Did Alexander benefit Hellenistic culture?

Did Alexander benefit Hellenistic culture?

On the plus side
>expanded Greek culture to the edges of the known world
>brought immense wealth to the Greek world
>population in most Greek lands increased several fold

On the minus side
>him and his father basically ended the Greek city states as a government form
>adopted the Persian regional satrapy system
>never cared about having a viable heir until it was too late, ensuring his empire's collapse
>core Greek lands actually stagnated under him
>cleared the way for Rome like no one else could

Other urls found in this thread:

livius.org/sources/content/arrian/anabasis/alexanders-letter-to-darius-iii/
dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

At the start of the Successors Era, Rome's fate was still up in the air. Not to mention the individual States were pretty powerful in their own right.

I think Persian rule might've eventually come to dominate Greek culture in some ways if they hadn't been so dramatically replaced by Greek culture as a result of Alexander's campaign against Darius. More so than the subsequent Roman empire, which imitated Greek culture in a lot of ways, preserving many traditions (including the documenting of historical events, without which we would know as little about the Greeks as we do about the Persians).

The Persians were unlikely to ever dominate Greece militarily but they had less overt means of influencing cultures inside and outside of their empire. They assassinated Philip, for example. And while they were relatively tolerant rulers, the absorption of Greece into their sphere of influence probably would've have eroded Greek culture over time more than the rise of Rome.

That said, Philip's plan for conquest might've gone ahead anyway, without Alexander, though I doubt it would've been half as successful under a different leader.

what's more surprising - the Greeks actually winning the Persian war or Rome rolling over them with minimal effort?

>Persians assassinated Philip
Proof?

Without Alexander, all the Greeks really had to hold on to their dominion was their superior military know-how. That was easily copied and adapted by people with a similar mindset. I don't think Rome beating the Greeks at their own game is as surprising as the level of success Alexander had in Persia.

no I was referring to the greco-Persian wars of the early 5th century

Xerxes and all that

>him and his father basically ended the Greek city states as a government form
They operated as autonomous cities during and after his rule, and were pretty much only expected to contribute tribute or troops. This continued far beyond his Conquests, and political leagues among cities continued. Philip didn't even install military-barracks or a governor in Athens when he conquered them and allowed the demogogues to shit-talk him until they convinced Thebes to revolt; and only then--which he died interim such process--Alexander only asked for the opposition ring-leader, Demosthenes, to be executed by the Athenians--which they didn't--and was fine when they just exiled him and discontinued his fraction from being influential in city politics.
>adopted the Persian regional satrapy system
The only difference between Satraps, and the standard practice of installing military governors and dictators (like Spartan harmosts) over subjugated regions and cities, was that the military governors before Alexander's time only governed a small amount of area compare to Persian satraps. Satraps weren't anything new to the Greeks when they adopted them, it's just that they were given more land to govern.
>core Greek lands stagnated under him
Southern Greek mainlands were bipolar in their prosperity during the 4th century before and after him. Some prospered, while others were created by migrating citizens to newly strategic settlements that grew into influential cities (like Thessaloniki).
>cleared the way for Romans
The Greek city-states were far more vulnerable to getting subjugated by foreign powers before his reign. If anything, he made Greece more united and made them resist inevitable foreign conquests that always eventually come, longer. It was by pure incompetence that the Persians didn't conquer them during the late 5th century and 4th century despite them being a vulnerable target.

There's a theory that Alexander's mother did it to put her son on the throne. From what I've heard that would be in keeping with her character.

But there's a passage where Alexander accuses Darius of being behind it, even says Darius admitted to doing it. Darius probably had as much motive as his mother. I'm sure I heard on Dan Carlin's podcast/audiobook that the assassins themselves were Persians but who was behind it isn't proven.

The passage I'm referring to is great: Alexander had just personally chased Darius off the field of battle, captured his family and absorbed part of his army, and was writing to tell Darius to surrender himself and the whole Persian empire.

livius.org/sources/content/arrian/anabasis/alexanders-letter-to-darius-iii/

>Implies Hellenism is good.

Thank you, superior Greeks for bringing the art of little boy fucking to the east. I'm sure the practices of Bacha Bazi are still greatly appreciated and accredited to these great spreaders of culture. Alexander was a tumor who spread his plague across the superior east.

I sure hope you're not implying that Greeks invented boy fucking

actually I'd be interested to know which is the first culture to impose sanctions on homosexuality.

So no proofs? Cool.

Oh right, that was even more of a shock result for the Greeks.

The battles of Salamis and Plataea are described amazingly in the Dan Carlin "King of Kings" audiobook I mentioned:

dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

It's the most entertaining (though admittedly not the most rigorous) source for history I know of. Those particular battles come in after about 7 hours of Persian history though, so either skip through it if you don't have the time or be prepared for a long ass (but brilliant) history show about Persia.

When did I imply that? It is an offshoot from the spread of this apparently great culture of Hellenism, particularly in Afghanistan. The bacha Bazi practice isn't an Islamic one. It is the product of Greek Hellenism, which was cancerous.

Hellenic pederasty was conventional practiced with the catamites being pubescent males; children were frowned upon and no freeman citizen would allow some man to fuck their little kids. The "bloom of youth" that gets mentioned in many Greek texts to denote and praise when a catamite is most attractive, was when he had a fully developed male body but yet to develop a beard (around ages 17-19). Conventional Greek societal practices back then often had males entering military service at 20, and becoming voting citizens and having marriages by around 30, so their definition of manhood is more skewed to older ages than ours, and what is defined today as young men (15 - 19) was considered by the Greek as still a developing and juvenile phrase and were considered boys in the responsibility-sense.
Bacha Bazi is far different by including slavery-aspect, actual child-sex, and having old men deflowering young girls and impregnating them early.

Persians and most Eastern societies also practiced pederasty back then. The Spartan king Agesilaus II had a pederast relationship with a Persian's satrap's son when he was campaigning in Asia minor, and brought him back home.

Again, from Alexander himself:
>My father died at the hand of conspirators instigated by you, as you yourself boasted to everybody in your letters...

That was the only version I'd heard. After a little digging, there are conflicting reports though. I was wrong about the assassins themselves being Persian, it was his bodyguard Pausanias who did it, with two accomplices (also not Persian). According to Plutarch it was done in pursuit of a personal vendetta, egged on by Alexander's mother Olympias (who rather unusually went on to build a memorial for the killer):

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html
>And so when Pausanias, who had been outrageously dealt with at the instance of Attalus and Cleopatra and could get no justice at Philip's hands, slew Philip, most of the blame devolved upon Olympias, on the ground that she had added her exhortations to the young man's anger and incited him to the deed; but a certain amount of accusation attached itself to Alexander also.

> I'm sure I heard on Dan Carlin's podcast/audiobook that the assassins themselves were Persians but who was behind it isn't proven.

Bullshit. The Assassin was a man named Pausanias. Most likely, it was a Macedonian. Assassination was the single most common death for a macedonian monarch at the time.

There's no proof that Persians assassinated Philip II, but there's plenty to paint Alexander and Olympias as being behind the plot.

Philip II had taken on a new wife, who was macedonian. Olympias was Epirote. Philip II's new wife, Eurydice, had given him a son who was of pure macedonian stock, thus endangering Alexander's position as the heir to the thrown as he was only half Macedonian.

In addition, during Eurydice's wedding to Philip, Alexander was involved in a brawl and a verbal dispute with Attalus, one of Philip's close men and father to Eurydice. In this brawl, Philip sided with Attalus and Alexander was sent into exile afterwards. For several months, Alexander was away from Philip's court and considered a persona non grata. Only when the planned persian invasion drew closer did Philip recall Alexander, as he needed a grown heir. Shortly afterwards, Philip was assassinated by Pausanias. Pausanias was captured almost immediately but killed outright by none other than Alexander's close men - hindering any possible interogation or torture.

Sounds like an unfounded claim made by Alexander.

The coincidence that tutor of Alexander and the Macedonian nobles were a Macedonian that had studied in Athens for 20 years (Aristotle), is probably the only reason why it was the literature of Athens that survived until the modern era. The Macedonians took the Athenian literature to every corner of the empire and used it to create Greeks in the Greek cities they founded. And so Athenian literature survived. Wouldn't it be grand if we also could read literature of other city states, like Anaxagoras' physics, or Corax's rhetoric? But at least Athenian literature survived. And that thanks to Alexander.

he should have stopped at Euphrates if you ask me

Parmenion pls go