Why_Is_Alexander__The_Great_

In order to assess whether Alexander of Macedonia is justly described as "The Great", we first have to define what we mean by "great". The usage I will consider is that in The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary which defines “great” as remarkable in ability, character, and achievement. Alexander of Macedon (356-323 BC), also known as Alexander III, is considered as one of the most successful military commanders in history, conquering most of the known world before his death. Following the unification of the city-states of ancient Greece under the rule of his father, Philip II of Macedon, (a feat Alexander had to repeat twice because the southern Greeks revolted after Philip's death), Alexander went on to conquer the Persian Empire, including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as the Punjab. The question of whether or not he deserved his title of “Great” is still one of great debate. Alexander is one of the most fascinating personalities in human history. Although he was the son of a king and inherited an empire that included most of the Greek city-states, Alexander's own conquests are what have made him admired, vilified, and studied for over two thousand years. Growing up, Alexander was fascinated by Homer's Iliad. It was the character of Achilles, the hero of the story that especially attracted him. His fascination grew further upon learning that he was a direct descendent of Achilles, on his mother’s side. It is written that as well as being a descendent of Achilles, that his lineage on his father’s side links him to Hercules. Plutarch writes “On his father’s side, Alexander was descended from Hercules, and on his mother’s from Aeacus (Achilles’ grandfather)”. And so, in keeping with his family tradition and the great expectations of his parents, Alexander looked for any opportunity to demonstrate his heroic strength and courage. Philip saw to it that his only son had the best education. Alexander studied for three years under Aristotle, who was hired because he was the most recognized philosopher of his day. Alexander also received the very finest education in warfare and politics. In 338 BC at the Battle of Chaeronea in Boeotia, Philip defeated the Athenians and their allies. The military feat that won that day was a cavalry charge by the now eighteen year old Alexander. Alexander seems to have inherited much from his father, physical courage, arrogance, intelligence, and, most importantly, ambition. For when his father died in 336 BC after being assassinated, Alexander quickly took power and set out to conquer the world, at the age of only twenty-one. Alexander’s major military conquest came when his army crossed the Hellespont and declared war on Persia. It is written that to conquer Persia was to conquer the world. His army consisted of 35,000 Macedonians and 7,600 Greeks. The Macedonian army engaged in battle with King Darius III’s Persian army at the crossing of the river Granicus. Alexander attacked an infantry division of Persians and Greek hoplites who pledged their allegiances to the Persians over the Macedonians. Alexander's forces defeated the enemy, slaying 40,000 of the Persians and, according to some sources, lost only 110 men of his own. Alexander was very successful as a conqueror. Virtually everywhere he marched upon, he took, though in the case of Persia it took several attempts. Even against enormous odds he could win decisive victories. The greatest example of his generosity came when he had taken Darius III’s wife and daughters captive. Not only did Alexander give them privileges that other prisoners didn’t get (he provided them with things they were accustomed to when they were in the company of Darius III), he also let Darius III come and take his family back, without an ensuing battle. In his early years he had a deserved reputation for generosity, and cities would willingly open their gates to him, knowing that they would not be sacked. He had it in him to be a great administrator, ruling with kindness and firmness, tolerating no oppression, and keeping to his agreements. He was clever to see the value of religion in holding states together. By declaring himself a god, he could hold the allegiance of the followers of different religions, such as the Egyptians and Persians. Once accepted as such by their aristocracy, the lower classes would give him their support willingly Although Alexander was portrayed as a great leader, like all great leaders, he had failings. Alexander’s main failings were those of personality. He was too susceptible to fair words and flattery, and while on the one hand that made him likeable, especially as a young man, on the other it caused him to become complacent, taking for granted that when his men said nice things to him, they were happy, when in fact they were dangerously near the point of mutiny. But far worse than that was his cruel streak, which became more pronounced as the years went on and he was further removed from the civilising influence of his Greek friends. He was known to carry out hideous vengeances, on individuals and even entire cities. These vengeances were then often followed by bouts of violent remorse, and sometimes act of great generosity, but the damage was done. Alexander’s ultimate failure was to take no interest into the matter of who should hold his empire after his death. He was so absorbed in his wars that he had little interest in women, despite eventually ending up with three wives (one Bactrian, and two Persians). Philip had ensured his succession, and then carefully had the boy educated, appointing the best of tutors. Alexander did not even groom one of his officers to succeed him, quite possibly because in his later years, he had little reason to trust most of them. Alexander was idolised by Philip’s army, and when Philip himself was assassinated by one of his officers, he in turn took the throne with the support of the army and his mother Olympias, and proceeded to take his father’s advice. At the start of his reign he barely controlled Macedonia and all of Greece excepting only Sparta. When he died, he had not only reinforced his hold on those, but also conquered Persia, Egypt, Jerusalem and even parts of India. Yet he was not really a great general, though he undoubtedly had the services of such. However, he was an enthusiastic and gifted fighter, he insisted on being in the thick of things, a practice which, while it endeared him to his soldiery on the one hand, also caused them no small amount of concern. Alexander was very energetic, and so fired by his dreams, that he lost touch entirely with the mood of his soldiers, and it took what was practically the same as a mutiny to force him to stop his attempt to conquer India and instead turn back and give his exhausted troops a rest from battle, this is in contrast to what we learn from in modern sources, where we witness Alexander drive his troops forward to be slaughtered in India. He alienated his men again when he proclaimed himself a god, son of Zeus-Ammon.This was not exactly a new invention: the tale had been put about by his mother. But even she objected to its declaration as truth. It is quite possible that this was a political move. Undoubtedly it made for an easier time controlling the Egyptians and Persians. But his own army, already distressed at how "native" he had become, saw it as further abandonment of their culture. When Alexander kept his temper, and, in later years, his sobriety, his Greek education and his intelligence combined to make him truly a superior and skillful person. He was sincere and trustful, and generous even to his enemies. He could be wise in governance. He saw the wisdom of his father, allowing the Greek states a large measure of freedom, realising that while they still maintained their individuality, they would not be nearly as dangerous as if they united. When he conquered a city such as Jerusalem, that gave in gracefully, they would be treated very fairly. But let a city resist too strongly, or otherwise stir up his list for vengeance, and nothing would be spared. It was not at all unheard of for Alexander’s army to kill all the men of a city and rape the women. Even at a banquet, he killed a friend who had once saved his life, for drunkenly saying that it was not Alexander himself but his men who had won the victories. By his death, of fever and alcohol at a mere 33, his army had lost their faith and love for him, his empire was united purely by fear of him, and he had no heir. Alexander’s most lasting legacy was not his conquests, but the ways in which he held them together throughout his career. His concept of government, using religion to keep the peace in an empire of diverse cultures and, enabling one absolute ruler, was the model for all the great empires of Europe until very recent times. It was the end of the Greek city-state, and the beginning of a whole new social structure. And finally, what perhaps we could regard as his finest triumph, he brought Greek culture, philosophy, art and literature to Asia. Alexander is remembered today as the great conqueror, the ruler of a vast empire in the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, the Middle East and Asia. He ruled Greece and spread its civilisation far and wide, with the evidence stated above, it is clear that Alexander rightfully deserved the title of “Great”.