Posted on 07/08/2009 8:43:34 PM PDT by Publius772000
One of the most damaging forces in the study of history in recent years has been revisionism. Revisionist historians have painted Thomas Jefferson as a slave owner who took liberties with his property. Revisionists have tried to make slavery the primary cause of the Civil War. Revisionists have done their damage to figures in the ancient world, as well, with none taking the brunt quite so squarely as Alexander.
In his interview with Hannity on Wednesday, Forbes was discussing his most recent book and gave his take on the oft-misunderstood conqueror, calling Alexander one who was given to passions that ultimately destroyed him. Forbes said that Alexander did not match up favorably to other leaders of the ancient world, such as Cyrus the Great of Persia, whose policies of tolerance helped establish an empire that lasted generations.
What we know of Alexander comes from only a few ancient sources, none of whom were contemporaries of the conqueror himself. Most of the history comes from Arrian, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and a few scattered others, who themselves used primary sources and were required to sift through biases and conjecture to formulate their histories. Arrian, in particular, has come under fire from modern historians for using the work of Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s generals, who some claim distorted certain facts in order to boost his own reputation in history...
(Excerpt) Read more at theconstitutionalalamo.com ...
Alexander the Great was a Warrior.
Obama is a socialist appeasement weasle.
The comparison is not only dubious but it is flawed.
alexander the great was queer as a football bat. same as king richard the lionheart.
“To compare this great man, Alexander, with Barack Obama is an insult to the conqueror’s memory.”
*****************
Indeed.
And Michelle is the next Coco Chanel.
More like Benedict Arnold.
May Obama be cursed in his coming and his going!!!
The whole Alexander homosexuality myth was created by one historian making one supposition on one phraseology in order to get notoriety. There are far more credible historians who will tell you either there’s not enough evidence to make that sort of claim or that it’s entirely false. Alexander’s supposed sexual quirks were then perpetuated by Oliver Stone’s movie, which used that particular historian’s work as its basis. It has now pervaded popular knowledge, even though the validity is questionable, at best.
Alexander was no more a homosexual than David. But there are some who erroneously try to paint David in that light as well.
Both crazy as loons.
Both thought that they were gods.
Both narcissists of the first rank...
But after that ... One was incredibly brave. One instilled unswerving loyalty in his troops. One was respected and feared by his enemies. One was a risk taker -- not only with other people's lives - but with his own life and wealth. Everyone had a good idea where one of them was born...
Yeah, as similar as day and night...
May a thousand fleas infest his armpits.
He might also be Louis XIV.
I believe it was the fleas from a thousand camels.
Hmmm... depending on which part of Louis’ character or rule you’re referring to, that could be either very true or very mean or both...
are you sure he was straight? were you there? sources of the period indicate he was at least bisexual and most likely outright gay. people who were there during the time period are, i think, a better source of info on their contemporaries than modern historians who have an agenda. they generally want the subject to fit their theory and find whatever will confirm that theory. what does not fit their theory is discarded as “improbable”.
Sounds good to me.
;-)
Obama would bear a closer comparison to the later years of Caligula (just prior to his assassination) — or more naturally Idi Amin of Uganda, a fellow African with bloated ego.
LOL, I’m sorry... I was referring to those original sources. Arrian, Plutarch, Rufus, etc... The only historian I’ve ever seen make any sort of real reference to Alexander’s sexuality was a modern historian, and that person wrote that he was gay, based on some questionable inferences. There are no sources from the period, I’m afraid. All we have to go on are secondary sources who used the contemporary texts that no longer exist.
As to whether he was gay, I could ask you the same question. Were you there? The original source material doesn’t back it up. Now if you refer to writings based on writings based on historians who were friends of Aristotle, you must take their paintings of Alexander with a serious grain of salt. Alexander, after all, did have Callisthenes, Aristotle’s nephew, executed. After that point, Aristotle had reason to attempt to besmirch Alexander’s life and character.
So, to answer your question, no, I wasn’t there. But, yes, I have read every available ancient source on Alexander, and there are none of the references to which you seem to cling, with the possible exception of the tiny minority with known biases. Arrian, whose account is usually regarded as the most complete, does us the service of acknowledging the points where he believes there is bias in the accounts to which he had access. Many modern historians do not grant us the courtesy of that warning, assuming instead that their modern lens must be correct.
Caligula was probably a little too insane to be compared to Obama, but Idi Amin is a good call.
nicely said. i like people who like history and study their particlular favorite subject thoroughly. the question of being there was facetious which i am finding does not translate well in print. have a nice night sir.:)
You, too :) It was fun.
glad i did not offend, i get silly late at night.
No, Alexander the Great had guts and intelligence. Bozo the WH clown has neither.
He’s already been declared ‘God’ by Newsweek. Sounds like a serious downgrade.
A rational person, however, would suggest that by his egregious misuse of the term, Mr. Naragon himself is the "revisionist" in this little drama. Why waste any more time on a dishonest pundit?
Well, I’m pleased I could provide a semblance of entertainment in the first paragraph, even if it’s for someone so confident in their theories that it comes off as arrogance.
Jefferson? Was in Paris at the time of Sally Hemings’ conception, and this was before the era of quick hops across the pond. Genetically, her bloodline may have been linked to Jefferson’s, but the culprit was likely to have been one of Jefferson’s male relatives, of which many lived on or near the plantation. His supposed infidelity with a slave may have been used as mudslinging in his time period, but it didn’t become part of the popular culture until apologists used the incident to make excuses for Bill Clinton’s indiscretions in the Oval Office. That’s revisionist history.
Slavery? If it was the primary cause of the war, why did the South not lay down their arms before Jan. 1, 1863, as Lincoln asked? They could have returned to the Union with de facto amnesty and the practice of slavery intact. If they were fighting to keep it, it seems logical that they would have... well... tried to keep it without bloodshed. You chose your words carefully, saying that historians have called slavery A primary cause. My contention, that slavery was not THE primary cause, does not exclude the idea that it was A primary cause. You were apparently amusing yourself to the point that you didn’t catch that nuance. It wasn’t until after the war that historians pegged slavery as THE main cause and driving force throughout the war. Lincoln himself didn’t focus on the practice of slavery until after the Union cities had lost their will to fight, draft riots were becoming more common, and there were increasing fears of general revolt within the North. For these reasons also, Lincoln jailed outspoken critics of his presidency and tactics. By linking the war effort to abolitionism, he turned the tide of the contest. But to say that slavery was the single primary cause of the secession and war is a gross oversimplification that has been repeated in high school textbooks throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
I won’t go into my explanations about the Obama-Alexander comparison, as you did not read far enough to care. But before you describe someone as “dishonest,” at least be sure you have a concrete position with specifics to back it up.
Remember, Obama was the candidate who ran on the premise that folks living in the country:
- with the highest living standards in the world.
- enjoying the stablest and largest economy.
- providing the finest medical service available in the world.
- that provides ANYBODY willing to work an opportunity to excel.
- that provides cradle to grave welfare for the sick, lame, illegal alien and lazy.
- that instituted Affirmative Action, Civil Rights and quotas to "level the playing field". - where blacks live better that ANYWHERE on the planet.
- where folks living in "poverty" live rent free, with payments, food stamps, child care, free medical, with televisions, cars, cell phones and the highest OBESITY rate in the world.
- where "loans" are granted to buy homes when the borrower doesn't even have to prove he has a job or is able to pay it back and the government steps in to prevent foreclosure.
I could go on - but you get my drift..
And this crazy bastard Obama convinces his crazy bastard constituency that they have no HOPE and need CHANGE!!!!!
Obama may not be crazy, but the dumb asses who voted him in most certainly are - and the rest of us for not reacting in a "forecful" manner may also be in the same boat.. -
Both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.