Check out these facts :cool:
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_alexander_great.html

I never knew he died just short of his 33rd Birthday :eek:

Check out these facts :cool:
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_alexander_great.html

I never knew he died just short of his 33rd Birthday :eek:

Yeah, Alexander was cool (btw that movie sucked)

I think his last words were something along the lines of "The strongest!" when his aids asked him who would rule after his death.

I never knew he died just short of his 33rd Birthday :eek:
The majority of people died in childhood back then. 33 was an old man. 40 was ancient!
I think his last words were something along the lines of "The strongest!" when his aids asked him who would rule after his death.
That's a good line, but often times history has its way of romanticizing things like that. His last words were probably not recorded.

More on the death of Alexander.
It is well documented as befitting a god:

"The story of Alexander's death in Babylon is a bit mysterious, because our sources mention a 'Royal diary' that is not very well- known. However, the information taken from it seems sound, even though there are some very strange elements in it (see note 3).
Alexander died on 11 June 323 BCE, in the late afternoon; this can be deduced from the Astronomical diaries, a Babylonian source. Several scholars have argued for 13 June and 10 June, but the first of these dates is based on an inaccurate Greek source that uses a confused Egyptian calendar, and the second is based on inaccurate reading of the Astronomical diary.
The following text is taken from the Anabasis by the Greek author Arrian of Nicomedia (7.24.4-27.2), translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt.



Babylon
A few days later Alexander was sitting at dinner with his friends and drinking far into the night. He had previously celebrated the customary sacrificial rites in thanks for his success, adding certain others in obedience to his seers' advice, and had also, we are told, distributed wine and sacrificial victims among the various units and sections of the army. According to some accounts, when he wished to leave his friends at their drinking and retire to his bedroom, he happened to meet Medius, who at that time was the companion most closely in his confidence, and Medius asked him to come and continue drinking at his own table, adding that the party would be a merry one.

The Royal diaries confirm the fact that he drank with Medius after his first carouse. Then (they continue) he left the table, bathed, and went to sleep, after which he supped with Medius and again set to drinking, continuing till late at night. Then, once more, he took a bath, ate a little, and went straight to sleep, with the fever already on him.

Next day he was carried out on his bed to perform his daily religious duties as usual, and after the ceremony lay in the men's quarters till dark. He continued to issue orders to his officers, instructing those who were to march by land [1] to be ready to start in three days and those who were going with himself by sea to sail one day later. From he was carried on his bed to the river [Euphrates], and crossed in a boat to the park on the further side, where he took another bath and rested.

Next day he bathed again and offered sacrifice as usual, after which he went to lie down in his room, where he chatted to Medius and gave orders for his officers to report to him early next morning. Then he took a little food, returned to his room, and lay all night in a fever.

The following morning he bathed and offered sacrifice, and then issued to [admiral] Nearchus and the other officers detailed instructions about the voyage, now due to start in two days' time.

Next day he bathed again, went through regular religious duties, and was afterwards in constant fever: None the less he sent for his staff as usual and gave them further instructions on their preparations for sailing. In the evening, after another bath, his condition was grave, and the following morning he was moved to the building near the swimming-pool. He offered sacrifice, and, in spite of his increasing weakness, sent for his senior officers and repeated his orders for the expedition.

The day after that he just managed to have himself carried to his place of prayer, and after the ceremony still continued, in spite of his weakness, to issue instructions to his staff.

Another day passed. Now very seriously ill, he still refused to neglect his religious duties; he gave orders, however, that his senior officers should wait in the court, and the battalion and company commanders outside his door. Then, his condition already desperate, he was moved from the park back to the palace. He recognized his officers when they entered his room but could no longer speak to them. From that moment until the end he uttered no word. That night and the following day, and for the next twenty-four hours, he remained in a high fever.

These details are all to be found in the Diaries. It is further recorded in these documents that the soldiers were passionately eager to see him; some hoped for a sight of him while he was still alive; others wished to see his body, for a report had gone round that he was already dead, and they suspected, I fancy, that his death was being concealed by his guards. But nothing could keep them from a sight of him, and the motive in almost every heart was grief and a sort of helpless bewilderment at the thought of losing their king. Lying speechless as the men filed by, he yet struggled to raise his head, and in his eyes there was a look of recognition for each individual as he passed.

The Diaries say that Peitho, Attalus, Demophon, and Peucestas, together with Cleomenes, Menidas, and Seleucus, spent the night in the temple of Serapis [2] and asked the god if it would be better for Alexander to be carried into the temple himself, in order to pray there and perhaps recover; but the god forbade it, and declared it would be better for him if he stayed where he was. The god's command was made public, and soon afterwards Alexander died - this, after all being the 'better' thing.

The accounts of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus [3] end at this point. Other writers have added that the high officers most closely in his confidence asked him to name his successor, and that Alexander's reply was 'the best man'. [4] There is also a story that he went on to say that he knew very well there would be funeral 'games' in good earnest after he was dead. [5]

I am aware that much else has been written about Alexander's death: for instance, that Antipater sent him some medicine which had been tampered with and that he took it, with fatal results. Aristotle is supposed to have made up this drug, because he was already afraid of Alexander on account of Callisthenes' death, and Antipater's son Cassander is said to have brought it. Some accounts declare that he brought it in a mule's hoof, and that it was given Alexander by Cassander's younger brother Iollas, who was his cup-bearer and had been hurt by him in some way shortly before his death; others state that Medius, who was Iollas' lover, had a hand in it, and support that view by the fact that it was Medius who invited Alexander to the drinking- party - he felt a sharp pain after draining the cup, and left the party in consequence of it.


Note 1:
Alexander planned an expedition to southern Arabia, the country where incense was produced.
Note 2:
The cult of Serapis was 'invented' in Egypt, more than a generation after the death of Alexander. This proves that the Royal diary is not a contemporary document, but a later fabrication. On the other hand, it should be noted that the compiler was not tempted to add 'famous last words'.

Note 3:
Arrian's main sources, discussed here.

Note 4:
A play on the name Craterus, 'the strongest man'.

Note 5:
Another word play: the word for game also means struggle and war."

Alexander started out great but like so many others he proved to have feet of clay. He was most likely poisoned by one of his followers because he had become a megalomaniac. He was sick twice, succumbing the second time, most likely from something like belladonna.

Alexander began to believe the synchophants who surrounded him and no longer heeded the advice of his advisors. In fact, he had many of them killed on very slim pretexts.

Alexander was forced to turn back from his planned conquest of India because his army was so disaffected. The Greeks and Macedonians in his army no longer revered or even liked him because he had become an eastern despot and replaced them (the Greeks and Macedonians in his army) with Persians, and others from the East.

Alexander so distrusted his formerly loyal Greek and Macedonian troops that he was in the process of sending them home when he died.

That is but one interpretation, Frogger.

"Hostility toward Alexander

During this time, Alexander adopted some elements of Persian dress and customs at his court, notably the custom of proskynesis, a symbolic kissing of the hand that Persians paid to their social superiors, but a practice of which the Greeks disapproved. The Greeks regarded the gesture as the preserve of deities and believed that Alexander meant to deify himself by requiring it. This cost him much in the sympathies of many of his countrymen. Here, too, a plot against his life was revealed, and one of his officers, Philotas, was executed for treason for failing to bring the plot to his attention. Parmenion, Philotas' father, who had been charged with guarding the treasury at Ecbatana, was assassinated by command of Alexander, who feared that Parmenion might attempt to avenge his son. Several other trials for treason followed, and many Macedonians were executed. Later on, in a drunken quarrel at Maracanda, he also killed the man who had saved his life at Granicus, Clitus the Black. Later in the Central Asian campaign, a second plot against his life, this one by his own pages, was revealed, and his official historian, Callisthenes of Olynthus (who had fallen out of favor with the king by leading the opposition to his attempt to introduce proskynesis), was implicated on what many historians regard as trumped-up charges. However, the evidence is strong that Callisthenes, the teacher of the pages, must have been the one who persuaded them to assassinate the king."



There's no doubt, he sought unification of Western and Eastern culture. His legacy is one mainly of unification, or at least the attempt of such.


More:


"Modern opinion on Alexander has run the gamut from the idea that he believed he was on a divinely-inspired mission to unite the human race, to the view that he was a megalomaniac bent on world domination. Such views tend to be anachronistic, however, and the sources allow for a variety of interpretations. Much about Alexander's personality and aims remains enigmatic. There were no disinterested commentators in Alexander's own time or soon afterward, so all accounts need to be read with skepticism.

Alexander is remembered as a legendary hero in Europe and much of both Southwest Asia and Central Asia, where he is known as Iskander or Iskandar Zulkarnain. To Zoroastrians, on the other hand, he is remembered as the destroyer of their first great empire and as the destroyer of Persepolis. Ancient sources are generally written with an agenda of either glorifying or denigrating the man, making it difficult to evaluate his actual character. Most refer to a growing instability and megalomania in the years following Gaugamela, but it has been suggested that this simply reflects the Greek stereotype of an orientalizing king. The murder of his friend Clitus, which Alexander deeply and immediately regretted, is often cited as a sign of his paranoia, as is his execution of Philotas and his general Parmenion for failure to pass along details of a plot against him. However, this may have been more prudence than paranoia.

Modern Alexandrists continue to debate these same issues, among others, in modern times. One unresolved topic involves whether Alexander was actually attempting to better the world by his conquests, or whether his purpose was primarily to rule the world.

Partially in response to the ubiquity of positive portrayals of Alexander, an alternate character is sometimes presented which emphasizes some of Alexander's negative aspects. Some proponents of this view cite the destructions of Thebes, Tyre, Persepolis, and Gaza as examples of atrocities, and argue that Alexander preferred to fight rather than negotiate. It is further claimed, in response to the view that Alexander was generally tolerant of the cultures of those whom he conquered, that his attempts at cultural fusion were severely practical and that he never actually admired Persian art or culture. To this way of thinking, Alexander was, first and foremost, a general rather than a statesman.

Alexander's character also suffers from the interpretation of historians who themselves are subject to the bias and idealisms of their own time. Good examples are W. W. Tarn, who wrote during the late 19th century and early 20th century, and who saw Alexander in an extremely good light, and Peter Green, who wrote after World War II and for whom Alexander did little that was not inherently selfish or ambition-driven. Tarn wrote in an age where world conquest and warrior-heroes were acceptable, even encouraged, whereas Green wrote with the backdrop of the Holocaust and nuclear weapons".



They'll be discussing this man to the end of time. Who really knew him?
No one. That's the way he wanted it.