Thread: Is George correct?

Originally Posted by std10093

again the thread is not going to what I am asking. But that's ok, that's internet. :P

Well, I think this thread has been answering the question of whether one personally feels George Clooney was right or not. That's what you asked. The question has ramifications, so in defense of an argument one has to discuss those ramifications.

Having said that, I'll now be going on a tangent...

Originally Posted by std10093

I mean, it's like Great Alexander, when he expanded Greece, by conquering most of the "known world"

Alexander, The Great. You should know better.

And... *sigh*... I know our schools tend to overemphasized the importance of our individual countries in history. It's a sad state of affairs that one must resort to literature while shunning teachers and the our respective national educational systems to get a true grasp of historic events and their significance. But it is important we do that, or we risk saying things that are simply not true and make us look bad when talking in public.

Alexander didn't conquer most of the known world. He didn't even come close. No one ever came close. He expanded east into Persia and beyond, and South into Egypt, and created one of the largest empires in ancient history. That's it. The known world at the time of Alexander the Great, extended west into the Atlantic, north into Asia, East into India and South into Central Africa. Alexander was indeed instrumental in help chartering the far regions to the east (the region known as Ariana, known to the Persians, but unknown to the Greeks, that bordered India to the West). But even if we were to give Alexander the benefit of ignoring that area, we would still have conquered only a small fraction of the known world at the time.

Alexander also needs to be put into context as a brilliant general but perhaps the worst leader Greece ever experienced. Alexander would send back to Macedonia a large portion of the spoils of his wars, that helped greatly to stabilize the kingdom (now an empire) and provide a short time of peace and prosperity. But his raucous and impromptu campaign ultimately lead to the defeat of Greece at the hands of the Roman; his empire is also one of the shortest lived ones (spanning the lifetime of a single human being), as Alexander didn't/couldn't do a good job at maintaining it because he was always at war. His constant demands of men for the army, greatly depleted and weakened his home. It is thus not surprising that immediately after his death the whole thing broke up. Without well educated successors, without the formation of stable local governments, without a minimum of social engineering, like so many other empires before and after him managed to successfully do, Alexander empire was doomed to failure. It was a very brief period of military brilliancy, but total ignorance of the future of an entire nation. The price the Greek people payed for Alexander's hasty and immature conquering was too high and essentially determined the history of your nation as a conquerable state until your present formation as an independent country in 1822; 23 centuries later.

His father, so often forgotten or put in second place, was the one; The greatest leader Greece ever experienced. Phillip II created the great Kingdom of Macedonia, the most powerful kingdom Greece ever witnessed. In fact, it was this power that gave Alexander the means to move with his campaign. But contrary to his son, I seriously doubt Phillip would have lead a campaign against the Persian Empire in such a disruptive manner to the stability of the League of Corinth; his great achievement. He was planning that invasion, but I don't think for a moment (given his past record) that Phillip II would compromise his home state. So I always looked a bit down at his "The Great" epitheth (possibly posthumous). But a "Great" general no doubt. One of the best in history.