I got blasted on an online course on the greatest leaders in history. This is what I said about Alexander the Great. Can anyone tell me why I am "ignorant idiot",etc: "The problem was that he was content; that is, content with his own logic, never considering the possibility that he could be wrong. Because of this "contentedness", he was motivated by nothing, meaning he would do things that would potentially harm himself and his people even though he would really have nothing significant to gain, but much to lose. It is obvious that he suffered from "Hollywood Syndrome", the sickness that makes a person unsatisfied with his own life, even though everything in that person's life is great. He might qualify as one of the most "content" people in history. "
I'm very curious about where you get the grounds for these claims. This seems to be mostly speculations and if you can't provide proper sources for those that would be a very valid reason for blasting you on the course.
Contrary to what you write I would say that Alexander was highly motivated by a lot of things throughout his (admittedly short) life. From gaining his father's respect and later avenge his fathers death to getting back at Persia and "reaching the end of the world".
What they said above. You don't just get to make things up about people. Nothing about that matches up at all with either the sources about Alexander's accomplishments or shortcomings. If anything he was too motivated.
You are arguing a radically unconventional point of view with no citations and quite probably with the single goal of generating a radically unorthodox history. It deserved to be blasted.
Well thanks for your opinions. After I explained myself more on the course forums like I did here, they received my opinion with a warm welcome and have allocated me 20 min portion of monday's class lecture on the subject of re-looking at society's blind worship of Alexander. If you guys want me to include anything let me know. Thanks again.
Ok guys, I’m sorry I should have clarified what I meant on certain things, I just did not want to bore anybody to death. First, yes I am making speculation, and of course I am not citing anything, because I was not making any new historical claims, but rather I was giving my opinion on generally agreed upon historical events. Let me also clarify another thing. When I say he was “motivated by nothing”, I don’t mean to say that he had no motivations for the things he did. Rather, I am saying that his motivations were unwarranted and inappropriate given everything that was on the line, such as the sanctity of life, the limitations of human beings, etc. For example, if my baby sister was bitten by an ant, I would definitely not be justified in going to the ant colony that it came from and destroying the whole colony because of the actions of one ant, especially when the ant could have had a good reason for attacking her, such as for example, it may have thought my sister was a threat to the colony. I’m just giving examples, I am not trying to open a discussion up on whether us humans are justified in attacking ants, etc etc. So let us say that Alexander was justified in taking over the Persian empire. Was he then justified in trying to take over the rest of the world? Was he right in disregarding the feelings of his soldiers who felt they had no business in doing so, and who wanted to lead somewhat of a normal life in visiting their families, or in the disregard for human lives that would have to suffer in the process in taking over the rest of the world, and the families of those died in battle, etc etc. Again I am not giving an exhaustive list of everything that he did and the consequences attached to it. I am merely showing that there were much better alternative paths for Alexander to take, for which he would still be considered to be successfull. For example, lets say he conquered Persian lands and even hundreds of miles past them and stopped. Would that have been so bad? Rather it seems like if Alexander didn’t attempt every whim and fantasy of his, he would not be satisfied, even if it ruined the lives of so many others. And if he stayed as the world’s strongest leader, and went back and forth to his home and Greece, why shouldn’t he be satisfied? We can’t get everything we want in life. That is our limit as human beings. But Alexander wouldn’t have it that way. It seemed like he could never be happy. This is why I am “speculating” that he had Hollywood syndrome. He could have so much, yet it would never be enough. Just as these “Hollywood” people could lead great lives, but still never be satisfied. To me this is a repulsive state to be in. To never be able to be reasonably satisfied is a sickness of the human heart, and I don’t see why we should admire such people. So am I that horrible of a person because I dislike for excess human selfishness?