4 ms·

Yeah, but Alexander the Great conquered the world by the age of 18 or whatever, and look how he turned out. Am I a better man than him?

Gud 2y ago
Alexander the Great inherited most of his success from his father. Although a competent and ambitious commander, he would have been a nobody if his daddy hadn’t been Mr. big shot.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Just another reason to consider oneself damaged goods, no big shot daddy and not being born a king.
  - Gud 2y ago
    lol. There are plenty of cases of people who rose through the ranks to become powerful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Adolf Hitler, maybe the most famous example.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Sure, but if you think you are inferior on a personal basis, and inferior on a situational basis, that doesnt boost self esteem.
- theoryofx 2y ago
  And yet most people who inherited the same as he did would have done nothing of note with it and faded into obscurity. Like most of the Macedonian kings before and not long after. Reality is complicated...
  - Gud 2y ago
    Sorry, who in Ancient Greece inherited the same position as Alexander did? Philip II was a one of a kind, once in 20 generations kind of guy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Macedonia_under_Philip_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Macedonia_under...
    - theoryofx 2y ago
      Many people have inherited great power and wealth and squandered it. That's the default case. Philip inherited too. He built on his father's very considerable success, just like Alexander built on his father's. Amyntas III -> Philip II -> Alexander III They're a dynastic set. There's not a lot of sense in separating and comparing them. But in terms of lasting impact, it's not even close. Philip II exerted control over Greece for a brief time but didn't change much. Alexander changed the entire world permanently.
sph 2y ago
And here you have your first true quest: questioning the meaning and value of comparison. Life is not a race. There is no prize at the end. In a long enough timeline, nobody will remember you, nor Alexander the Great. What is the point then of your life? What is your goal? Seek to answer this question, and proceed.
loves_mangoes 2y ago
Maybe not, but it's okay to not be the very best, and it's okay to fail. And it's especially okay when comparing ourselves to one of the few dozen names from before the Julian calendar that everyone still remembers to this day! You're in good company, because the other ~100% of us are also imperfect and make mistakes all the time.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 2y ago
> Alexander the Great conquered the world by the age of 18 or whatever He was also, by all accounts, a twat. He killed his friends in bouts of rage. He was a brilliant strategist, but he did not really build anything that lasted. Some slivers of his empire survived, but not because of his actions. He might have lived the life he wanted, we will never know for sure. But I would much rather live the life I have, however imperfect it might be. > Am I a better man than him? Are you happy? Do you make other people happy? Do you support or help other people when they need, or side by them when they want? Those are more important metrics than the surface area conquered at the cost of tremendous suffering. We remember people for their accomplishments, not because they were good as human beings.
- tycho-newman 2y ago
  He wasn’t a brilliant strategist. He got lucky and was an absolute monarch.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    I can accept that, depending on where you put the limit between tactics and strategy. He was good at wining battles and campaigns. He was bad at picking people to run the countries afterwards. No question that he was both lucky and a despot.
    - theoryofx 2y ago
      1. He never lost a battle and conquered more territory than anyone in history, all while leading from the front. He's considered the greatest military leader in history by most every other great military leader in history (are you a better judge?) 2. Many of the Diadochi (his bros) went on to great success, and he picked all of them. People love to be contrarian but it can get ridiculous. Claiming that Alexander the great wasn't actually so great is just boring.
butlike 2y ago
Weight the good more favorably than it sounds like you've been doing. You take the "bad with the good" just the same as you take the "good with the bad."

Gud 2y ago

Alexander the Great inherited most of his success from his father. Although a competent and ambitious commander, he would have been a nobody if his daddy hadn’t been Mr. big shot.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Just another reason to consider oneself damaged goods, no big shot daddy and not being born a king.
- Gud 2y ago
  lol. There are plenty of cases of people who rose through the ranks to become powerful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Adolf Hitler, maybe the most famous example.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Sure, but if you think you are inferior on a personal basis, and inferior on a situational basis, that doesnt boost self esteem.
theoryofx 2y ago
And yet most people who inherited the same as he did would have done nothing of note with it and faded into obscurity. Like most of the Macedonian kings before and not long after. Reality is complicated...
- Gud 2y ago
  Sorry, who in Ancient Greece inherited the same position as Alexander did? Philip II was a one of a kind, once in 20 generations kind of guy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Macedonia_under_Philip_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Macedonia_under...
  - theoryofx 2y ago
    Many people have inherited great power and wealth and squandered it. That's the default case. Philip inherited too. He built on his father's very considerable success, just like Alexander built on his father's. Amyntas III -> Philip II -> Alexander III They're a dynastic set. There's not a lot of sense in separating and comparing them. But in terms of lasting impact, it's not even close. Philip II exerted control over Greece for a brief time but didn't change much. Alexander changed the entire world permanently.

sph 2y ago

And here you have your first true quest: questioning the meaning and value of comparison. Life is not a race. There is no prize at the end. In a long enough timeline, nobody will remember you, nor Alexander the Great. What is the point then of your life? What is your goal? Seek to answer this question, and proceed.

loves_mangoes 2y ago

Maybe not, but it's okay to not be the very best, and it's okay to fail. And it's especially okay when comparing ourselves to one of the few dozen names from before the Julian calendar that everyone still remembers to this day! You're in good company, because the other ~100% of us are also imperfect and make mistakes all the time.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kergonath 2y ago

> Alexander the Great conquered the world by the age of 18 or whatever He was also, by all accounts, a twat. He killed his friends in bouts of rage. He was a brilliant strategist, but he did not really build anything that lasted. Some slivers of his empire survived, but not because of his actions. He might have lived the life he wanted, we will never know for sure. But I would much rather live the life I have, however imperfect it might be. > Am I a better man than him? Are you happy? Do you make other people happy? Do you support or help other people when they need, or side by them when they want? Those are more important metrics than the surface area conquered at the cost of tremendous suffering. We remember people for their accomplishments, not because they were good as human beings.

tycho-newman 2y ago
He wasn’t a brilliant strategist. He got lucky and was an absolute monarch.
- kergonath 2y ago
  I can accept that, depending on where you put the limit between tactics and strategy. He was good at wining battles and campaigns. He was bad at picking people to run the countries afterwards. No question that he was both lucky and a despot.
  - theoryofx 2y ago
    1. He never lost a battle and conquered more territory than anyone in history, all while leading from the front. He's considered the greatest military leader in history by most every other great military leader in history (are you a better judge?) 2. Many of the Diadochi (his bros) went on to great success, and he picked all of them. People love to be contrarian but it can get ridiculous. Claiming that Alexander the great wasn't actually so great is just boring.

butlike 2y ago

Weight the good more favorably than it sounds like you've been doing. You take the "bad with the good" just the same as you take the "good with the bad."