? I think he characterises this type.
Any thoughts?
? I think he characterises this type.
Any thoughts?
He's a fictional character.
He is a historical figure who has been deified and mythologised.Originally Posted by Rocky
In other words, there are not concrete facts about his personality.Originally Posted by Ezra
You're right, some claims made concerning his personality are not concrete, but I think it's safe to suggest that he had an adept sense of vision, and was extremely future-orientated, based on the evidence we do have.Originally Posted by Rocky
What evidence?
That he crossed Asia (leaving death and destruction but also a huge, sprawling cultural influence), founded new cities (of which he designated his closest allies as kings), and that he began to incorporate Persians into his high court (one can assume that this was so as to create a new supreme race - the Macedo-Persians).Originally Posted by Rocky
Well, if you mean something like a eyewitness description of his behavior, as we have of Caligula for instance, we don't have such evidence. But there are the biographies written by Plutarch and others, and they had access to the autobiography of Ptolomy I, who knew him closely. So it's not as if there is no connection at all; it's not as if Alex was as mythical as Heracles, for instance. And we do know the "big things" he did.Originally Posted by Rocky
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Originally Posted by EzraI know there are the "big things" he did like this, but how would this be related to type? It seems too sketchy to me.Originally Posted by Expat
Alexander the Great is known for his military innovations, tactics, and strategies...for which there is substantial evidence. Based on these, i'd say his type was either estp or entp.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Sorry, but this got meOriginally Posted by Rocky
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
YW, EZ. :wink:Originally Posted by Ezra
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
he wasn't all that great.
No, and the more you read about him, the more you realise that his flaws. As with any historical figure that people worship irrationally.
Taking into account the limited evidence, I'd think that ESTp is a likely type for Alex.
And as a military commander on the field, by all accounts, he was indeed great.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Yeah but have you seen the way he rampaged accross Asia (like an SLE), only to decide that there was a supreme race to be created - one of Macedon-Persian decent (like an ILE), and found cities everywhere (like an 8).
The creation of a supreme race is an ILE thing? ******s an ENFj. If anything I'd say master race type talk is Beta if I were to guess any quadra..... the yearning to be part of what is best.... to be number 1.Originally Posted by Ezra
Suomea
I have a suggestion for both of you- shut up.Originally Posted by Suomea
Where did you get this concept of "supreme race" as connected to Alexander? There is no evidence that he ever said anything in those terms as far as I know.Originally Posted by Ezra
He didn't found cities for no reason, just like that, or on a whim -- it was to (1) settle veterans and (2) reinforce his supply lines and (3) consolidate his hold on the old Persian empire by settling Greek and Macedonian immigrants.
And he didn't "rampage across Asia", he inherited from his father a war with the Persian Empire, he went on to defeat it, and he had to defeat it and conquer it piece by piece.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Originally Posted by Rocky
Children, children. Here is an idea: Stop Being Stupid.
It is gut-riot hilarious to see you fools arguing about the "types" of dead people like Jesus, Socrates and Alexander from NO direct source. What makes it even more adorable is that none of you ever seem to know anything about the 2000+ year old people you are trying to type. Is it any Wonder why I hang around here?
Someone has been watching too much Oliver Stone.
Also, Ezar, do read over what you have written here. Some people (snobs, like myself) find it hard to take people seriously when they make too many silly mistakes.
Isn't that what I was saying?Originally Posted by PPOD
Originally Posted by Rocky
It is, Rocky. I was concurring.
So you've read all there is to know about Alexander from ancient sources, have you?Originally Posted by PPOD
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Let us not be patronizing Peter, that is my job.Originally Posted by Expat
Someone is still bitter. It isn't a happy thing to live with a bitter heart, look at Hugo.
In response to your question though, I have read Waldemar Heckel's book as well as The Life of Alexander the Great by Plutarch.
Because I challenge a statement you made, I am necessarily "bitter"? Rubbish.Originally Posted by PPOD
Ok. And Plutarch had access to books written by people who knew Alexander.Originally Posted by PPOD
So I'd say that from the available sources, you can, yes, guess a type. Acknowledging, of course, that perhaps the real individual who lived 2300 years ago wasn't accurately portrayed by the information we have. But that is obvious. Of course we can't type Alexander with the same kind of information as living people, but again it's so obvious a point it's not even worth making.
What I disagree with is the sweeping concept, "it's pointless to argue the types of dead people". It depends on the information. For instance, we have Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, a notebook of his most intimate thougths - are you saying it's not possible to type him just because he lived 1800 years ago? Of course it's possible to type him according to the information we have. Is the information accurate? Well if it isn't, any discussion is pointless, but we'll never know the answer then anyway.
And, yes, of course there is more information on Marcus Aurelius than on Alexander.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
One of my great flaws is that I too often make assumptions.Originally Posted by Expat
In my earlier post I said without direct source. It is possible, yes to make assumptions without direct source but it happens to be - in my self-important opinion a waste of time. Why would one waste their life guessing?
However as you say I think it is totally possible to type, and type correctly people like Rousseau with books like his "Confessions".
Well, why should anyone waste their life doing anything they find interesting or amusing?Originally Posted by PPOD
I don't see any clear dividing lines as to for whom you have enough evidence or not. Even the concept of "direct source" is tricky as I think a professional historian would agree. So, yes, I think it's tricky to try to type Alex, but that's no reason not to think about it precisely to test where those lines are.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
You yourself pointed out that Ezra's ideas about Megas Alexandros "rampaging across Asia" are absurd. I have chronic this-isnt-useful syndrome guess. It just seems dreadful vulgar to try and categorize someone you know so little about.Originally Posted by Expat
I think that everyone can agree that a direct source is always superior to a secondary source for anything.
.
oh snaps!Originally Posted by Diana
total pwnageOriginally Posted by Diana
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Just wanted to come in and tell Sara to shut up.
Shut up, Sara.
Bye now.
Why do you do things just to make people feel bad?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Obviously because I feel like they deserve it.Originally Posted by Gilly
Remember that for future times.
Deserve it? Why don't you try doing something constructive instead of being a lazy, judgmental dick?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Couldn't care less what you think, buddy.Originally Posted by Gilly
This has nothing to do with my opinions. I'm just wondering why someone like you, obviously smart , chooses to ridicule people instead of actually doing something positive. I personally think you're just lazy and that something about your life has made you revert to being hostile instead of doing something to change what you see as "wrong," but I accept that I could be wrong. Which is why I'm asking.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Not I (I've seen it thrice). Besides, Stone's depiction is relatively humanistic, and not overblown. I read Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past. If you think he was a superman or did unrealistically spectacular things, you're wrong. You're looking at an 8w7.Originally Posted by PPOD
What mistake are you going on about? Some people find it very hard to take people seriously when they spell incorrectly the name of whom they are addressing.Also, Ezar, do read over what you have written here. Some people (snobs, like myself) find it hard to take people seriously when they make too many silly mistakes.