Wen | Guxuan History
Edit the | Gu Xuan said history
Achaemenid dynasty
The data we have only allows us to reconstruct some fragments of his work, but its scale allows us to guess the creativity needed to conceive and execute it.
It provides us with a measure of Alexander's genius, and the author's vision is equally clearly expressed that action is to Alexander what thought is to Aristotle.
But if the philosopher, in a calm conducive to meditation, is able to give his metaphysical system the perfection and rigor unique to all areas of thought.
Then Alexander was either forced to act in a whirlpool of events and unforeseen reactions, forcing him to make an immediate decision.
If at first glance, his government work is a simple sketch with imperfections. If the way it is elaborated seems to be related to passion, capriciousness, and contingency, let's not forget it.
It determined his actions and led to the creation of new living conditions in the minds that emerged from the conflict of the great environment. Let us not forget that these brilliant ideas broadened horizons, provoked more intense confrontations, and brought him more difficult tasks.
Even if the author acknowledges the incompleteness of Alexander's work, his exposition of the transformations that Alexander brought to the ancient Achaemenid Empire.
The crumbling, decaying and flawed buildings also undoubtedly indicate his positive vision that the government would not only allow the expansion of Greek civilization.
And the "fusion" with Asian civilization gave rise to a new form of civilization, and finally Greece was satisfied with the richness of Asia, which was nourished by the pleasures of Greek genius.
One suddenly felt awakened that Alexander had done the work outlined.
In addition, Olympia's dream has come true, and on the eve of her wedding, she sees a pillar of fire rising from her chest scorch the universe. Devouring all its light, its reflection still floats like a phosphorescent aura in the desert of seventy-one and the desert of seventy.
At the same time, a new social life is based on the gradual disappearance of national prejudices and the daily confrontation of opinions and customs.
The ancient empire of the Achaemenid dynasty was only a collection of peoples, who had only servile aspects in common. The Greek Empire, on the other hand, enjoyed cultural unity, tastes and customs, survived the division, and thirdly, the Macedonian conquest brought a kind of "economic revival" to Asia.
Therefore, resorting to the thesis of "Achaemenid decadence" is not the essence of the demonstration. If Alexander wins, it is not just because his opponent is not up to the task, but because Alexander embodies an extraordinary genius.
It is almost necessary to fulfill this historical task assigned to him, to unify Europe and Asia, which will fertilize each other to give birth to a new world.
This would bring coups to paganism through what the author calls theocracy, or "fusion of gods"—a movement that itself led to Christianity.
It is therefore clear that the time of national religions, that is, pagan religions, has passed, and that a unified humanity finally needs a single, universal religion, and it is ready for it.
Theocracy is nothing more than an attempt to unify the various religious systems through integration, but unity cannot be achieved in this way.
The task of the Hellenistic century was to produce higher, more authentic elements of union, developing a sense of finitude and powerlessness that required repentance and comfort.
The deepest energy of humility, the power to lift up human freedom in God and the quality of God's Son.
During these centuries, the world and heart felt deprived of God, lost and immersed in the deepest despair, when the call to the Redeemer was heard.
The personification of Greek religion culminated in Alexander, a man became a god, and the empire of this world belonged to this god. In him, man has risen to unimaginable heights of finitude and, through him, human beings have been lowered to the prostrated before a born mortal.
The influence of Droïsen was enormous and long-lasting, as we see in French practice, in the handbook published by Victor Truid (1811-1894).
He was Director of Secondary Education, Minister of Public Education from 1863 to 1869, and I was Embro of the Institut de France since 1884, among others.
His History of the Greeks won him the Renault Prize in 1889. Thus, Alexander's work is presented in a compact form of the 5° class in his Compendium of Greek History.
In 1857 Paris was planned, and in 1858 the conquered won and integrated into his plan by considering the victor. Trade was the link between nations, and the scale of development was enormous that Alexander had cleared them, the port of Cantera, the shelter or stopping point he arranged for them.
By enhancing previously sterile resources and activating industry, Greek civilization transported and took root in many parts of the empire through colonies.
There is only one Alexander among them, which constitutes the node of the constant circulation of wealth and ideas. People, ideas, religions, mixed together, confused into a great unity, from which a new civilization will arise.
This is what Alexander prepared, and for thousands of years the world bowed to the name of the victorious young man.
These formulations are quoted almost verbatim in the History of the Greeks, although there are some notable differences. In principle, he begins the chapter dedicated to Alexander, citing some sources.
He did not fail to mention Deroysen's Alexander, 1833, but with some obvious reservations. Deroysen's work was indeed very important, but it was too beneficial for Alexander.
Truid decided to "quickly go through this history" because "it is no longer about Greek history." Moreover, upon receiving "This is what Alexander prepared, the world has bowed to the name of this victorious young man for thousands of years."
After this sentence, he finished as follows, forgetting about those things that were too happy with youth and genius, which were called their shortcomings.
He goes on to depict the world situation after Alexander and its possible derivations, and the painting has several scenes in which Duroy questions Alexander's pacifist attitude.
At the same time, he doubted the superiority of Macedonia, which was degraded and weakened to the extreme. And the superiority of Greece itself, in the interests of the new trends in Asia, its essence is emptied of everything, even the gods are declining.
Alexander expanded his conquest of Mount Olympus, granting the temple and the god Amun second place, after Olympia.
War and conquest
But after Delphi, the last speakers disappeared along with the freedom of Athens. Thus, Truid hypothesized normative articles about Alexander's active work, especially economic and commercial.
At the same time very clearly adjusted his judgment, in the form of a negative overall opinion. At the same time, the British historian George Grote published his work, whose influence was highlighted by Truid himself.
He commented that his preference for Athens, to the detriment of Sparta, was openly expressed in the first edition of the History of the Greeks.
In 1851, it earned him very negative consideration in a university environment. On the contrary, after the publication of Grote's work, his position acquired a new respected character due to the great prestige of English historians.
If Grote is not mentioned in the development about Alexander, his influence is obvious. It is about the idea of Athens that historians will build their view of Greece after Chaeronea.
This is similar to Alexander, and an appreciation of the historical role of Athens is necessarily a more cautious appreciation of Alexander.
Before turning to Grote, we mention another famous historian, B.G. Niebuhr (1771-1831), whose writings show that the admiration for Alexander expressed by Droisen was not shared by everyone.
Born in Copenhagen, he was a child prodigy, or in any case very gifted, having established a reputation in the Greek and Latin fields at the age of twenty.
After working as a royal historian, he was appointed public relations at the University of Berlin. His first great work, A History of Rome, was published in 1812 and translated into English by another famous British historian, Connop Thirlwall.
After serving as ambassador to Rome, he returned to Bonn, where he taught courses on different topics.
In 1852, an English translation was published under the direction of L. Schmitz, the first volume of 40 lessons, guiding the reader from the Assyrians and Medes to the middle of the fifth century.
The second volume consists of 80 lessons and lasts until Alexander's death, and the third volume is inherited from Alexander to the Roman conquest.
As we can see, Niebuhr was younger than Dreuisen, who died two years before the appearance of Alexander the Great in Droesen and taught his course in Bonn.
At the same time Dreuerson followed Hegel's course in Berlin, where they took very different positions as defenders of individual and collective freedom. He admitted that he rejected the Bonapartist system because of its oppressive, militaristic and imperialist nature.
In 1805, he translated Demosthenes' first book of Philippi, dedicated to Tsar Alexander I.
He sided with the Napoleonic Empire and stated his position against Philip II, which he denounced for his methods. Despite his recognition of his peculiarities, in addition he exalted Demosthenes and denounced his opponents (Eheines, Isocrates).
The author's portrayal of the two protagonists, Macedonia and Persia, is in a phase of accelerated moral and political decline.
For all these reasons, we must approach the war led by Alexander differently than usual. At first, we couldn't stand aside. Then, when everything is decided, it is impossible to sympathize with either side, and the Persians and Macedonians are no less good or bad.
Alexander's subsequent judgment was balanced, positive and negative at the same time, even though the negative side seemed to prevail.
Few have gained as much fame in Europe and Asia as Alexander, except for Charlemagne and perhaps Constantine.
He was the only one who became a poet, Alexander was to the East, what Charlemagne was to the West. Close to Rostan, he is the main hero of fairy tales and Persian novels.
For us, he is a particularly important person because he brings a new image to the world. He was the first European to win in the East, and Asia played its part in history and was destined to become a slave to Europe.
He was also a hero to the Greeks, even if he was a foreigner to them, as Napoleon was to the French, even if his family dates back to the mythological heroes of Greece.
Taking into account the injustice of the war, the author decided not to judge Alexander on the basis of the accusations against him since ancient times, since he writes that the entire history of the world revolves around wars and conquests.
Ideas about his character are completely different, and I admit that I formed a very unfavorable idea about the character, after he conspired against his father.
Ascending the throne at the age of twenty, thus showing cruelty similar to that of the Medici family in the sixteenth century, as did Cosimo de Medici and his two sons.
Not only did he sacrifice his stepmother to Olympias, but he was also responsible for the death of poor Cleopatra and many other innocent people closest to him, and Plutarch showed unfounded favoritism toward him.
In fact, his drunkenness is undeniable. On the other hand, his most innocent and trustworthy deputy, his father's best general, was murdered in a real way.