Assess_Whether_Alexander_Was_a_Great_Leader

Revision Essay Assess whether Alexander was a great leader Alexander the great was one of the greatest leaders who ever lived; he conquered almost the entire known world in 4th century BC. However, historians debate today whether he really was a great leader. There has been evidence contradicting his claim of greatness, but supporting evidence outweighs them all. Factors include his royal propaganda, leadership, military aspects and legacy. Through his use of political propaganda, Alexander was able to gain undying loyalty from his troops and was respected as a God. This allowed him to strike fear into the enemies’ hearts even before a battle had begun. This gave him the upper-hand in battle. Alexander was able to effectively use political propaganda to his advantage because of the prophecy of his divine birth stating he was the son of Zeus, therefore making him a demi-god. This prophecy was proclaimed by the oracle of Apollo in Delphi; after King Phillip II (Alexander’s father) had a vision of sealing Olympias’ (Alexander’s mother) womb with the seal of the lion after it had been struck by a thunder-bolt. He had also seen a serpent lying stretched out by the side of Olympias as she slept. All this lead to the prophecy of his divine birth which allowed him to used political propaganda so effectively. Although Alexander was able to use this prophecy as political propaganda, it also came with a disadvantage. The prophecy of his divine birth gave him too much pride and confidence from an early age, as he actually believed himself to be a god. This later made him into a megalomaniac with an undying lust for conquest. Therefore showing there were draw-backs to his political propaganda. Alexander’s superior leadership skills also played a part in his proclaimed greatness. Alexander was very close and friendly towards his troops, knowing them all by first name. He even endured the same conditions as his men in battle; living, eating and drinking the same as his men. An example of this would be in the crossing of the Gedrosian Desert where he would not drink the water brought to him by a soldier as there was not enough for the rest of his men. His extremely ambitious personality filled his troops with confidence and moral, fuelling them on their 12 year journey for conquest. This shows that Alexander was an extremely respectable leader to his men. This aside, Alexander’s leadership skills were not perfect. He constantly drove his men almost to the point of death. In one case, he decided to cross the Gedrosian Desert without enough provisions such as food and water. Almost half his men had died from this crossing alone, mainly due to extreme dehydration. Consequently this proves that Alexander’s leadership in some cases was questionable. Military aspects also play a major role in Alexander’s greatness, as he was undefeated in battle. Alexander had improved on and mastered his father’s invention, the sarissa and the formation of the phalanx. Alexander was also able to adapt to new situations very quickly. An example would be in the Battle of Hydaspes, where Alexander had to face Porus and his elephants, large, exotic creatures he had never seen before. Alexander quickly overcame the issue, and against all odds defeated Porus. His ability to adapt to new situations allowed Alexander to create the largest empire the world had ever seen. As a result this proved that Alexander was in-fact a military genius. Alexander’s recklessness in battle would have been a negative military aspect. An example is when he led his troops in to the Bactrian Desert in pursuit of the Persian Leader Bessus, Darius III’s close relative. Alexander was also very ruthless. At the Siege of Tyre, after Alexander took over the city, he executed 2000 surrendered soldiers. He also executed his own men when things did not go his way. Examples would include Cletius the Black (a man who saved his life) and Parmenio (one of his greatest generals). Therefore this proves that Alexander was self-obsessed and power-hungry. Alexander’s magnificent legacy is a major factor in his greatness. Alexander spread Greek culture, traditions and language throughout his vast empire. This was known as hellenisation. This made Greek a principal language of his empire, of which all educated people were required to understand. Alexander broke down international trade barriers in his empire, through intermarriage and a unified coinage system. He also bridged the gap between East and West, culturally, socially and economically. At the time of his death, his empire had consisted of up to 70 city states. This shows that Alexander had an extraordinary legacy. A negative in Alexander’s attempt to build a unified empire was that many Greeks resisted his ideas. Examples would include proskynesis; the blowing of the kiss and the wearing of Persian robes. This was mainly due to the fact that Persians were thought of as barbarians and Greeks the superior race. Another negative would be that his empire as too large to control after his death. This was mainly due to the fact that Alexander had no heir, and had not clearly appointed a successor. Only one of the 70 city states remain today. As a result, this proves that Alexander had flaws in his administration skills. Although there was some evidence opposing his greatness, it was outweighed by the supporting evidence. His effective political propaganda, superior leadership skills, military aspects and magnificent legacy proved that Alexander, in-fact was a great leader.