 1972), pp. 233-245.
Bosworth, A.B. & Baynham, E.J., Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Bosworth, A.B., Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Bury, J.B. & Meiggs Russell, A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Education, 1975.
Hammond, N.G.L., A History of Greece to 322BC, Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Heckel, Waldemar, ‘The Conspiracy Against Philotas’, Phoenix, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Spring, 1977), pp. 9-21.
Hornblower, Simon, The Greek World: 479-323BC, London Methuen, 1983.
