Greatest of the Greats

Which was the most deserving of the title "the Great"?

  • Cyrus the Great (Persia)

    Votes: 36 16.7%
  • Alexander the Great (Greece/Macedonia)

    Votes: 84 38.9%
  • Constantine the Great (Rome/Byzantium)

    Votes: 13 6.0%
  • Charles the Great/Charlemagne (Franks)

    Votes: 14 6.5%
  • Alfred the Great (Anglo-Saxon England)

    Votes: 12 5.6%
  • Frederick the Great (Prussia)

    Votes: 14 6.5%
  • Peter the Great (Russia)

    Votes: 9 4.2%
  • Cathrine the Great (Russia)

    Votes: 5 2.3%
  • Pacal the Great (Maya)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Theodoric the Great (Ostrogoths)

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Tamerlane the Great (Timurids)

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • Pompey the Great (Rome)

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Antiochus the Great (Seleucids)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Akbar the Great (Mughals)

    Votes: 8 3.7%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 17 7.9%

  • Total voters
    216
Indeed. My analogy again is the murder of Sergei Kirov, which in practice was ordered by Stalin as a means to begin his purges with sufficient paranoia, and in the actual assassination, the assassin was a deranged student with a grudge against Kirov. Was Stalin present during the assassination? No. He cried crocodile tears over it and then used ot for his benefit. Alexander's role in Philip's murder is the same: no official involvement but he was the architect of the whole thing and stood the most to gain.

Again, historical evidence. We can never compare an ancient figure to a modern figure in regards to assassination since we know comparatively little about the ancient figure's feelings. There are many holes surrounding the assassination attempt which can make or break the assertion that Alexander did it and extrapolation is really not enough to back up your case.
 
You see, let's imagine that your father was killed and you stood to inherit a nice house, a flashy car and a sizable bank account. (Just imagine for the sake of discussion. No offense meant.)
That would definitely make you a suspect number one. No doubt.
(Especially if your Dad was going to disinherit you.)
But would this alone make you a murderer? I guess not. May be you were just very lucky.

Sometimes the real power behind an assassination would rather find a Nikolaev to kill their Kirov rather than being a Brutus killing their Caesar. If Alexander had done this and it been obvious, his claim would have been drastically impaired. If some "Persian lunatic" does this, then he kills the assassin, gains the throne, wins every battle he fights and his tactical skill ensures minimal focus on Philip. At least some of the people killed *after* his ascension *were* quite tied to Philip, not to Alexander, and it was their ties with Philip that led to their deaths.

OK:). Peter the Great murdered his son.
De jure it was the Russian Senate who sentenced the poor youngster to death for high treason.
But as Peter I was the absolute monarch... well, you know the drill...
The only fault of his son was that he was a potential threat to his Daddy.
Is this example relevant?

Yes. In my opinion this would disqualify both Tsar Ivan the Awe-Inspiring and he from the title "Great" as they created the seeds of disaster when like all other human beings they died. Dynasts must look to the future, failure to do that.....
 
Again, historical evidence. We can never compare an ancient figure to a modern figure in regards to assassination since we know comparatively little about the ancient figure's feelings. There are many holes surrounding the assassination attempt which can make or break the assertion that Alexander did it and extrapolation is really not enough to back up your case.

The people Alexander purged had one factor in common: they viewed the deceased Philip more favorably than they did Alexander, or they were products of Philip's regime loyal to the legitimate monarch. It would be counterproductive otherwise for him to have killed them off if he had nothing to do with this assassination. And this is the Alexander who's won Issus, Granicus, and Gaugamela. So......

I might also note that there's no firm evidence even in the 21st Century tying Stalin to Kirov's murder, either. Which is where the analogy comes in.
 
My analogy once more is Sergei Kirov's assassination. Stalin ordered it, but he was careful to avoid any direct proof that he was ever involved. With Alexander the Great and Philip there's the same pattern, because in a dynastic monarchy, one needs to be very, very careful with offing one's precursor as that leads to the potential that might also be done unto the usurper. Alexander was intelligent enough to see that, and hence Pausanius was his Nikolaev. Plausible deniability, and he's the only one that really benefited from the death of Philip, the Kingdom of Macedon lost its dynasty altogether with the deaths of Alexander and Olympias.

It's hard to argue with this because it's mostly bad conspiracy theory level-assertions; Alexander inherited the throne after his father's death, ergo he killed him. That's a pretty childish argument. By that token, I guess we should suspect Augustus in the murder of Caesar, and so on.

Notably, Augustus was the main beneficiary of Caesar's death, ultimately. But nobody would have neccessarily predicted that at the time. So with Alexander. He was an adolescent, and essentially untested heir to a parvenu tribal kingdom which was famed for its dynastic civil wars. (Philip had come to the throne in just such a squabble, and it may be pointed out, had murdered his half brother to secure his hold on the throne) At the time of his death, Philip had actually commenced the invasion of Persia, and had a unified and well-disciplined army behind him, and was a proven warlord. The assumption would have been that on Philip's death said army would disperse and the Macedonian settlement (and possibly Macedonia itself) in Greece would fall apart. (Which it did)

Gods forbid we should even consider the possiblity of other theories, though, like, oh, I don't know, Persian involvement in Philip's death. (Which, incidentally, despite being the official account of Philip's death does not, as far as anyone can tell, actually seem to have been much contested by the Persians themselves)
 
It's hard to argue with this because it's mostly bad conspiracy theory level-assertions; Alexander inherited the throne after his father's death, ergo he killed him. That's a pretty childish argument. By that token, I guess we should suspect Augustus in the murder of Caesar, and so on.

That's not a critique of the argument, instead it's ad hominem. The comparison is to Nikolaev's assassination of Sergei Kirov, which could only have been ordered by Stalin, but where he was not directly involved. I'm sure, however, that this is an unfamiliar analogy and in any case that you're not really interested in anything but games of semantics instead of actually providing a counterargument of your own.

Notably, Augustus was the main beneficiary of Caesar's death, ultimately. But nobody would have neccessarily predicted that at the time. So with Alexander. He was an adolescent, and essentially untested heir to a parvenu tribal kingdom which was famed for its dynastic civil wars. (Philip had come to the throne in just such a squabble, and it may be pointed out, had murdered his half brother to secure his hold on the throne) At the time of his death, Philip had actually commenced the invasion of Persia, and had a unified and well-disciplined army behind him, and was a proven warlord. The assumption would have been that on Philip's death said army would disperse and the Macedonian settlement (and possibly Macedonia itself) in Greece would fall apart. (Which it did)

Ah, he'd already proven his skills as a tactician, did not like daddy's choice of wives, and was fearing his own eclipse in the event that Philip's new wife would have given him a son with a stronger claim to the throne than Alexander's. Like Stalin with Kirov's death, only Alexander stood to gain from Philip's death, like Stalin with Nikolaev Alexander found a plausible deniability route through Pausanius. Like Stalin with Yagoda Alexxander had slain Attalus.

Gods forbid we should even consider the possiblity of other theories, though, like, oh, I don't know, Persian involvement in Philip's death. (Which, incidentally, despite being the official account of Philip's death does not, as far as anyone can tell, actually seem to have been much contested by the Persians themselves)

God forbid that a megalomaniacal overmighty general who claimed to be a king but was only a general who stood the prospect of losing any and all claim to the throne should want to safeguard his succession. It's not like succession issues destablize monarchies or heirs fearing eclipse might react against it, oh, no, that's a conspiracy theory. It's not that Alexander, like Stalin, acted as he did from a rational set of political conclusions that led to ultimate disaster for everyone except Alexander. No, that's just a childish argument, leaving aside that Alexander would have been Philip's Belisarius, if that, if his second wife had given him a proper, fully Macedonian, heir.
 
In my opinion this would disqualify both Tsar Ivan the Awe-Inspiring and he from the title "Great"
Who are you talking about? :confused:

Does anyone in this forum know such a Russian tsar as 'Tsar Ivan the Awe-Inspiring'?

As for me - I do not.

I know the tsar Ivan 'the Terrible'.
For a Russian speaking person this English part about 'being terrible' is very funny. Because it has nothing to do with the Russian meaning of his 'nick-name' - 'Grozny'.

Russian historical perception of this tsar (in folklore in fairy-tales in semantic meaning of his nick-name and the like) is 'harsh but fair' :).
* As I pointed out the perception of the historical character sometimes has nothing to do with historical reality/facts.
It speaks about the people/nation, not about the personage in question.
 
OK:). Peter the Great murdered his son.
De jure it was the Russian Senate who sentenced the poor youngster to death for high treason.
But as Peter I was the absolute monarch... well, you know the drill...
The only fault of his son was that he was a potential threat to his Daddy.

A bit more than that. Alexei Petrovich (1690-1718) experienced difficult relations with his father since childhood. And opposed the policies of his father on certain subjects. He had served in his father's wars, but reportedly never with much enthusiasm.

In August, 1716, Peter commanded Alexei to resume his military duties. Instead Alexei and his mistress left the country. Seeking refuge with Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor. Something considered a grave insult by his father.

In 1718, following months of negotiations, Alexei returned to Russia. His father's diplomats having promised him a pardon for his defection. The promise naturally was null and void once Alexei set his foot on Russian ground. See: http://www.answers.com/topic/alexei-petrovich

Peter "demanded that he [Alexei] reveal all his "accomplices" in a plot to assassinate his father and seize the throne. Evidence emerged that Alexei hated Peter's cherished projects and that some Russians from elite circles viewed him as an alternative. Tried by a special tribunal, Alexei confessed to treason under torture and was condemned to death, dying two days later following further torture."

Several friends, allies, and supposed accomplices of Alexei were also turtured to death in the witch hunt which followed. Traditional Russian and Soviet historians still see Alexei as a traitor, willing to undo all his father's reforms.
 
You know something is funny when both traditional Russian historians and Soviet historians gang up on someone.

Not to say that's conclusive, but its interesting.
 
That's not a critique of the argument, instead it's ad hominem.

I didn't have an argument to critique. Your 'argument', at least up to this point, is 'Alexander benefitted from his father's death (and I personally have a strong animus against the man) so clearly he did it'.

Don't flatter yourself - that's not a serious argument, and no-one here will take it as such. Throwing in allusions to Stalin, Kirov and any other historical figure you can think of doesn't bolster the flimsiness either, it just makes it look as if there's a lack of detachment and perspective, as it would if somebody started comparing Pompey to Hitler.

And no, incidentally, it's not an ad hominem, since I didn't mention you once, only your argument.

The comparison is to Nikolaev's assassination of Sergei Kirov, which could only have been ordered by Stalin, but where he was not directly involved.

Well, for one, we don't know for certain that Stalin ordered the killing of Kirov. It's not a fact. It's a strong, overwhelming likelihood that he did, if nothing else than by the simple nature of the state that Kirov inhabited.

But quite where the comparison here is to the killing of Philip, I haven't the slightest idea, as there is no overwhelming likelihood of Alexander being involved, and nor was he the only one who could have ordered it. He might have been involved, and you can make a decentish argument to that effect. (It's not the one you've generally been making, but it's out there.) But overwhelming, no, not remotely.

Ah, he'd already proven his skills as a tactician,

He had been in one campaign, IIRC, against tribes to the north by the time Philip died, and of course participated at Chaeronea. He was essentially untested. If he was already regarded as such a genius by the time of Philip's death, then it seems odd that the whole of Greece immediately and confidently rose on the news, and Demosthenes was able to charicature him as a feckless flaneur.

did not like daddy's choice of wives,

Not really sure what this is based on, or why it's relevant.

and was fearing his own eclipse in the event that Philip's new wife would have given him a son with a stronger claim to the throne than Alexander's ... Alexander ... acted as he did from a rational set of political conclusions.

Even assuming Philip could produce an alternative heir, (and it's worth pointing out that he probably had about half a dozen minor wives other than Olympias already, and had already produced another male child) said heir would have to grow into a man before he became politically viable; that would take decades. Macedonia is not medieval western Europe, there's no sanctity of kingship, and only men reign, not children. (Or if they do, then they are swiftly supplanted by their royal male relatives, as, indeed, Philip had done with his nephew Amyntas; yes, I'm afraid darling Philip was a usurper) By the time of his death, Alexander had been reconciled to Philip. There wasn't the slightest chance of Alexander being supplanted as senior heir in anything but the wildest long-term, and then it was only a possibility; even if Philip had taken a knock to the head and somehow demanded of the Macedonian elite that they recognise a babe as his heir, then it would have made no ultimate difference, as simple political reality would have won out in the event of a vacancy. Alexander is supposed to have named 'the strongest' as his heir on his deathbed. If he did say that, then he was simply recognising the Macedonian reality of power. The idea that Alexander was under imminent threat of being rendered politically obsolete is utter nonsense derived from an anachronistic understanding of the period.

I guess this rational objection can be overriden though by the fact that Alexander was one of the most evil men in history and was so psychologically buckled and bent by paranoia he couldn't walk straight. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Alexei confessed to treason under torture...dying two days later following further torture
Well, I don't know about you,
but as for me...
under torture I would confess to be the closest associate of Osama bin Laden and that I personally trained the suicide-pilots of 9/11:D

What would you expect from tsar Peter I?
Would you expect him to say: "Listen, guys, I kind of suspect that someone might use my son against me. And I never actually liked the rascal. So I decided to murder him after thoroughly torturing."
 
Well, I don't know about you,
but as for me...
under torture I would confess to be the closest associate of Osama bin Laden and that I personally trained the suicide-pilots of 9/11:D

Agreed. Torture tends to produce unreliable confessions, and humans can only take so much pain before they brake. But its his defection two years prior to his death that sealed the fate of Alexei. Anyone could point at his flight and draw the worst conclusions possible. Traitor, foreign agent, potential rebel, etc.

What would you expect from tsar Peter I?
Would you expect him to say: "Listen, guys, I kind of suspect that someone might use my son against me. And I never actually liked the rascal. So I decided to murder him after thoroughly torturing."

That is one way to summarize his attitude. And a particularly funny way. But , alternatively, peter could be genuinely paranoid over the situation. He would not be the first or last monarch who viewed his heir or heirs as imminent threats.
 
But its his defection two years prior to his death that sealed the fate of Alexei.
I am afraid that it was the marriage of Peter I with Catherine in 1712 that sealed the fate of Alexei.

This Baltic peasant woman gave birth almost every year and I guess she dreamed that one of her kids would be the heir to Peter the Great.
She had almost magical influence on the tsar (it was so great that people suspected a witchcraft) and you could imagine how happy she was when Alexei was dead at last.

Peter could be genuinely paranoid over the situation. He would not be the first or last monarch who viewed his heir or heirs as imminent threats.
I am afraid he was not paranoid. He was realistic.

There was a similar example in 1801:
When conspirators murdered tsar Pavel I - his son tsar Alexander I poured a shower of gold over their heads.
Alexander might not be personally directly involved in the conspiracy but he was extremely grateful to the assassins of his Daddy.
 
Top