What are you reading?


remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
37,451
14,567
135
Maybe, but to them Alexander was a god like figure and I don’t think they would have betrayed his dying wish like that. After all in a twisted sense they honored him by dividing up the kingdom amongst the generals and then jockey for power. I think the real reason that his empire would crumble so quickly was because he adopted a lot of Persian and Asian customs in an effort to incorporate all of the conquered people into his new empire, much like the Romans did later on. However a lot of the Greeks in his ranks thought he took it too far. Alexander never had a child with a Greek woman, and therefore in their eyes the Macedonian Empire couldn’t be turned over to somebody who was mixed with blood from conquered people’s.
The Argead Dynasty had ruled for almost 500 years. There wasn't any real confusion as to who should rule when a King dies. The obvious answer is his heir and his wife gave birth to a legitimate son and heir. Yet they still murdered his mom, wife, and son.

So don't think it would have mattered what he said. The fact is to your point, his soldiers had already soured on his liberal ways. Hence why they almost mutinied, forced the halt of his conquest and why some historians think he was poisoned. You are right, they treated him like a god but the problem is gods aren't supposed to die. Gods also don't inherit the throne. They take it.

Zeus did not inherit his Kingdom. He overthrew his father and the Titans and claimed his throne because he was the strongest. So if Alexander did say "To the strongest" it is because he understood the reality that no one was going to accept a baby as ruler and no one was going to accept if he had named a general because every single general there thought that they were Alexander's best general. In the end his proclamation is suggesting succession should be based on merit. In the end, no one was strong enough to claim the whole Kingdom hence why it had to be divided up.
 
Last edited:

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
10,993
6,231
75
My favorite teams
Los Angeles Lakers Chicago Bears Los Angeles Kings Clemson Tigers
The Argead Dynasty had ruled for almost 500 years. There wasn't any real confusion as to who should rule when a King dies. The obvious answer is his heir and his wife gave birth to a legitimate son and heir. Yet they still murdered his mom, wife, and son.

So don't think it would have mattered what he said. The fact is to your point, his soldiers had already soured on his liberal ways. Hence why they almost mutinied, forced the halt of his conquest and why some historians think he was poisoned. You are right, they treated him like a god but the problem is gods aren't supposed to die. Gods also don't inherit the throne. They take it.

Zeus did not inherit his Kingdom. He overthrew his father and the Titans and claimed his throne because he was the strongest. So if Alexander did say "To the strongest" it is because he understood the reality that no one was going to accept a baby as ruler and no one was going to accept if he had named a general because every single general there thought that they were Alexander's best general. In the end his proclamation is suggesting succession should be based on merit. In the end, no one was strong enough to claim the whole Kingdom hence why it had to be divided up.
I think the only things Alexander inherited from his father Phillip was the actual physical total of King of Macedon, and the the phalanx. Everything else he quite literally took for himself. Macedon was a political back water and always looked down upon by the rest of the Greeks until Alexander ascended to the throne, and whole Phillip does deserve a lot of credit for creating the phalanx and reorganizing the Macedonian army from nobodies to the most feared unit in the army, Alexander truly took it to the top. Since the phalanx was technically Phillip’s strategy I have to put Alexander in the top 2 if not greatest tacticians of all time with the way he was able to use the phalanx to perfection and how he was able to keep the army moving all the way to India. For example he was the first commander in history to surround a numerically super or force, and the force, and really last to unite all of Greece. For those reasons I think he did take his kingdom more than he inherited it, which was why he was a god to these men. When he passed away, Persian generals who fought Alexander wepped and deflated days of mourning because of how incredible he truly was.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
37,451
14,567
135
I think the only things Alexander inherited from his father Phillip was the actual physical total of King of Macedon, and the the phalanx. Everything else he quite literally took for himself. Macedon was a political back water and always looked down upon by the rest of the Greeks until Alexander ascended to the throne, and whole Phillip does deserve a lot of credit for creating the phalanx and reorganizing the Macedonian army from nobodies to the most feared unit in the army, Alexander truly took it to the top. Since the phalanx was technically Phillip’s strategy I have to put Alexander in the top 2 if not greatest tacticians of all time with the way he was able to use the phalanx to perfection and how he was able to keep the army moving all the way to India. For example he was the first commander in history to surround a numerically super or force, and the force, and really last to unite all of Greece. For those reasons I think he did take his kingdom more than he inherited it, which was why he was a god to these men. When he passed away, Persian generals who fought Alexander wepped and deflated days of mourning because of how incredible he truly was.
It was Philip who subjugated Greece not Alexander. And he had started the invasion of Asia Minor so wouldnt call them a backwater. The reason Alexander could conquer Asia is because Philip had already kick the shit out of Greece.

My comment about taking it was in relation to his successor. Point being no matter who he had said should rule, they would always have had to fight for it as Alexander was a singular force.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
10,993
6,231
75
My favorite teams
Los Angeles Lakers Chicago Bears Los Angeles Kings Clemson Tigers
It was Philip who subjugated Greece not Alexander. And he had started the invasion of Asia Minor so wouldnt call them a backwater. The reason Alexander could conquer Asia is because Philip had already kick the shit out of Greece.

My comment about taking it was in relation to his successor. Point being no matter who he had said should rule, they would always have had to fight for it as Alexander was a singular force.
Yes Phillip was on the throne when Greece was subjugated, but it was Alexander who won the battle of charonea with his cavalry charge. He had already proven himself to be a capable commander and warrior when Phillip was on the thrones. Also please mistake me if I’m wrong wasn’t it Alexander who crossed the Hellespont with his army and not Phillip?
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
37,451
14,567
135
Yes Phillip was on the throne when Greece was subjugated, but it was Alexander who won the battle of charonea with his cavalry charge. He had already proven himself to be a capable commander and warrior when Phillip was on the thrones. Also please mistake me if I’m wrong wasn’t it Alexander who crossed the Hellespont with his army and not Phillip?
It is unlikely cavalry was used in the battle as there was no space to operate. The left flank of Athens was protected by foothills and the right flank of Thebes was protected by a river. Cavalry flanks and do not attack spearman head on as they would get skewered. The claim that Alexander won due to a cavalry charge is because he attacked the right flank with his companions and some modern historians interpreted that to mean the companion cavalry. However no ancient account mentions cavalry and Plutarch said the right flank containing the Sacred Band of Thebes met the spears of the Macedonian Phalanx and cavalry did not use spears.

The more accurate theory is Philip prolonged the battle to tire out his opponent who were not as battled tested and thus lacked stamina. He then pretended to retreat and the Athenians on the left flank gave chase giving up the high ground they held. Once the retreat had reached high ground on other foothills Philip stopped the retreat and routed the tired Athenians who were now on lower ground.

Meanwhile because the Athenians had given up the high ground and given chase thinking they had broken Philip's line, it stretched their lines with the Allied Thebans and a gap opened up in the center. Alexander exploited that by engaging the Sacred Band of Thebes most likely with spearman not cavalry and from the center not the flank.

So it was father and son working in tandem. Alexander is still of course a brilliant general but make no mistake that is in large part because his father taught him well. I actually took a class on Alexander the Great in college and one of the things the professor stressed was the importance of Phillip in not only securing Greece but in his instructing Alexander in strategy and tactics. Alexander was a bolder and flashier version of his father allthough his fatal flaw was he lacked some of the moderation his father had and he became too reckless at times.
 
Last edited:

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
10,993
6,231
75
My favorite teams
Los Angeles Lakers Chicago Bears Los Angeles Kings Clemson Tigers
It is unlikely cavalry was used in the battle as there was no space to operate. The left flank of Athens was protected by foothills and the right flank of Thebes was protected by a river. Cavalry flanks and do not attack spearman head on as they would get skewered. The claim that Alexander won due to a cavalry charge is because he attacked the right flank with his companions and some modern historians interpreted that to mean the companion cavalry. However no ancient account mentions cavalry and Plutarch said the right flank containing the Sacred Band of Thebes met the spears of the Macedonian Phalanx and cavalry did not use spears.

The more accurate theory is Philip prolonged the battle to tire out his opponent who were not as battled tested and thus lacked stamina. He then pretended to retreat and the Athenians on the left flank gave chase giving up the high ground they held. Once the retreat had reached high ground on other foothills Philip stopped the retreat and routed the tired Athenians who were now on lower ground.

Meanwhile because the Athenians had given up the high ground and given chase thinking they had broken Philip's line, it stretched their lines with the Allied Thebans and a gap openee up in the center. Alexander exploited that by engaging the Sacred Band of Thebes most likely with spearman not cavalry and from the center not the flank.

So it was father and son working in tandem. Alexander is still of course a brilliant general but make no mistake that is in large part because his father taught him well. I actually took a class on Alexander the Great in college and one of the things the professor stressed was the importance of Phillip in not only securing Greece but in his instructing Alexander in strategy and tactics. Alexander was a bolder and flashier version of his father allthough his fatal flaw was he lacked some of the moderation his father had and he became too reckless at times.
I think you’re right to an extent. Phillip used Alexander, who at the time was with Phillip’s best generals to make sure he didn’t fuck anything up since he was an 18 year old rookie, as a leader of a cavalry charge into the scared band of Thebes, but like you mentioned it I think it was kind of a fake charge to occupy the Thebans while the Athenians were pulled into a sense of security by Phillip’s fake retreat. When Phillip reached the foothills he stopped the retreat and prepared to face the Athenians, who did not know the cavalry was coming from their engagement with the Thebans to completely surround the Athenians and catch them between a cavalry charge and a hardened Macedonian phalanx. Alexander used this tactic, called the hammer and anvil, a lot in his other conquests so it makes sense he learned it from Phillip who would have used it here.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
37,451
14,567
135
I do think if Philip had not been assassinated that Macedon would have completed the conquest of much of the known world. Philip would have provided a check to Alexander's unrivaled ambition and recklessness while Alexander would have taken some risks that his father would have otherwise not taken. Without Philip to help moderate his son, Alexander pushed his fellow Greeks too hard.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
37,451
14,567
135
In recognition of the announced Fire & Blood prequel, started rereading that book.
 

wickerkat

Neo-noir author
Donator
4,240
1,796
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Fire Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Chicago Blackhawks
We actually have a poster here who is a legit author...


Paging @wickerkat , you still around man?
I am! I'll try to chime in on the conversation here. I actually have 8 stories out this year, including a few that are up for Bram Stoker Award consideration. "Ring of Fire" (The Seven Deadliest) a science fiction / horror story (think Moon meets Ex Machina) as well as "The Caged Bird Sings in a Darkness of Its Own Creation" (Shallow Creek). I also have a co-written story in Best Horror of the Year, Volume 11. HERE is my Amazon profile if you want to know more.

3565
 

Attachments

wickerkat

Neo-noir author
Donator
4,240
1,796
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Fire Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Chicago Blackhawks
Disintegration was a really good read. Dark though. Very solid character development. This serves as a nice reminder that I need to read more of his stuff :)


If you like Chuck Palahniuk (e.g. Fight Club), you will dig his work.
Thanks! I just got the rights back to Disintegration and Breaker, so those eBooks are no longer online. My agent and I are working on getting it into print as we speak. I have a lot of stories out though.
 

wickerkat

Neo-noir author
Donator
4,240
1,796
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Fire Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Chicago Blackhawks
So I write mostly fantasy, SF, and horror, as well as thrillers. I've been nominated for a Bram Stoker, Shirley Jackson, and Thriller Award. I also got my MFA in 2012. So...if you toss out some genres or what you like to read (authors, titles, etc.) I'll see if I can suggest a few things for you.

In my Contemporary Dark Fiction Class that I teach, I use four novels: Bird Box by Josh Malerman—a fast read, reminds me of classic Stephen King, good book; Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer—a very cool, fairly dense at times SF/horror blend that I just love; Come Closer by Sara Gran—a demon possession book, but subtle, fast moving, easy to read, gets under my skin; and Perdido Street Station by China Mieville—big book (700 pages?), very dense, kicked off the whole new-weird movement, but a brilliant mix of fantasy, SF, and horror.

I grew up reading King, Grisham, Heinlein, Bradbury, etc. then the classics in high school, the beats in college, literary fiction in my MFA, and then a lot of neo-noir as well as speculative (fantasy, SF, horror). Hope this helps.
 

tardigrade

Well-known member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
35,825
26,169
135
I'm writing a monograph about the mythos of Lifetime movies:

1) candles everywhere
2) everyone drinks coffee at 11 PM
3) all orphans are psychotic
4) someone's gonna die by getting pushed down some stairs
5) Toronto
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
37,451
14,567
135
One of the prequels just got cancelled
That was the Blood Moon one which I didn't really care for anyways as that was more Goldman and Martin writing without any defined source material ie 10,000 years ago where there are only snippets from various books about that era.

Fire & Blood which is what this prequel is based on has an actual book as the source material released last November and a 2nd volume pretty much done because Martin had too much material for the first book. It also goes over the history of House Targ which is ultimately better material for a prequel in my opinion given what transpired at the end of GoT.
 




Top