Who IS the single most pivotal figure in history?

[Elliot Kane]

An interesting discussion to have always, as there is really no 'right' answer. It could be argued that a single person was most important, or that importance should properly be divided into ages - at least Ancient and Modern, and perhaps more...

So what's your take on it all? Who is the most pivotal figure in history? Who has changed the world most overall, and who is most pivotal in both Ancient and Modern ages?

***
For me, Alexander The Great remains the single most important person in history. He is the father of Western civilisation who spread Greek philosophy everywhere he went and is the sole reason we define everything in the theorums of Aristotle (Who invented logic among other things and was VERY keen on grouping - hence the use of 'Non-A' and 'Null-A' to describe philosophies that do NOT take Aristotle's stance that groups are more important than individuals).

In the modern age, though, I have to give what amounts to the 'pioneer of the future' award to Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the internet. Without him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and because of him the world can communicate as never before on a purely human level.

My overall winner is still Alexander.

[Galadriel]

Joan of Arc, no doubt. No need to state why I hope?

[Elliot Kane]

EVERY reason to state why! So go for it, Gal...

[cleglaw]

Elliot, you have a very Eurocentric view of history.
Moreover, Alexander was a military commander who spread more death than philosophy. He basically conquered the Persians; how does that make him the single most pivotal figure in history?.

If the theory of evolution is correct, then probably the single most pivotal figure in history would be hfjhgmm, the first fish who ever walked on the land. Of course, that would be taking a land-centric view of history.

If the answer to the question must be a human or if the theory of evolution is incorrect then several names share the limelight:
Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Christ or Constantine I.

If we choose to look at the most influential inventors, we have several names as well:
Marconi -- radio
Edison -- various modern inventions (we shall overlook his shortcomings)
John Harrison -- the marine chronometer (made ocean voyages possible)
Bell actually did not invent the telephone -- he got the 1st patent -- so his name doesn't make the list.

In science we have several:
Newton
Galileo
Einstein

Then of course there is Enak Toille, the backwards man.

[Elliot Kane]

Only Eurocentric, you think? Then who in the East made a larger impact on history than Alexander? Tamerlane? Hardly. He only spread death and destruction and in a limited area at that. For all his great empire, what legacy did Genghis leave? - he united the Mongols into one people, which was great, then sacked a few places. A peerless commander, yes, but only a commander. Attila is the same. Constantine destroyed Byzantium and built Constantinople, but his true legacy was the Nicene Creed - the formalisation of Christianity into a far more effective doctrine. The first emperor of China united the most populous nation on Earth, but the Chinese have stayed aloof from the rest of the world for much of their history. Kublai Khan may even be a more important figure to them, anyway - but again, his influence outside of that one nation was pretty limited.

Religion comes and goes. There has always been religion and there always will be, in one form or another. No holy man or prophet or whatever is unique. To claim the title for anyone founding yet another religion seems pointless - and how far do you want to take it back?

Is the greatest figure in Christianity, for example, Jesus who gave the message, Paul who spread it, or Constantine who institutionalised it and made it thrive?

What about Guru Nanak, or Zoroaster or any one of who knows how many holy men?

It is true that Christianity underpins Western civilisation - but ONLY Western civilisation. Which is why I did not seriously consider Jesus. The same can be applied to any other holy man from any other religion.

Alexander deliberately spread Greek philosophies - and it is upon those ideas that the West is built. It is because of that there IS a West and ultimately because of Aristotle (Alexander's tutor, don't forget. As for why I didn't make him the number one choice: ideas are useless if no-one ever hears them) that we respect logic and reason and that we have a secular govt system rather than a Theocracy. Alexander himself was trying to build a 'commonwealth of peoples' and encouraged his peoples to intermarry and consider themselves one nation. Had he lived longer, he may even have pulled it off...

From the ashes of the old Persian empire rose the Seleucids (Persians adopting aspects of Greek culture) and Carthage amongst others. In Egypt, the ruling Ptolemaic dynasty were descendants of Alexander's general Ptolemy (Meaning that Cleopatra was Macedonian Greek, interestingly). A minotr dynastic change for Egypt, yes, but vast change for the rest of the world.

Had the Persian empire survived intact, Rome may never have risen. Greece would almost certainly have been wholly subjugated. Islam may have been wiped out before it even began - the Persians were polytheists with an ancient culture long before the advent of Islam.

The main point is that Alexander's deeds affected the entire rest of the world - East and West alike. No other conqueror has really done that.

If I'd wanted Eurocentric, I'd have gone with Charlemagne, probably the greatest of the European monarchs but whose influence outside of Europe was minimal.

I may certainly be said to have a Eurasian & Middle Eastern perspective, but it is those cultures (And the myriad sub-cultures therein) that have defined the history of the world and made it as it is now. So the most pivotal figure has to be someone who sent seismic shockwaves through both and caused real and lasting change.

This is my case for Alexander

[Hildor]

I think I'm following Elliot on this. For all the reasons he has given thus far. I can't come up with someone else who has "done more", to say it in a simple way.

[Glance A'Lot]

Alexander deliberately spread Greek philosophies - and it is upon those ideas that the West is built.

Alexander spread Alexander - he was a pupil of one of the greatest philosophers, certainly well educated and civilized, but he also was king, tyrant, general - a man of power, who loved the power, who believed in power, craved power, especially HIS power.
Alexander was no democrat, 'the ideas that built the West' weren't his. He was not active as missionary for ideas, though I concede that they followed in his wake.

What he is though, is a symbol, an idol. And that because of two things - he was victorious and succesful beyond measure , and he died young at the zenith of his 'success'.
An old Alexander, reigning in wisdom and in peace for a generation, like Augustus did, later? Be honest, that's not really conceivable with what is known of his character. IF he had, I could agree with Elliot.

The spread of Greek culture was like the ripples in a lake, the lake being the mediterranean. It was powered by trade and the miltary might of the Attic Sea League (Athens) centuries before Alex.
And it was a comparatively 'young' civilization, with 'modern' thoughts. Beyond the coastal regions, it hit upon older, no less civilized, cultures - Egypt, Babylonian/Persian. For good or bad, none of these had developped 'democracy' (The old Greek version thereof actually was oligarchic).

Of course, if Marathon or Salamis had turned out differently then there would have been no Alexander. THAT had been the time when the Persians threatened to overwhelm what later generations called 'western civilization'.

At Alexander's time, Persia was a blown up balloon, that would blast at the stitch of a needle. He saw that, and he also saw, that an autocratic system can be taken over simply by cutting and replacing its head.
For the general population it was like for the Siberian farmer - 'the Tsar is far'. It really made no difference as to who sat on the throne.

The early eastern civilizations had as great thinkers as the Greeks. They had well run bureaucracies at a scale way beyond any of the Greeks. The point is, we don't know them - at least not as general knowledge. why? Because Alexander was victorious and glorified - or because we didn't find their scriptures early enough (respectively couldn't read them because of their strange lettering).

To persist, a culture needs time. It persuades by successful, practicable example, not because it is imposed. I maintain that 'western culture' would have spread even if Alexander had not won, nor even were existant. Because it already was firmly implanted around the Mediterranean, even though the Eastern parts were under Persian rule long before Alexander. The Ionian coast (West Turkey) had not ceased to be 'Greek' just because they came under Persian rule.

Western civilization is a child of many fathers - but one thing we can say, that is Greece is the fatherland. Here, in a very restricted geographical area, practically all known forms of government were tried and practised parallelly and in a relatively short period of time. Science and philosophy spawned because people were relatively prosperous, and had and took the time to think and to discuss in their competitive diversity.

Greece was like a research lab, a lot of trial and error, but also a lot of practical logic. All in a span of 300 - 400 years - considering the speed of communication available, an extremely fast process.

A process by the way, that was not tainted by religion. That's the advantage of polytheistic culture - it is very pragmatic. There's always a niche for a new one, if needed. And the Greeks had a very 'human' picture of their gods - one thing they were not, almighty and infallible! (Ever thought about the parallel between the Greek gods' legends and the Superhero and Fantasy stories of our time? )

[Glance A'Lot]

And one for the topic...

I do not believe in a single most pivotal figure, however...

...people whose thoughts were influential way beyond their lifespan, who fundamentally changed the views of their world, and/or whose influence are still significant include, but are not limited to:

- Platon
- Copernicus
- Confucius
- Darwin
- Berners-Lee I would agree with, however he didn't make general popularity (or being known to the general public) as much as the others - probably because he wasn't disputed to the extent most of the others were.

[Elliot Kane]

Superheroes have often been described as 'myths for the modern age' Glance, so that'd be a 'yes'

To persist, a culture needs not just time but also relative military success. China has what is probably the oldest continuous civilisation in the world, but they rarely moved outside of their borders so their cultural influence is minimal outside of their own nation. By contrast, British linguistic dominance owes much to the fact that we conquered a third of the globe and then held most of it for a while.

China has always been good at trade (The Silk Road ended there, remember) but trade is of no use without military power. It is the perception of strength that makes other nations want to copy you, not how many wonderful things you sell them. Witness today, when China is 'the sweatshop of the world' - a vast industrial manufacturing powerhouse. They are probably second only to the US in terms of industrial/manufacturing capacity and might even exceed it, but where outside of China would you find a strong Chinese cultural influence?

The cultural influence of Islam was spread by conquest and the same with Christianity. Neither would be the religious powerhouse they are now if not for the mountains of corpses left in their wake. Nor would Rome nor Roman culture have thrived without the Legions.

History may be the march of progress and the march of culture, but mainly it is defined and determined by the march of armies.

As for Alexander not being a democrat - so what? There is no great virtue in that particular form of govt and much to decry. You yourself cite Augustus as a great leader (Which he definitely was) and HE was certainly no democrat, being arguably the greatest of the Caesars.

Let's not forget also that the man who invented parliamentary democracy was a king (Edward I of England, for those who don't know. They didn't call him 'The Lawmaker' for nothing).

I doubt Alexander's men would have adored him as they did were he a tyrant. Of course at this remove it is hard to tell how much of his legend is fact and how much fiction, but most of the anecdotes concerning his life do not reveal a tyrant - I think you are overly harsh. A king, yes. A conqueror, certainly. An oppressor - no. His interest in philosophy was unquestionable, however - as would have been normal for an educated man of his culture.

To my mind, the reason that Greece did so well at developing all those ideas in the short time it did was simply that its culture saw a great value in thought and looked up to intelligent people with a deep appreciation of their abilities. Where thought is encouraged it flourishes, and it's never been more encouraged than in Ancient Greece (And if you detect a trace of envy, it is not without cause... ;D).

[Glance A'Lot]

China has what is probably the oldest continuous civilisation in the world, but they rarely moved outside of their borders so their cultural influence is minimal outside of their own nation.

Well, see it from a Chinese perspective - a thousand years ago, if you were sitting on an area of roughly 10.000.000 km², and ruled over a a higher percentage of the world's population than nowadays, had access to all the resources you wanted - why would you want to go and gain influence in some distant, small, insignificant, empty and technologically as well as culturally retarded area as - Europe?

They indeed didn't spread - but any invading barbarian hordes were assimilated pretty quickly into their cultural tradition. Temudjin and his sons conquered them, but his grandson Kublai was already more Chinese than Mongol by education. That would be an example of cultural persistence in spite of lack of military success.

Culture and knowledge travel with trade, but I agree that trade requires strength to be successful, because trade routes must be (kept) safe (street robbery (or piracy for that matter) might well be a contestant for the oldest profession... )

Up to maybe only 200 years ago or less, the West had absolutely nothing that the East (that includes Arabia, Persia, India, South East Asia) actually wanted. The East however had everything the West wanted - and it took it (back to robbery we are...)

British linguistic domninance is a fact, but not a compliment. (Though Portugese, Spaniards, Dutch and French were the early sinners - just not the prevailing ones. There is no honor among thieves... ;D )

[Elliot Kane]

Absolutely, Glance.. As far as the East was concerned for most of history, the West consisted of a bunch of dirty, ignorant cave dwellers. Even the most advanced Western civilisations of antiquity - Greece & Rome - were little more than dangerous thugs to be dealt with at arm's length. This is why Persia used a policy of 'divide and rule' against Greece.

China's most usual method of dealing with invaders was to bribe them into going away. They even built a massive wall which really does demonstrate their attitude to the rest of the world - wishing it would just go away.

However - bringing this back to the original topic - the world is the way it is today because the East ultimately failed to assimilate, divide OR rule the younger civilisations of the West. Events set in train by Phillip of Macedon culminated in Alexander gaining the West space to grow by ending the utter dominance of the East. This in turn allowed Rome and other Western nations the space to flourish and led to an era of Western dominance.

And yes - British linguistic dominance owes everything to the fact that we were, quite simply, vastly better at both trade and brutal thuggery than our European rivals. Our complete naval dominance ultimately led to the colonisation of Australia & New Zealand, and also our dominance of the North American continent. Without the vast and combined influence of the English speaking peoples, the world today would be a very different place (And probably speaking either German or Russian as the dominant language).

However, the rise of the West as a whole - and the vast influence on the world we have since gained, for good or ill, really began with the success of Alexander

[Galadriel]

I choose Joan Of Arc because she was a brave woman, in times where women were only seen as mother of children and housewives. No one listened to them but she managed it anyway. She's been betrayed by one of the most important people of that time, the King of France. She's burned on the stakes, as a witch, while all she did was spreading the word of God. I'm not a Catholic, but it clear that the churches even shed the blood of one of her most loyal believers.
I can't state my choice in that many words as you could Elliot, but to tell it short: She was a girl with balls ;D

And to become a bit patriotic, I would also vote for Vesalius and Father Damian, both very smart, compassionate people. Because of Vesalius we know more about the human body, and Father Damian, well, you can read the Wiki too right?
Marie Curie would also get my vote, for stated reasons in yet another Wiki page.
As for Alexander, I don't agree, sorry.

[Elliot Kane]

All part of the fun of this topic, Gal. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer - just opinions

I still think I'm right, of course - but everyone else doubtless thinks they are too, which is fine

If I were just looking at most influential Brits, Edward I (Inventor of parliamentary democracy and the right of habeus corpus and limiter of the power of the kings) would come high on the list. Henry VIII (for creating the Church Of England, now one of the largest Christian denominations in the world; for designing the swivel gun which gave England a serious advantage at sea; for creating the vast network of coastal defences that helped make England an impregnable fortress. Even the WW2 coastal defences were largely built on the remains of Henry's gun platforms). Elisabeth I (for not only dealing so adroitly with Spain (Then the dominant world power) but more importantly for laying the most necessary part of the framework for the rise of the British Empire: she left her crown to James, king of Scotland, thereby uniting the Scots with the rest of Britain in the only way it could be done).

Not to mention the near-endless list of great British inventors

But at the end of the day, for me, the world consists of more than just Britain. Which is why I give it to Alexander

Sir Tim Berners-Lee gets my 'pioneer of the future' award as I don't think we have yet even begun to see the true power the internet has to connect people all over the world. We won't for a couple of generations yet, either, nor until web use is more widespread across the world...

[Glance A'Lot]

Alexander gaining the West space to grow by ending the utter dominance of the East. This in turn allowed Rome and other Western nations the space to flourish and led to an era of Western dominance.

And I maintain that there was no dominance of the East, nor even danger thereof, in Western Europe at the time of Alexander.

Persian advance was stopped 490 and 480 B.C. at Marathon and Salamis (150 years before Alexander). That Alexander turned East after his subduing of Greece is natural - that's where the heredetary enemy was, and where the booty was. In the West was what the Greeks considered Greek colonies, distant and self governing, as Greek city states tended to be, and thus no threat (to Alexander's dominion).

The 'powers' of the West at the time were the young Roman Republic and the less young, and bigger, Carthage. Nothing Alexander cared about, nor did either care about Alexander! Rome was busy securing Italia, and Carthage was busy making money by exploiting the coastal regions and trading around the Mediterrenean - a trade that was not particularily affected by Alexander's land warfare (if so, the Phenicians probably profited from logistics).

Whether Alexander had lost or won would in my opinion not have made a difference - the fate of the West was decided in the clash between Rome and Carthage. Winning that gave Rome Sicily, Spain and North Africa - total control over the western Mediterranean - made them an imperial power big enough, and with resources enough, to withstand an expansion from the East. And they did clash with the Seleucid empire, which then still was a force to reckon with.

{In terms of 'what if' history, a clash between Alexander and Rome would have been interesting. Contrary to Carthage, which was based on maritime power with mercenary armies (which means composed of many nationals, but professional) both Rome and Alexander's Greeks were experienced in land warfare, both had at the time considerable fighting experience, both used to fight against bad odds and both used to win. A hard one to place bets on.}

I do not dispute that Alexander had a tremendous impact on the development of the East -> several centuries of hellenistic culture, assimilating some from the occcupied countries. It is not without reason, that the Roman empire later split East/West, Roman/Byzanthian - Latin/Celtic/Germanic versus Greek/Oriental).

I hope I'm making a decent case of my position (and yes, I love the debate )

[Elliot Kane]

You're making a decent case, Glance, yes - just not a compelling one, IMO

Persia had stopped trying to physically invade Greece, but they still controlled a lot of Greek territory, either directly or indirectly. The Seleucids did indeed fight Rome, but they were nothing but a shattered remnant of Persia: a power in their own right, yes, but with nowhere near the power or authority of their predecessor. Or the manpower, for that matter.

Persia used its enormous wealth and influence to set the Greek city states against each other in endless feuding and fighting - clear 'divide and destroy' tactics. Sooner or later, when the Greeks were weakened, they would doubtless have been swallowed up.

Phillip saw this, hence his great dream of uniting Greece to destroy Persia - the dream he passed on to his son, who made that dream a reality.

The deciding battle between the Greeks and Romans, as you probably know, was decided not by Roman brilliance but by Greek incompetence. The last king of Macedon was an imbecile who managed to turn what would have been a decisive victory into utter defeat by allowing the Romans to lure his phalanxes onto broken ground where they could not keep formation. The Romans were losing badly up till that point. Once they could slip inside the spear hedge, though, it was all over for the Greeks...

At the point in history where they might have met, Alexander would have destroyed them as they were pre-Marius. Could the two forces have met post-Marius, that would have been interesting indeed...

When the Romans beat the Greeks, of course, they assimilated Greek culture and took all the bits they admired, which were many - right down to copying the Greek gods. Would they have admired and copied a civilisation they saw as weak? Doubtful. The Romans as a very military minded people respected strength and the cultures that arose from strength. I have no doubt they admired Alexander greatly and that he was a huge reason they respected Greek culture. Certainly, they showed little such interest in the cultures of others they conquered. Though others had some influence, of course, none were so influential as Greece.

The dominance of Aristotle on Western thinking is certainly down to his position as Alexander's tutor and his is the most dominant philosophy in Western thought.

(And I'm loving the debate, too

[Glance A'Lot]

You lit a fuse!

Persia had stopped trying to physically invade Greece, but they still controlled a lot of Greek territory, either directly or indirectly.

...

Persia used its enormous wealth and influence to set the Greek city states against each other in endless feuding and fighting - clear 'divide and destroy' tactics. Sooner or later, when the Greeks were weakened, they would doubtless have been swallowed up.

Phillip saw this, hence his great dream of uniting Greece to destroy Persia - the dream he passed on to his son, who made that dream a reality.

Pre-Alexander we talk about the Perikleian period - two factions, basically, Sparta and its followers contra Athens and the Attic Sea league. Persian control is maybe going too far, but political lobbying, yes.
As to your assessment of Phillipp, I agree.

The deciding battle between the Greeks and Romans, as you probably know, was decided not by Roman brilliance but by Greek incompetence. The last king of Macedon was an imbecile who managed to turn what would have been a decisive victory into utter defeat by allowing the Romans to lure his phalanxes onto broken ground where they could not keep formation. The Romans were losing badly up till that point. Once they could slip inside the spear hedge, though, it was all over for the Greeks...

Yes, but... - Rome had by that time been on the verge of catastrophy on numerous occassions, but prevailed nonetheless. By the protection of Mars, sheer luck, the Fates - who knows? Maybe just because in times of extreme crisis Rome did actually always find competent leaders (who they had a habit of discarding after use)

At the point in history where they might have met, Alexander would have destroyed them as they were pre-Marius. Could the two forces have met post-Marius, that would have been interesting indeed...
I see your point, but I strongly dispute. While Marius did reform and 'professionalize' the army after a period of decay, do not forget that before that decay they fought three Punic Wars, the last against Hannibal, probably the best general of HIS time (Scipio used Hannibal's tactics to defeat him). And they won, because while continuously outsmarted tactically, Flavius Cunctator followed the better strategy.
Alexander's contemporary would have been the young, ambitious, motivated Roman Republic fighting with its back against the wall - a cornered she-wolf, not to be underestimated. (The famous 'cetero censeo carthaginem esse delendam' ('By the way I believe that Carthage must be destroyed') was based on Carthage having brought Rome on the verge of defeat in all those wars, same as the fights before in Italia - but the Romans prevailed, because they were too stubborn to accept defeat and fought on against all reason - and there is no better excuse for that irresponsibility than ultimate success.)

When the Romans beat the Greeks, of course, they assimilated Greek culture and took all the bits they admired, which were many - right down to copying the Greek gods. Would they have admired and copied a civilisation they saw as weak? Doubtful. The Romans as a very military minded people respected strength and the cultures that arose from strength. I have no doubt they admired Alexander greatly and that he was a huge reason they respected Greek culture. Certainly, they showed little such interest in the cultures of others they conquered. Though others had some influence, of course, none were so influential as Greece.

That would insinuate that the Romans had taken over the gods only after they defeated Greece after Alexander's time, which is not correct. The Roman clone of the Greek pantheon is almost as old as the republic itself - they indeed took it from Greeks they respected, as adversaries and culture - but that were those in Southern Italia, the ones they conquered first (after the Etruscans) and where they had their first educated household slaves from.
Also, they saw themselves in a Greek myth tradition (from Aeneas, the Trojan).

The dominance of Aristotle on Western thinking is certainly down to his position as Alexander's tutor and his is the most dominant philosophy in Western thought.

I think it is not because of Alexander, but because of his being renowned before becoming the tutor and being Plato's student, who in turn was mentored by Socrates. They all taught at the academy of Athens, THAT is the cradle of Western philosophy, in my view.
It is from the discussions there that the philosophy travelled through the Grecian cultural realm, which at the time covered the Mediterrenean - that is the reason why Alexander got the education in the first place, because his father could afford the best, and because it already was reckognized as the best. But it spread before, and without any help from Alex.

[Elliot Kane]

Hannibal lost for a number of reasons, I think: polyglot armies are usually weaker (Only Marlborough ever really did WELL with one) and his supply lines were vastly over-extended. The support he'd hoped for never materialised from the rest of Italy either, which didn't help. Who was it who said that "Hannibal knew how to win a victory, but not how to use it"? Very accurate, IMO.

The Romans were tough bastards, yes, but pre-Marius their armies were less structured and (IIRC) not so well trained or equipped. They beat the opposition by being more disciplined throughout their whole history, but pre-Marius they were not at their best.

Under Alexander, the Greeks WERE at their best, in terms of discipline, training and leadership.

Alexander vrs Julius Caesar would have been something to see... Impossible of course, but still

The academy of Athens certainly IS the cradle of Western philosophy, yes. You'll get no arguments from me about that! However, what caused those ideas to spread was (As is always he way) Greek military success. Don't forget that Alexander was not only a great conqueror, but also a patron of learning. It was he who established the library of Alexandria, the greatest repository of knowledge in the ancient world. Which the Romans later burnt, of course, which about summed up THEIR attitude to thinking...

As for Aristotle's prominence: as we agree, Greece (And Athens especially) had many fine philosophers, of whom Aristotle was but one. Yet his thinking dominates. Because he was the best? I think not. Because he had the greatest patron? Almost certainly! Patronage is synonymous with influence, then as now.

You are of course correct about the Roman adoption of the Greek gods.

[Glance A'Lot]

Well, Marlborough had a second in command of some class in Prince Eugene of Savoye - but his march towards Blenheim was indeed a masterpiece of strategy. Wellington didn't do badly also with multi-national troops. And don't forget that ALL generals of the Austrian Empire did have that problem continuously, by the very nature of that Empire - only a few mastered the problem though. Even the later Napoleon was faced with the problem (a lot of the Grand Armée was recruited from 'allies' - but then the dominant language of the cultured class was French, which helped).

The main difference Marius established was that his army was a) a standing one, and b) that anybody could serve in it (acquiring Roman citizenship). The latter required a standardized equipment that was furnished - before legionaires were Roman citizens, having to provide their own equipment according to their financial abilities (But there were minimum standards, and the overall equipment of the Roman soldier was not reputed as poor in comparison to their adversaries). They were not a standing army, but would be called and released 'as required' (nonetheless there had been periods of long service in view of the not so peaceful times). The guiding principle was that 'He who had the most to lose, will fight the best':
That is not necessarily a judgement on their fighting ability, more a question of numbers available. Note that with the growth of the Empire that became an issue at Marius' time.

The fact that at Alexander's time the GREEKS were at their best does not automatically make them the best overall - though I concede, it had not really been disputed, respectively fought out (in the West).
But as the Romans were in Greek tradition also militarily, their fighting style would have been closer to Alexander's than that of the Oriental armies. Climate and larger population, vast areas to cover, led to an emphasis on lighter infantry, war chariots and cavalry. The issue remains speculative though. The closest contest I can think of is Rome versus Phyrrhus of Epirus (Greek!) around 280 B.C. (50 years post Alex) - Phyrrhus won, but... (but it would support Elliot's view )

Now, in summary, HAD Alexander turned westward instead of Eastward, the Mediterranean would in all probability have become a 'Greek sea', and we all would be writing in Greek instead of Latin letters, and speak a Greek derivate of our modern languages in lieu of 'Roman'. THEN he would indeed be the father of western civilization.

***

I assume, ancient history is taught similarily in your countries as in Germany - we learn the Greek from the first Persian war (say as of 500 B.C.) until its culmination with Alexander; then switch to the Romans, rushing through the first centuries with the estabilshment of the Republic (principally already covered with the Greeks) to the Punic Wars (starting 264 B.C.) and then the tedious process to the fall of the empire. (French focus more on the conquest of Gaul, whereas in Germany the Varus battle (9 A.C.) and the establishment of the Limes get some attention Likely Cesar in Brittania is a topic there )

That way focus is lost on the contemporarty of events. It is very evidently the history of the victorious. At Alexander's time, the dominant power in the western Mediterranean was Carthage, also significant were Syracuse (on Sicily), the Etruscan Kingdom, the Greek settlements in Southern Italia (sovereign city states, in good Greek tradition, which is why they ultimately lost out) and the rising Roman republic (which at the time expanded North - the Etruscan having been their rulers, and may well be also because the Greek in the South were too hard to swallow then).

But save for the Etruscan, the majority was firmly settled in Greek or Greek influenced culture. That's why I believe that Alexander's feats in the East made no difference. Had Carthage won the Punic wars however... (see above). ;D

***

By the way, why are Elliot and I alone in this?

[Elliot Kane]

The very definition of 'Pyrrhic victory' yes. Poor old Pyrrhus. What was the quote? "Gods preserve me from another 'victory' such as this"? Something like that...

Marlborough was one of a tiny number of generals who was undefeated throughout his career, despite having fought large numbers of battles. If we ever do a 'best ever general' thread' he'll get a lot of time, I'm sure (And I'm not saying he IS. I could never decide on best general. Best admiral is easy, though).

I think we've about reached the point of 'agree to disagree' over Alexander, though, Glance. You're right that history is built from a myriad influences, but the true impact of Alexander (Or any other candidate for 'most pivotal') is largely a matter of deciding what the world would have been without them. I think it would have been vastly different everywhere; you think not by much. Neither of us can really prove anything as all is speculative.

I still think I'm right, but I'm sure you do, too - which I like to think is a testament to the breadth of historical knowledge of both of us

I can see a few more 'best in history' threads in the future... ;D

[Galadriel]

Feb 25, 2009 14:47:51 GMT Glance A'Lot said:

***

By the way, why are Elliot and I alone in this?

Because I don't know enough about Alexander to discuss this with you guys. ;D