Alexander's Lack of Greatness

1. Does Alexander deserve to be called "great"?

No, he doesn't. In a nutshell, Alexander of Macedonia was an egotistical alcoholic that did a poor job of ruling his country and opted to make it bigger instead of trying to solve any real problems. To elaborate on my first point, Alexander was extremely self-centered. All of his conquests during his thirteen years of ruling focused on his own goals. He spent eleven years taking over areas of Egypt, India, and even going so far as Persia. Did his countrymen back in Macedonia want more land? Not really. During Alexander's rule, Macedon was still looked down upon by other Greek city-states, such as Athens and Sparta. Macedonians were considered to be rugged heathens with no culture. That's not entirely incorrect (in comparison to Athens and even Sparta, Macedon was far less sophisticated) but it proves that even when their leader was off conquering the world, his homeland was still suffering. 

Stefano Maggi states that Alexander "showed great leadership ability" (Maggi, 162). However, there are several instances where this does not appear to be true for Alexander. He didn't even control Macedonia - Alexander was away conquering for eleven of his thirteen years as king, leaving his deputy hegemon, Antipater, in charge of their home country. While on his conquest in 326 B.C., Alexander faced a mutiny at the Hyphasis River. His men had been marching through deserts, battled the army of Porus (they were successful), and needed to stop and recuperate before continuing, especially due to the monsoon rains that were about to hit. But Alexander decided to try and force his troops to continue marching further into India; of course, they revolted. Alexander's solution to this problem was to sulk in his tent for three days, and Coenus (the man chosen to voice the soldier's requests) prevailed. They turned back and were allowed to rest. One mutiny left Alexander with no idea about how to control his soldiers or sway them back to his own side - this isn't good leadership. However, Alexander did deal with his second (and last) mutiny in a much better way. 


A marble bust of our lovely friend, Alexander. Acquired in Alexandria, Egypt; estimated to be from the 1st-2nd century B.C.

Alexander dealt with another mutiny just two year later, this time at the Opis River in a location fairly close to Babylon. Alexander told his soldiers that all veterans and injured men would be going back to their homes, and that he had ordered new troops from Macedonia. The older soldiers found this as a rejection of their abilities, and any remaining men didn't want to fight alongside Persians and Iranians (part of Alexander's fusion policy). When Alexander faced this issue, he told his soldiers that foreigners would be coming in and taking over all leadership positions in the army - a bluff. But, this time, his soldiers don't succeed in beating Alexander. They quickly calmed down and followed Alexander's orders.

Another point to consider about Alexander is his obvious drinking issue. "Alexander spurned the over consumption of alcohol early on in his life. However, with his rise to power came an increasingly frequent consumption and abuse of alcoholic beverages", is stated in this article. Alexander was prone to violent outbursts in alcohol-induced mood swings. This became such a common occurrence that he ordered other soldiers to be killed just if he suspected they would potentially try and take his thrown, and no one batted an eye. Alexander killed many of his own soldiers and commanders this way, his consumption of alcohol often leading him to be unstable and reckless. As his dependence on it increased, so did his volatility. This leads me to my next point: Alexander's poor behavior and decision-making skills.

Alexander  never behaved well in the lands he conquered. He was cruel and violent, slaughtering many natives. If Alexander encountered problems that couldn't simply be solved by killing the masses, he threw money at it. One example of this is when Macedonia was attacked while he was on a conquest. Antipater had been left with minimal troops (due to Alexander constantly requesting more) and was unprepared for any sort of attack. Alexander's solution was to give Antipater money, and yes, it worked, but to be fair, the forces that were attacking weren't the worst enemy. It was still poor planning on Alexander's part, and another demonstration of pothos - he left his home in danger and instead kept more men for himself so that battles would be easier. Another example of poor decision-making would be Alexander's decision to let Darius' army go. After meeting and battling, Darius' troops were weakened, as was their leader. However, instead of simply killing his opponent, Alexander decided to leave with his troops and go to Egypt instead. This allowed Darius to regroup and grow stronger, ultimately battling again in Issus, causing the unnecessary deaths of many men. 

To summarize, the amount of land the Alexander conquered was great - Greece, Egypt, Persia, and India. Alexander built one of the largest empires known to man, but he himself was not of great integrity. Alexander was a drunkard obsessed with his own power, and the main thing allowing him to succeed? Luck.  Alexander ruled for just thirteen years, leaving him little time to mess something up. He also didn't have any truly formidable opponents - it wasn't that Alexander's army was fantastic, it was that the others he battled were just mediocre. Alexander was not a great man, but rather one that got lucky and ruled recklessly up until his death.


A painting of Alexander's death. Considering that he died from a fever in 323 B.C., I doubt that he looked this majestic.

2. What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

The things that society considers "great" differ from person to person; some value intelligence, others care about accomplishments, some admire bravery, and there are some that place value in kindness. The fact that Alexander is considered great says very negative things about society as a whole.


A painting of Alexander the Great.

Let me use Walter White from AMC's Breaking Bad as an example. Walter White has done many things that could be considered bad, but for good reasons - at least in the beginning. He gets into the drug business in order to protect his family, but he soon realizes that this "business" is the one thing that he is good at. He's a king, and he loves it; Walter suffers from a similar pothos that Alexander does, forgetting that he's putting others in danger and opting to continue for his own benefit. Many people sympathize with Walter. After all, he's doing this all for other people - he just got lost in the madness down the road. Right?

I don't think so. Walter White is in no way a good person. He attempts to kill children, has killed many innocent people that were unknowing witnesses, and let one of the most important people in his friend's (Jesse's) life die. He is willing to do anything to advance in the risky game of drug dealing and manufacturing, even if that means putting multiple lives at risk instead of simply his own. Walt is manipulative, cruel, and power-hungry. Sound familiar?


Walter White's transformation.  From chemistry teacher to meth-emperor. At least he got a nice hat in the process of losing his family and friends, right?

Despite the awful character that is Walter White, people sympathize with him. People can understand his reasons for falling so deeply and quickly into power. Walter White is similar to Alexander in many ways: both are power-hungry, both tried to build their empires as large as possible, and both were remarkably uncaring towards any casualties along the way. I believe that people could also sympathize with Alexander if his story was presented in a different way. If he got his own five-season show, people might understand his motivations as well. And what does that really say about people? The fact that we are capable of identifying and empathizing with two very corrupted individuals is not a positive thing. Is it possible that all humans are as flawed and bad as Alexander and Walt are? Everyone is flawed, and everyone yearns for control or power in some way or another. But it's a grim thought that so many people in society are willing to accept these - for lack of a better word - villains. Humanity seems to have reached a low point; people are willing to go to extreme lengths in the worst ways to get what they want. But knowing that Alexander was around in 336 B.C., the natural evil in society can't be a new thing. It's always been there, but it appears to have gotten worse - people aren't good anymore. Society is now a mix of everyone simply trying to further themselves, and I get that - I'm part of it, after all. But the lack of concern we have for each other and the overall selfishness that people have now is a dark thought. It's not even a thought, at this point - it's a fact. 

3. Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?

Yes, time and distance are both factors in how someone is perceived by the general public. Alexander was sometimes thought to be a god or demigod, and ridiculous rumors spread all over his previous empire. Several common myths include that he was once carried down a mountain by eagles while he was in a basket, another said that he want an a quest for "Water of Youth" and he turned into a mermaid, and one more suggested that his troops once encountered a tribe of headless men. After someone dies, many of the bad things that they did tend to fade away, the good memories shining through instead. If you're at a funeral, people don't typically walk up and start going on about how the person in the casket was selfish or rude or cruel at times. They talk about all the good things, and many of the bad things Alexander did were blocked out and his tales of greatness were exaggerated and told instead. 


A depiction of one of the most popular Alexander myths - Alexander being carried down a mountain by eagles.

Just because someone dies doesn't suddenly make every terrible thing they did okay - when most people think of Alexander, they think about the vastness of his empire and his 100% success rate in battles. These are the things that have survived after his death, and all of his terrible deeds are glossed over. Alexander's massacre of several native peoples along with the lack of exceptional ability in his opponents' troops are important facts that many people ignore or just don't know. Seeing the greatness in life is something that people would rather do - looking in the optimistic side can give you hope for your own life, and that is what happened with Alexander. The people recording his life wanted to believe in his greatness because it can be inspiring and interesting for generations, and in a way, it's not always a bad thing. Yes, it can lead to historical inaccuracies, but it can also bring the world something it lacks in most things - hope. 

Citations:

Wilson, N. G. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Maggi, Stefano. Greece: History and Treasures of an Ancient Civilization. Vercelli, Italia: White Star, 2007. Print.

Lamberton, Robert. Plutarch. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. Print.

Freeman, Philip. Alexander the Great. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.

"Alexander the Great." Princeton University. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander of Macedonia." Alexander of Macedonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Cartledge, Paul. "Hunting for a New Past." BBC News. BBC, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

"Marble Portrait of Alexander the Great." British Museum -. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander the Great's Expeditions." N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"The Role of Alcohol in Alexander's Life." Skidmore. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"Internet History Sourcebooks." Internet History Sourcebooks. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.