Feudalism

How Feudalism Helped the State in the Middle Ages
Written 12/05/05 for History


In the early Middle Ages, after the many invasions, almost constant war, and the resultant disunity, Europe was in dire need of a political system that would restore order. A system was needed that would unify the growing kingdoms and have enough local power to provide for the needs of the common people. This system was that of Feudalism, which was prevalent throughout Europe during most of the Middle Ages. Since Feudalism was present in many different countries over a large time period, it varied quite a bit from place to place and time to time. For this reason Feudalism will be examined in this paper only in a very general aspect, and only the main ideas will be brought up. Since Feudalism was a political system, most of its influence was with the State. Feudalism not only helped to organize the State and bring back order, but it also greatly aided it in carrying out its purpose. This, according to the Catholic standpoint, is to help man to gain salvation by upholding the common good. As we will see, Feudalism helped to accomplish.


In order to realize that Feudalism was successful in this aspect, however, one must examine its basic meaning. Understanding that Feudalism is a political system, we can define it very generally by dividing it into three main components. The first of these is that of the “Personal,” which consisted of a personal bond between a lord and a vassal. This was contracted when the vassal swore an oath of allegiance to his lord, and received an amount of land from him in return. The vassal would provide his lord with military service and would in turn receive protection from the lord. The bond between the two was a very strong one, and lasted “as long as the two lives which it bound together, but as soon as one or other of these was terminated by death it was automatically dissolved.” (Bloch 147) This relationship of lord and vassal extended all throughout society. The king was the highest lord in the system, and the common people, the serfs, were the lowest vassals.


The second component is the “Proprietary” one, referring to the fact that this system was based on land. Because the vassal depended on the land that was given to him by his lord, this land played a crucial role in feudal society. And it was not only the higher nobles that depended on this land – all of society, down to the lowest serfs lived off of it and depended on it for survival.


The third component is the “Judicial,” or the system of justice in the government. On account of the fact that there were many nobles in a kingdom who had much local power, there were bound to be disputes. There had to be a system of justice to deal with these conflicts; in general the method used was judgment by one’s peers. We will examine this feature in detail later on.


We will first look into the “Personal” element of Feudalism. As mentioned above, the lord would grant the vassal a fief, a certain amount of land, in return for his oath of loyalty. The resulting personal bond between the lord and the vassal had several mutual benefits attached to it.


As we saw before, when the lord gave a fief to a vassal, he would most importantly require military service, in order to ensure the protection of his land. He could call multiple vassals to form an army if needed, whatever was necessary to keep his land safe. Here we see one way that feudalism allowed the State to uphold the common welfare. As for the vassal, he also had the advantage of the protection of the lord if he needed it. If his fief was being invaded and overwhelmed, the lord was bound to help him defend it.


The military advantages were not the only ones attached to the bond between king and vassal. They both gained their share of resources from the land under them, whether it was with produce or money. The king sometimes required aid for military expenses from his vassals; his vassals received the fruit of their fiefs, receiving produce from them.


There was one very important way in which this bond between the lord and vassal did help the State. This is explained very well in the book “Mediaeval Feudalism”:
According to ancient tradition, lord and vassal were bound together by mutual faith; if either proved false, the other was justified in renouncing the original agreement. So delicately balanced an obligation could have slight permanence unless it was of real advantage to both parties. When a lord was so weak or so far-removed that he could furnish no effective support to a vassal, the latter had every reason to defy his authority. (Stephenson 76)


This was especially beneficial to the state, because it helped eliminate men of influence who were not loyal to their oaths, or otherwise were not an asset to society. Thus for example if a king was not fulfilling his duty and using his military power for his own good and not the good of his vassals, those vassals had the right to put off their allegiance to him.


The personal bond between the lord and vassal was the basis of the whole feudal system. Men aren’t perfect, however, and the system never really was perfect, because of the fact that it depended on the loyalty of both parties. Theoretically, though, it was a good system, and Feudalism “would have been a very excellent device if it had been administered by archangels.” (Hoyt and Chodorow 226) It was the people in the system, not the feudal system itself, which caused it to fail when it did. In general, however, it really wasn’t that bad; especially later on in the Middle Ages there were no major wars or wholly disastrous invasions. Fighting was held mostly to local skirmishes and was not long-lasting or devastating.


The basic feudal hierarchy, consisting of lord and vassal, helped to establish order in Europe as the Middle Ages progressed. This was accomplished in a number of ways. There was the increased likelihood of a good ruler: because the lord had to uphold the personal bond between himself and his vassals in order to gain its benefits, and since they were his source of military service, he usually ended up doing his best to protect them. As we saw before, if the lord did not uphold the personal bond and do what was best for his vassals, ruling only for personal gain, the vassals no longer were bound to him and could throw off his authority. There was thus a balance of power that developed through the Middle Ages between the lords and their vassals. The lords did not have direct control over his subjects as his vassals did, yet the vassals did not have the central authority that the lord possessed. Although this sometimes did not work too well in that sometimes either the lord or the vassals gained the majority of the power, for the most part there was a pretty good balance and the common welfare was ensured. Thus we again see the common good being ensured by the feudal system, in that under normal circumstances neither the lord nor the vassals could become too powerful and ignore the good of the common people.


Concerning the notion of the authority of the king, there was an idea that was prevalent while the feudal system was in use. This was the idea of “Rex sub lege;” the fact that the king was under the law. The king never could consider himself so powerful as to place himself above the law and not subject to it. Thus the common practice of following custom as law; the king could not substantially add to or change the customs of the kingdom, but could only modify them slightly. By sticking to this idea, the king was not easily able to become an absolute monarch. He could not make up new laws that were for his benefit alone or gave him more power than necessary. This was yet another thing that ensured the common welfare of the people.
Now since the burden of government was spread out between the king and his vassals, there was no need for a large central government. “The very limited services of feudal government did not require a bureaucracy.” (McGarry 216) No large amount of individuals were needed to sort through the problems that a kingdom ran into, because the king did not have direct control over everything and thus most problems were solved more or less independently by the vassals. This was good in a number of ways. Firstly, this meant that the government was not run by individuals who had their own agendas, and theoretically everything was well ordered. The king worried primarily about protecting his vassals, while they in turn kept their fiefs in order and provided the king with military service. In theory there was no room for seeking personal gain; in practice there sometimes were abuses however, since men are bound to be imperfect. In general, though, this helped secure the common good.
Another way in which Feudalism helped the State was by supporting the family. This is well explained in “Medieval History and Civilization”:


The family [was] a paramount institution. Fiefs were generally conceived of as familial possessions, with the incumbent only a temporary administer or trustee. Older and younger members of the family, as well as unmarried females and unemployed sons, were customarily supported by the family fief. Family solidarity was strong. (McGarry 222)


As mentioned above, fiefdom was hereditary; this was actually something that developed gradually. At first it was not hereditary, but as time went on the fief was kept in the family. We will consider it in this paper as hereditary. So in order to pass on the fief, one had to get married and have children. Although this may have given some nobles an improper intention in marriage, it supported the family nonetheless. And since the whole family was supported by the fief, this gave it unity; the fief was the thing that helped tie the family together. Moreover, it helped to solidify the fact that the family is the basic unit of society; without it man becomes disordered and the human race will not properly propagate. Thus by fostering the family, Feudalism does the State a great favor; again we see how it helps attain the common wellbeing.


Now we turn to the Proprietary component of Feudalism. We saw above how the lord would grant his vassal a fief, or certain amount of land. Everything revolved around this land. The amount you owned or had control over showed how powerful you were. The more land you had, the more military resources you had. It was also the source of life, a means of survival; the lower classes would farm it and live off the produce they got from it. And since they counted on their lord for protection, they would give a certain amount of produce to him in return.


For the most part, life in the Middle Ages was not very easy. There was an almost constant danger of being attacked, whether it was from without in the form of invasions, or from within, when nobles fought among each other. Concerning this, one author says that “In difficult times [the feudal system] provided the minimal essentials of government, justice, and defense.” (McGarry 214) People in general worried mostly about being protected from these attacks and stuck to the essentials, and did not really care about things that were over and above that which was necessary for survival. Thus, this importance of defense and dependence on land for survival eliminated most ambition among the upper classes. The lords would try to ensure the safety of his people and the common good rather than concentrate on personal gain or over-taxation.


This finally brings us to the “Judicial” component of Feudalism. This was a very important part of the feudal system because it was how all conflicts among the lord and his vassals were to be settled. The judicial system varied from place to place throughout Europe, and there never was one set of laws, even throughout one kingdom. The system was based on custom, and developed individually for each locality as time went on. The system was based on the fact that one was judged by his peers. When a conflict arose, whether it was between the lord and one of his vassals or among the vassals themselves, the lord would call all his vassals together to his court. When a charge was brought up against someone, it could only be settled in the lord’s court, by a judgment of all his vassals. Neither the lord, nor the vassals could settle a dispute privately with another, but had to bring it up at a court session. For example, “A lord could not legally attack a vassal or deprive him of his fief without a judgment of his peers.” (Painter 21) This shows how limited the king was in this aspect. Even if a lord was blatantly offended by a vassal, he could not return this attack without the approval of all his other vassals. Not only did this help to check the power of the lord, but it also helped to keep order among the vassals. Since the vassals were more or less on their own and the lord was not absolute, he did not have much control over them there were many chances for disputes. But if a noble realized that he would have to be judged by all his peers, he would think twice before he did something that would annoy another of the nobles. This method of judgment allowed for less local warfare and strife; once again we can see that Feudalism helped to procure the common good.


Although the feudal system died out eventually, it is clear that for the conditions in which it existed, it was very helpful for society. With constant threat of invasion and local warfare, especially in the early Middle Ages, the common people had to look to someone for protection. The Feudal System provided just that; the personal bond between the lord and vassal, around which the whole system revolved, ensured that defense would be there when it was needed. Also, the fact that not only defense, but also land was so important for survival increased the likelihood that rulers would concentrate their efforts on the safety of the people and worry less about personal gain. Lastly, the means of justice present in the feudal system also ensured that neither the lords nor the vassals would overstep their bounds and threaten the common good. In conclusion, Feudalism, although it was not perfect, helped the State to fulfill its goal by ensuring the common welfare of all.




Works Cited


Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Ganshof, F. L. Feudalism. London: Longmans Green, 1952.
Hoyt, Robert and Chodorow, Stanley. Europe in the Middle Ages. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976.
Painter, Sidney. Mediaeval Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968.
McGarry, Daniel. Medieval History and Civilization. New York: Macmillan, 1976.
Stephenson, Carl. Mediaeval Feudalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1942.
Strayer, Joseph. Feudalism. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand, 1965.

Achilles

On the Actions of Achilles
Written 10/23/05 for English Class

The hero of the Iliad, Achilles, is a man of incredible abilities. Although he is not their leader, he is such a great warrior that without him the Achaean army is rendered almost helpless. This Achilles knows very well, and he uses it very effectively for his benefit by refusing to fight when insulted by Agamemnon. The matter must be looked at in more detail to determine whether Achilles was justified or not in his actions.
Agamemnon, mad that the girl he had won in battle was taken away from him, took Briseis away from Achilles, who had received her as a well-deserved war prize. Agamemnon in this case acted very rashly on account of his anger, resulting in actions that were very unjust. These actions were unjust because Achilles deserved more compensation for his fighting than Agamemnon. Speaking to him Achilles says, “I have seen more action hand to hand than you have in those assaults than you have...” (Book 1, 193-194)
Because he was treated with extreme injustice, it was only just that Achilles pulled himself and his troops out of battle. As he himself put it, “Why linger, cheated of winnings, to make wealth for you?” (Book 1, 198-199) It was not fair if Agamemnon did not do any of the hard fighting and yet still got the spoils of war, taking them from the soldiers who earned them. However, even though we can say that it was reasonable in itself for Achilles to stop fighting, it was his ultimate motive that really determines why he acted in the way he did.
He did not merely refuse to fight, but in his anger wished Agamemnon’s army to be defeated soundly; he wanted Agamemnon to be utterly disgraced in return for the dishonor shown to him. He even went so far as to ask his mother, Thetis, to ask Zeus to ensure the defeat of the Achaians. If Achilles had merely pulled out of battle and simply refused to fight for Agamemnon, it would have been more or less reasonable. But to ask the gods for utter disgrace for his enemy shows that his actions really have an unjust end.
Eventually Agamemnon repents and offers not only to return Briseis, but to give him many other gifts. Achilles still acts stubbornly and does not change his mind. At that point it doesn’t even matter to Achilles; all he wants to do is completely disgrace Agamemnon. This adds to our argument that Achilles is acting unjustly. If he was acting in his right mind, he would return to the battlefield when the argument was over and the offenses repaid.
It is not until Patroklos is killed that he does return to battle. However it is clear that he does not return for anything but the avenging of his friend’s death. Although he says he forgives Agamemnon, he has not overcome his passion of anger against Agamemnon, but has let this newfound anger against the Trojans completely take a hold of him and overshadow his old anger. So we can say that the real reason for his return to war was the wish to avenge Patroklos, not the ending of his hard feelings against Agamemnon.
In conclusion, Achilles’ actions were not reasonable. He could have been acting justly in the first instance, when he refused to fight after being treated unfairly, but in wishing evil on Agamemnon, he was wrong. Our conclusion is supported when Achilles refuses to fight even when offered the return of his war prize; he is hell bent on the complete disgrace of Agamemnon. Even when he does return to battle, it is solely because he wants to avenge the death of Patroklos. Even though Achilles is a warrior that stands out in the Iliad for his great valor, we can plainly see that his actions are not fitting of the great character that he is.

Hypnosis

Written May 20, 2005 (for Psychology class)


Hypnosis is a subject that many people think of as very mysterious. The idea that one’s mind can be controlled by another draws much interest, but is baffling, and almost miraculous to many people. It is certainly not out of the course of nature, but simply a natural phenomenon which nobody really understands. In this paper, I hope to clear up misunderstandings by exploring hypnosis more in depth, looking at the different methods used to induce it, and investigate its morality.

There actually is no single definition of hypnosis that has been universally decided upon. It can be described in a number of ways. Many people think it is like sleep; the subject is actually not sleeping at all, but is in a state where he is very alert.

In general, the subject is hypnotized by becoming very relaxed or focused. He then enters a state where the conscious or critical mind is bypassed and the subconscious or analytical mind is accessed. Your subconscious mind is behind most of your thinking; it does most of the work, while the conscious mind evaluates the ideas of the subconscious and puts some of these ideas into action. It also does the job of receiving new information and passing it on to the subconscious. When a person is hypnotized, however, the conscious mind, which can get in the way of the subconscious, is bypassed; the subconscious can then directly act or be acted upon its environment.

In this state the hypnotist has direct access to the subject’s mind through his subconscious. This is not to say, however, that he has complete control over the person’s mind. He still has free will and experience has shown that the subject will not do anything that is opposed to his moral beliefs. What really happens is that there is an increased suggestibility with the person. He can be made to do things that he would not normally do. For instance, a hypnotized person will tell the hypnotist a grade he got on a test that he would be embarrassed to tell him normally. The subconscious mind connects the hypnotist’s question to the grade he received and tells him right away. The conscious mind is not there to think, “I really don’t want to tell him because it was such a low grade and it would make him think I am a poor student.”

Hypnosis can also be explained as the surrender of one’s will to the hypnotist. It is not a complete surrender, however; no one can be hypnotized against his will, and the person still has the exercise of his free will, although it is weakened. Because of the increase of the power of suggestion, the person is very open to the commands of the hypnotist. This does not necessarily mean that the subject will listen to the hypnotist if he commands him to sin; normally if the subject will not do something he considers immoral in his normal state, then he will not do it in the hypnotized state.

There are a number of methods that can be used to induce hypnosis. Before the hypnotist can hypnotize someone, there are a few requirements that are necessary in the subject. He must want to be hypnotized, believe he can be hypnotized, and feel comfortable and relaxed.

The first method is the fixed-gaze induction; this is the when you swing something in front of the subjects eyes. This gets the subject to focus on the object so intently that he tunes out any other distractions. The hypnotist then talks to him and gets him to relax. This was once very common but is not anymore because it does not work for many people.

The second method is the rapid one, when the hypnotist overloads the person being hypnotized with sudden firm commands. This is often used for stage hypnotism, because the person on stage is nervous, making him more susceptible to the commands of the hypnotist.

The next method is progressive relaxation and imagery; this is the most common method among psychiatrists. The hypnotist speaks to the subject in a soothing voice, gradually easing the subject into complete relaxation.

Another way to hypnotize someone is to create a loss of balance. Many of us do not realize this, but this happens man times when mothers rock their babies to sleep.

Because of the great increase in the power of suggestion, hypnotism has many different applications. The subject can be made to think, say or do many things that he would normally not because of this susceptibility to the commands of the hypnotist. Because the conscious mind is ones main inhibitive component and the subconscious controls your imagination, you can be made to think of the hypnotist’s commands almost as your own subconscious. Without the conscious mind to regulate the subconscious, you can be made to do very bizarre things willingly, which is what happens many times in stage hypnotism.

The subconscious also regulates your physical sensations; thus the hypnotist can make you imagine that you feel something that really isn’t there. For example, if the hypnotist tells a subject that he is eating candy, the person will actually taste it in his mouth.

In addition, the subconscious controls your memory. Thus the hypnotist can bring back forgotten memories, or help him to remember certain things. This can be dangerous, however, in that the hypnotist can create false memories and make the subject remember things that really didn’t happen at all.

There are many uses for hypnotism, and I will just mention a few. The reason for which it is mostly used is for controlling habits. For instance, a person can be made to think he will get sick every time he thinks about smoking. Psychiatrists use hypnosis on a regular basis to solve many problems. They can get rid of some fears and other personal problems and even help to stop bad habits. In the medical field, hypnosis is sometimes used to ease pain during procedures and reduce stress before surgery.

Even though it seems like hypnosis can be used for many good purposes, we have to look at it more closely to determine not only its safety, but also its morality. In general, since we will never know completely how the mind works, we will never learn exactly what hypnosis is or know of all the effects it has on the mind. There are many physical, intellectual, and most importantly moral dangers to the person, some of which are known, others are not. Hypnosis is an induced, artificial state; it is a dangerous tool, the full capability of which is unknown. Over the years, it has been shown that the person repeatedly brought under hypnosis has a growing disturbance of the emotional or general sensibility.

In addition, the fact that a person under hypnosis is inhibited less is not really a good thing. Although under normal circumstances a person cannot be forced to do anything against his moral code, there are most likely cases where it has happened. The fact that the hypnotist has so much power over him can be very dangerous. It is as if the hypnotist has God-like powers; this could lead to pride on his part of the hypnotist.

Another thing is that the hypnotist can implant false memories in the person. Because he is so susceptible, the subject may be made to remember something that is not true, and this could be very dangerous and lead to abuses.

Although hypnosis can do much good, it is a double-edged sword, capable of doing more harm than good. The subject gives up his liberty and reason to the hypnotist, handing himself over to the domination of another. We do not know enough about hypnotism to be able to say we know all of its consequences; it is a dangerous and morally questionable act. We must thus approach it with caution, realizing how great God’s creation is, and how little we know of it.

LOTR website

Check out this awesome LOTR website that one of my classmates created:

imladrisresurrected.com

Thanks!

Alexander the Great

Written December 10, 2004 (for History)


When we think of world conquerors, the name Alexander is one of the first names that come to mind. This is so because of the mighty nations he conquered and the vast empire that he ruled all before he was 33 years of age. Why was he so successful? The reasons are many, but there are a few that stand out. He knew the importance of temperance with regard to his endeavors and he had a special way of dealing with his soldiers so that they would always be on his side, fighting with them and encouraging them by example. He had an excellent army that was well-rounded and organized, and he laid plans for the future of his empire.

Alexander was born in 356 BC to King Philip II of Macedonia and his wife Olympias. As a young boy he was given a classical education by the philosopher Aristotle. From him he received an excellent education, consisting of the natural sciences, ethical and political doctrines, and a number of other “profound teachings which philosophers were wont to communicate to the select few” (Botsford and Robinson, 300). Aristotle taught Alexander a love of temperance and self-restraint, which was very helpful to him later on in life. He also learned to admire the Greek culture, which he chose as the one to spread throughout the vast kingdom that was later his. Although Aristotle was very intelligent and a very good teacher, he had some strange ideas. For instance he said that all barbarians, or non-Greeks, were slaves and must be subjugated. Although he provided an excellent teaching, especially of the natural sciences to Alexander, some of his ideas may have had a negative influence on him later on in life.

Alexander was an extraordinary boy for his age and since his father was away on campaigns much of the time, he was governing Macedonia in his stead from a very young age and had many chances to prove himself. “At the age of sixteen, while his father was besieging Byzantium, Alexander crushed a Thracian rebellion” (Botsford and Robinson, 300). He also was freely associating with Persian envoys at the same age, making quite a name for himself with his maturity.

When his father was assassinated in 336 BC, many conspirators arose thinking they could easily overthrow the 20-year-old king. However, he put them all down and as an example, he razed to the ground one of the revolting cities, Thebes. Thus asserting his authority, he was recognized by all the present territories of the Macedonian empire.

Now that there was peace at home, Alexander turned to the great mission that his father had planned—the conquest of Persia. He may not seem to be justified in wanting to invade and conquer Persia just for the sake of having more dominion, but there is some justification. It seems that at that time there existed enmity between the Macedonians and the Persians, who had formerly attacked them; this had apparently not been avenged yet. Alexander was also urged that was just by the philosophers of that time. Plato, along with Aristotle, declared that “all barbarians were enemies by nature, and that it was proper to wage war with them, even to the point of enslaving or extirpating them” (Tarn 9).

Thus he set out for Persia and met an army commanded by Memnon at the Granicus river and defeated it. He conquered a number of cities as he advanced through Persia and would set up his own governmental bodies as he went so that he could retain some kind of control while he was absent. While he was seeking Darius, the king of Persia, he passed through a city called Issus, in which he “left his sick and wounded” (Green 224). Hearing that Darius was at a certain place, Alexander situated his army to attack him at that place. However, Darius was not there and in fact had passed through Issus, murdering all the wounded soldiers there. Hearing about this, Alexander turned around and headed back towards Issus. He met Darius there; the sizes of the two opposing armies were roughly equal, but Alexander had the better strategy and he defeated him soundly. At the point in the battle where it looked hopeless for the Persians, Darius, not the most courageous leader, turned and fled, which did not help the morale of his men, who turned and ran also and were pursued by Alexander.

Although he had control over Persia, Alexander did not consider himself its king since Darius himself was not yet under his dominion. So Alexander decided that the best plan was “first to strike along the coast, secure his communications, and bring about the collapse of the enemy’s fleet” (Botsford and Robinson 315). As he advanced down the Phoenician coast, he peacefully received submission from all of the coastal cities except that of Tyre, which put up a fight. The city of Tyre was on an island a half a mile from the coast, so Alexander built an earthen bridge to it so he could attack it. The city, known for being able to withstand long sieges, put up a strong resistance but eventually gave out.

He then set out for Egypt, where he met with no resistance and the priest immediately recognized him as their Pharaoh by proclaiming that he was a son of Amon-Ra. He left the Egyptian government intact but left a small army there that was under Macedonian command.
In the meantime, Darius was scrambling to collect an army that would be capable of dealing with that of Alexander. After he had dealt with Egypt, Alexander realized that he had to find Darius before he had gathered a suitable army and he soon set out. The two vast armies met in 331 at Gaugamela; this time Darius had the advantage in size. Although he also had such advantages as scythed chariots and elephants, Darius did not have sufficient time to train them so they could be used effectively. So even though Alexander was outflanked, he was helped not only by the deficiencies of Darius’ army but also one event in particular. At a certain point in the battle, the cavalry of the Persians divided the Macedonian phalanx, the elite infantry, in half. Thinking he had taken care of them, Mazeus, the commander of the Persian cavalry, led them to take back Darius’ family, which Darius had commanded them to do. In the meantime however, the phalanx gathered itself together and drove the Persian cavalry off. This, along with Alexander’s strategic use of his army in the face of the scythed chariots turned the tide in his favor. Just as before, Darius fled the battlefield when things became hopeless, causing his army to break up and flee also. Alexander pursued them, “determined that the enemy should never re-form as an army” (Tarn 51).

After this defeat Persia was technically completely under the control of Alexander; however, Darius himself was not yet under his control. While he was searching for him, Darius was murdered and Alexander reached him just after he had died. Thus the Empire of Persia was officially under the domain of Alexander the Great.

The great commander then set out to conquer more lands, this time heading towards Eastern Iran. It was there that he had the misfortune of killing his close friend, Cleitus, who had saved him from death at least once and was one of his most trusted officers. He did so in a drunken brawl after being incited by Cleitus. Alexander deeply regretted this—“when [he] came to himself his remorse was bitter” (Tarn 74)

Having taken all of eastern Iran, Alexander now needed a method to rule such a large, diverse kingdom. One book explains one of his solutions to this problem:
Deification was the natural answer, since the Hellenic world was accustomed to it in one form or another, and even in this century had raised living men to the rank of gods (Botsford and Robinson 329).

Even though Alexander advocated this, it was merely a political device, and he did not believe it himself (Botsford and Robinson 329). Along with this, he also tried to make the Greek culture and language common to all of his subjects and thus make them more united and easier to rule.

There was one influential person who opposed Alexander in his attempt to deify himself. This was Callisthenes, a relative and fellow philosopher of Aristotle. Although he had previously advocated Alexander’s deification, when Alexander publicized it he refused to bow before him for some reason. Soon after there was a conspiracy against Alexander—it was put down, but Alexander somehow linked Callisthenes to the attempt and had him murdered. Was Alexander acting justly here, or was it a matter of revenge? It does not seem that there was enough evidence against Callisthenes, but the answer cannot be known for sure.

The only part of the old Persian Empire that was left for Alexander to conquer was India, and it was there that he then turned. He met with Porus, a highly respected Indian leader, at the Hydaspes River in 326. Although he was outnumbered again, he managed to defeat him with the skillful use of his cavalry and manner with which he dealt with the Indian elephants.

Soon after this, his men mutinied and refused to go any farther. It was only to be expected, since “during the past eight and a half years they had marched over 11,000 miles” (Botsford and Robinson 334). Alexander, highly disappointed, agreed to turn around, but he took the long way back, storming cities as they went. Eventually, the tremendous stress of fighting constantly for nearly 13 years took its toll and Alexander died of a fever in 323 at the young age of 32.
In only 12 years and eight months, Alexander had accomplished what no one before him had even come close to. He had conquered the mighty empire of Persia and was lord over it and most if not all of the known world. And as if that was not enough, he was eager for more and was held back only by the unwillingness of his men and his unfortunate young death. How was he able to accomplish all this so successfully? To answer this, the character of Alexander and his actions must be treated in depth.

Alexander, as we saw before, was taught the importance of temperance in his youth; this helped him greatly later on in life. He usually did not drink too much, at least not in his earlier years— “Alexander...habitually drank no more than other Macedonians” (Tarn 73). Not only did it help with his drinking, but also with facing the many hardships of constantly being on the march. Only one who is very disciplined and in control of his passions can keep himself going under physical hardships. Alexander was wounded many times, yet he still went on, and his temperance, giving him mental fortitude, must have been one of the most important reasons for his success.

Now of course Alexander could not have done anything without his soldiers; to get them to do what he wanted, he had to have a way with them.
He understood absolutely how to keep his men’s affection; and though their moral broke at the Beas, he had maintained it intact through eight strenuous years(Tarn 126).
He knew how to keep his men on his side and behind him in everything he did. He would provide them with needed rest and amusements and always had ample reinforcements ready. There were often times when he would send home some of the soldiers, the recently married in one instance. However, the best method he had of keeping up the morale of his soldiers was fighting with them; he always “was right up there in the thick of things” (Cartledge 185). He would make his men feel like he was one of them, sharing their dangers and encouraged them with acts of bravery and skill. For instance, he was offered a drink when there was a lack of water and “he refused to accept the privilege, and tipped it away, sharing in his soldiers’ hardships” (Fox 299).

He always fought in the front lines and many times was lucky to get away with his life. He was wounded numerous times—so many times in fact that “it is quite possible that he received more wounds even than any of his ordinary soldiers, and quite certain that he suffered more than any of his officers” (Cartledge 186). This method of example was the one of the greatest reasons for Alexander’s success with his troops.

It also helped that he had the great army that his father, Philip, had created. He obviously knew exactly how to use it, which he did in a way that many a time made up for disadvantage in size. He also had to be a strategic master to wield such a large army, and he proved this ability on many occasions.

Another reason for Alexander’s success was the planning that he put into his conquests. He did not just go out and conquer cities and call it good. He would either establish a government there with some of his own men, or he would keep the existing ruler if Alexander trusted him. Now with the large extent of land that he was ruling over there was a huge spread in culture, language and customs. To solve this and unify his empire in order to make it easier to rule, Alexander realized that they all had to have one culture and language. In his youth, as we saw earlier, he gained an appreciation of the Greek culture—this is the one that he chose to implement. He also encouraged mixed marriages among his soldiers and foreigners to help fuse the different races into one. Although he did not live long enough to see these ideas spread throughout his whole kingdom, we can see that Alexander foresaw what kind of problems he would have and made plans to resolve them.

All this said, it might appear that Alexander was a perfect model of a ruler and commander. A few examples will show that this is not true and that he did have his faults. It is suspected that he may have been involved in the assassination of his father, since among other things at the time he was at odds with him. There is not enough evidence to prove him guilty, but it is possible, especially in light of the means that he took sometimes later on in life to put down opposition. For instance, it does not seem that he had sufficient evidence against Callisthenes when he had him executed, while he did have personal reasons to get of him. He also started to drink more heavily towards the end of his life, possibly to escape some of the failures that he was having. Also, the fact that he tried to make himself a god, even though it was for political reasons, was a little overboard. Even though he did have his faults, Alexander was overall more or less a moral man and did more good than bad, to say the least.

Looking back on Alexander, his accomplishments and his character, we can see that although he was not perfect in the moral sense, he was very nearly perfect when it came to war. His military feats were achieved on account of a number of reasons, temperance being one of the most important. He knew how important it was to make sure his men were always behind him in everything he did and did so by fighting with them and sharing in their every pain. He also made great use of the superior army that was at his disposal and made plans for the future that were in store for his large realm. Alexander the Great may very well be called the greatest conqueror the world has ever known, not merely for the area of the land that he conquered, but for the age and the time span in which he accomplished what he did.

The Four Temperaments

Written May 20, 2005 (for Psychology class)


“I can suck melancholy out of a song, as a weasel sucks eggs.” Thus the downhearted Jacques displays his melancholic temperament in Shakespeare’s comedy, “As You Like It.” The notion of classifying different kinds of men and is quite popular and goes far back in time. There were many differing theories, and even though today we have more or less decided on a system, few people realize that the knowledge of the four temperaments can be very helpful in the study of how people work, and in understanding why they behave in the ways they do. Not only can it help us work with the people around us, but it can aid us greatly in the knowledge of ourselves. If we use it in the light of our eternal goal, we can help others and ourselves to perform the will of God more easily.

The idea of these four temperaments goes back to the concept of the four elements of the ancient Greeks. They thought that the whole earth was made of a combination of Earth, Air, Fire and Water. In an attempt to understand the basis of health and disease, substances or humors from the body were related to these elements. According to ancient Greeks, Black Bile was connected to the melancholic, Blood to the sanguine, Yellow Bile to the Choleric, and Phlegm to the Phlegmatic. Balance among these humors constituted health, and a dominance of one of the humors caused the related temperament to stand out. Although this may seem a little far fetched, the idea behind it is the basis for our system of the four temperaments.

I will now explain the qualities of persons with each of the temperaments. The Melancholic is a quiet, shy person who is uncomfortable in a large crowd and the least outgoing of the four. The negative qualities of the Melancholic are that he can be unsociable and shut in; he would rather be alone than with other people. He only gets along with people he knows well, and does not like to talk before a group. He also has a very seemingly modest opinion of himself. However, this modesty most always covers up a fear of becoming humiliated. In reality this is pride, and it can be a great hindrance to the spiritual life of a melancholic.
However, the melancholic person does have some positive qualities. He can be very self-sacrificing and sympathetic with his fellow men. He is careful, good in details, and industrious. Also, because of his love of solitude, he can practice interior prayer with ease; his tendency to think things over and reflect helps him to meditate.

A Phlegmatic is one who is more or less oblivious to what is going on around him. He is laid back and easygoing, and everything proceeds and develops slowly to him. His main negative quality is lack of motivation; he may have no ambition and he often procrastinates. Thus he neglects his duties and often times does not even aspire to piety since nothing motivates him towards it.
In the positive sphere, the phlegmatic person may work slowly, but he will persevere at his work if finds reason to do it. Since he is not affected by what goes on around him, he is not easily frustrated by offenses or failures. He will remain calm, quiet, and thoughtful; thus he can be diplomatic at times with a sober, practical judgment.

The pronounced leader of the four is the Choleric, who has all the qualities a good leader should have. He has an extraordinary intellect and uses his reason to make decisions quickly and decisively. He has a strong will; this gives him perseverance and helps him to convince others to accept his ideas. Like a good leader, a choleric person is very self-composed and comfortable in the presence of others. He will exhibit strong initiative and his emotions, excepting anger, are not freely expressed. These good qualities can be very helpful in ones spiritual life because of the strong will and perseverance that can be used to direct oneself towards heaven. The leadership qualities of the Choleric can also do great good in helping others to achieve their eternal.

In the negative aspect, however, the choleric person can run into some problems. Since his intellect is superior and his emotions stunted, he can be very unsympathetic. In addition, as mentioned before, the one passion of anger can kick in when things don’t go his way and it can be very violent. Perhaps the biggest and most common fault of the Choleric, however, is pride. He is often very full of himself, and may have too much self confidence. If proud of his high position, the choleric person can be very domineering and can have contempt of the men below him.

Lastly, we come to the most outgoing of the four, the sanguine person. Although very outgoing and talkative, he is very superficial; he does not like to enter into himself, but directs his attention to the external. He likes to be heard and the attention that comes with speaking before a group. Because of this emphasis on external things, he may be carefree and have little perseverance. He may be very unstable and have frequent fluctuation of moods; at times it may seem that he has no character and is not guided by principles.

The positive qualities of the Sanguine lie in the fact that he is very outgoing. He is friendly and cordial, and very composed in company. Because of this friendliness, he is not insistent on the acceptance of his plans, and easily agrees with the wishes of others.

The knowledge of all this can help us very much in both the natural and the supernatural sense. Firstly, it can help us with ourselves. If we learn what our predominant temperaments are, we can know where our weaknesses are and work to improve them.

Secondly, it can also help us in our dealings with other people. If we can see what a certain person’s predominant temperament is, we know more or less how he will act in certain circumstances. Thus we will know how to deal with him in such a way that will not only bring about the best effects in the natural sense, but also bring him closer to heaven. For instance, if we know that someone is melancholic, we must be careful not to say anything offensive to him because of his sensitive nature; instead we give him praise to boost his self confidence. On the supernatural side, you could help him to take big steps with his interior prayer life, since that is what comes easily to him.

As I have started with the melancholy Jacques, so I must end with him. “It is a melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples, extracted of many objects,” he remarks in his melancholic conversation. We must always remember that the temperament God gave us was formed specifically for us; formed by God in His knowledge of every last detail of our life; formed by Him in order to help us attain our eternal goal.