So I just read the first volume of the Decline and Fall of the

>>378815
>Got any papers or books I could read on him?
He was an overrated military leader who did his friend up the butt so much that he barely bothered to sire an heir. This would cause the fall of his empire.

File: 1344965967083s.jpg (3KB, 96x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 96x125px

>>378824
>overrated

>>378815
a bibliographic article with tons of books and articles on him
http://pastebin.com/mQyZed6u

>>378882
this looks really interesting thanks for the link!

>>378864
Fine. Underrated. I don't know which positions he and Hephaestion took.

>>378824
The fact that he adopted Hadrian was instrumental in keeping the empire alive

>>378824
>This would cause the fall of his empire.

It's the other way around. Adoption kept the
empire alive, Commodus after Aurelius ruined it.

Ever hear of the term "five good emperors"?

>>379305
>>379320
I was talking about Alexander the Great being overrated.

Forgive me for not being clear enough.

>>379428
In that case.
>Alexander
>Overrated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrkWDCvxg

File: thephalangite1.jpg (53KB, 450x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 450x640px

>>378815

Alexander the Great was one of history's first (if not THE first), military and administrative geniuses that was put in command of a state. He ranks up amongst Julius Caesar and Napoleon and many would argue he ranks above both of those.

His aptitude for logistics was rarely, if ever, matched by anyone in the ancient world and the subsequent victories against heavily fortified cities, a much richer empire and larger armies are considered amongst the most impressive military achievements in history.

Alexander reigned for a total of 12 years if I recall correctly, and at least 11 of those years was spent on one long campaign where he subdued the entirety of the Persian Empire and the northern Indus valley in India, topping it off by sailing with his fleet from India up through the persian gulf and leading his army along the shoreline.

There were some miscalculations and mistakes on his part. But he always held it together and by the end he ruled an empire more centralized, organized and controlled than any previously in history. He died way to early, however, and seeing as he was surrounded by noblemen who's fathers had been kings of nothing but goat herders in macedonia, his titles, kingdoms, lands and armies were quickly divided up by power hungry competitors.

The term "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" does not really apply to Alexander, but it does apply to his Generals.

The ensuing period is called hellenism, which is defined by these three things amongst others:
>a more globalized world where greeks and other cultures could travel more freely throughout the mediteranean world with the greek language established as a de lingua franca, much like english today

>the idea of conquest as a goal in itself. from this point on, many generals wanted to emulate alexander and conquer lands. the most obvious example is rome which viewed themselves as the heirs of alexander

File: dick.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>381018

>>381018

geez that guy is annoying

>>381018
Why has this guy got such a boner for women

I'm in the same boat as you OP. What I did was use a free book credit from Audible (from a free trial and from some promotion with one of my many podcasts) to download one of the Great Courses lecture series "Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire". What's nice is that you get a pre Alexander introduction, and the post Alexander discussion about the partitioning by the Diadochi and a discussion o the effects of Hellenization.

Harl is a passionate lecturer, I highly reccomend.