Why does Dante write that Alexander is burning in the boiling rivers of hell?

Yet in the process he had killed many of the righteous Romans of the old republic and showed great cruelty upon his ascension. Did he not also greatly expand Roman territory and leave the Empire to the madmen of the Julio-Claudians?
Not that I think he was incompetent, he was my favorite Roman, but surely he can be judged by the same standard.

He was just following his sources (orosius and lucan) who characterized him as a brutal beast and "bane of the world".
Dante actually praised Alexander in a different work of his.

Some people do believe that it's not Alexander the Great but rather Alexander of Pherae.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Pherae

For instance, in Dante's Convivio, you can find this quote:

"And who has not Alexander still at heart, because of his royal beneficence?"

pride

True, but it would be weird to leave Alexander the great completely out of his divine comedy

tell me the number of the Canto and I'll check out my GLORIOUS Italian edition with page long footnotes for an answer

Canto xii

A man of culture I see. The Divine Comedy is also the finest book on my meager shelf

That's true. Still, I'd expect him at least in Limbo, not Phlegethon.

Phlegethon is Canto XII but he mentions "Alexander" in Canto XIV as well; this one seems to me to be Alexander the Great due to the mention of his Indian conquest (I am not a historian and as such not aware of other historical Alexanders venturing there).

Dante was a brainlet, and Inferno is the product of a misguided church in a corrupt age. The hell and tortures that Dante envisioned are an unfortunate remnant of the vengeful old testament god of the Israelites.

Judgment is reserved for God alone, and His love and forgiveness can free even the damned.

I checked it out and it says what this gentleman here said

That is to say, Dante putting people in Hell is a fucking laugh. Such presumption I can only imagine the raging boners he had while writing his crazy fanfic.

Not a Christian=burning in hell. Sorry guys.

Alexander lived before Christ. He could not have been a Christian. Later "theologians" inserted a harrowing of Hell as part of the resurrection story, so the deserving could get around that nitpick. It's an inelegant retcon, but it's canon.

this tbqh. this was probably the renaissance equivalent to that guy who wrote himself in as a love interest to the Powerpuff girls

False. Cato the Younger and Statius were both positioned in (front of) Purgatory.

Also, the Roman emperor Trajan is in Paradise.

Pope Gregory I resurrected Trajan and baptised him, so he was a Christian.

>Pope Gregory I resurrected Trajan

I love this. Like the sixth century had actual Lv20 Clerics and shit.

One could say his actions ultimately led to more good than bad, whereas Alexander did little more than conquer an empire which disintegrated after a short time.

I don't personally agree, just playing devil's advocate.

...

Sigh. Isn't it depressing to realize that the glorious "canon" is really just more autism like everything else?

>only lvl 20

>conquered the known world at the time for no reason other than his ego.
>slaughtered countless men
>marched all the way to India because his ego needed it.
>marched his army through the desert. Adding months onto the journey home out of spite.
>on his death bed he chose his heir as "the strongest" leaving his generals to fight over his empire and causing more bloodshed.
Ya, totally cool dude.

Good post, Marcion.

>Originator/planner/leader of wars of conquest that killed hundreds of thousands if not a few million

Gee OP, I dunno why.