![]() ![]() ![]() So as you and I begin this ten-part dialogue on the controversial figure of Alexander (a conversation made more timely by the recent release of Pantheon's The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander), maybe it makes sense to ask: Does the appellation "the Great" still make sense for Alexander? Or is it an outdated holdover from an age when conquest and military expansion were more admired than they are now? The question many in the modern world might ask, however, is: Do these two things go hand in hand? Perhaps in the scale of his achievements Alexander was Great, but in his nature Terrible - or perhaps even Terrible in both. The word "great" in this context, to my mind, is always positive - implying both that Alexander's achievements were huge in scale, and that his nature was heroic and awe-inspiring. JR: Paul, there are only a few people in history who are universally known as "the Great," and Alexander of Macedon, who reigned and conquered much of the known world between 336 and 323 B.C., probably tops the list. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |