Does Alexander the Great Live Up to His Name?

A sculpture of Alexander the Great found here

Does Alexander deserve to be called great?

a map of all the conquered lands, site here

          1. What is the first thing that pops into your mind when you think "Alexander the Great"? It's not that he was a king, or that he studied from Aristotle, or that he had a severe drinking problem that would result in his early death. I think of Alexander 111 as the Macedonian whose war tactics helped him conquer the entire persian empire among other lands and regions. In this day and age, all we remember Alexander 111 for was being a military genius. This is because Alexander 111 preferred "constant warfare over consolidating conquered territories and long-term administration" (Prof. Ian Worthington, site here). It's no secret that military and war tactics were his strong points, but was Alexander 111 a versatile man? No, The only thing on Alexander the 3rd's mind was conquering land and ruling all. Alexander 111 wasn't willing to let being king stop him from his grand plans of conquering the persian empire, so he had a man named Antipater guard the land for him. Alexander 111 didn't have time for being a king, especially since he was busy marching his tired soldiers through Asia. The only thing that brought him back to Macedon was his men's complaints, and still he still sulked about it and put up a fight. So Why do we call Alexander 111"great"? Some people argue that Alexander 111 was "one of the most successful military commanders of all time, [Alexander] has been inspiring would-be conquerers for centuries (Andra Varin, site here). But others, like myself, argue the point that yes, he may have had been a legend in the military world, but since when does one skill make a person go down in history as "the great"? How can Alexander 111 be considered great when he was a horrible king, not even caring about the land he ruled? When he were responsible "for the deaths of tens of thousands of his own men and for the unnecessary wholesale slaughter of native peoples? Or who, through his own recklessness, often endangered his own life and the lives of his men? Or whose violent temper on occasion led him to murder his friends and who towards the end of his life was an alcoholic, paranoid, megalomaniac, who believed in his own divinity?" (Prof. Ian Worthington, site here) I do not believe that Alexander should be called great. I believe Alexander 111 should be called "Alexander the military genius", but we shouldn't go all the way to calling him "great".

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?  
           2. If society considers Alexander 111 "great", then they must have the wrong idea about what is "great" and what is not.  Alexander killed tens of thousands of natives and his own men, endangered the lives of his men and himself on countless occasions, and killed his friends when he was intoxicated (which was often), (info from this site). If the whole of society can overlook his killing and drinking habits just because he had brilliant military-tactics and could conquer lands at an alarming rate, society has been brainwashed to think that muscle and brawn can excuse unnecessary violence.  A present-day example of this would be Ray Rice. Ray Rice is an american football player for the Rutgers university who is on indefinite suspension when he should be serving in prison. Ray Rice has abused his now-wife multiple times, including knocking her out by punching her directly in the face. Ray Rice has been given a slap on the wrist compared to the punishment he should've gotten because he's ranked at the second-best rusher his team has ever had. In society, there is a lot of controversy on the Ray Rice incident, many people supporting Ray Rice and trying to come up with examples as to why he should still be able to play in the game, excusing the fact that he has abused a person/ people because he is good at what he does. When society calls Alexander "great" it's a kick in the face to me. He looks heroic and brave on the outside, but when you dig deeper you in fact find that Alexander was not a hero, but a villain. I believe our views on Alexander "the great" really show the true face of society: broken and bruised.

Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?
          3. Alexander has definitely been considered great since his time of birth through the course of history, but not everyone that we learn about today has always been a legend. Most people that we view as important parts of history, in fact, became well known after they died. An example of this would be Van Gogh, most famous for his painting "Starry Night". Van Gogh is "recognized as one of the most prolific Dutch Post-Impressionist painters. He grew up as a shy child with self-esteem issues. He suffered from mental illness and epilepsy. Vincent Van Gogh allegedly committed suicide on July 29, 1890, when he was just 37 years old. " (RR Donnelly, site here) During his lifetime, he created some of the best impressionistic art ever known, but none of it was dicovered until shortly after his death. His paintings became famous and now sell for millions of dollars. It's sad to think that people like Van Gogh never got to live the life of fame and wealth, but Alexander 111 did. It is an unfortunate and common occurence that a person will spend their lifetime working towards their success, only to achieve it once they've died. It all depends on luck, if you're recognized before or after death. Alexander 111 was considered great before he died, and that means people knew exactly all the "great" things he was doing. So when Alexander died, they had more information on him, and therefore could make more stories about him that would make him seem even braver and "greater". The stories and facts have been passed down to generation after generation, making their way through the centuries. Even though the stories are considered folklore now, they still stuck to the brains of the early civilizations and gave people a reason to pass the stories down. We don't know intricate details about Van Gogh's early life because he wasn't born into fame and glory, but Alexander 111 and Vincent Van Gogh still got to the same place in the end. So yes, time and distance definitely impact someone's popular perception.
(I don't know why this last part appears smaller)

Works Cited

"Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html>.

"Curiosity : Discovery Channel." Discovery Channel. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/alexander-the-great-region-conquer>.

Levi, Peter. Atlas of the Greek World. New York, NY: Facts on File, 1980. Print.

"Pothos.org." - Introduction to Alexander the Great. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=introduction-to-alexander>.

Varin, Andra. "What Made Alexander So Great?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 24 Nov. 2004. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=267330>.

Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fancienthistory.abc-clio.com%2FSearch%2FDisplay%2F575648%3Fterms%3DAlexander%2Bthe%2Bgre>.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great2.html>.