Alexander the Not-So-Great

          Does Alexander deserve to have the epithet of "great"?

           
 Alexander was a king for Greece over the span of two years, then left on an eleven year conquest. He left a man named Antipater in charge with a minuscule army to fight an ongoing war. He was ruthless, showed no mercy, and almost constantly drunk, yet was romanticized as a hero. Why is this?

                Alexander the Great is (and was) credited with being the flame of the Hellenistic Period; spreading culture and civilization throughout his vast empire of southeastern Asia. Which was correct—but he once he had established his empire, he died abruptly and did not leave any governing structure for it. Therefore, following his death, his empire disintegrated. [Not to leave out that Alexander was not a brilliant military strategist, which he was, as well as his being known determination and courage. However, I still do not believe he deserves his epithet, despite being intelligent and a brilliant leader.]

             In the earlier years of Alexander’s conquest, he set out to follow what his father intended to do: conquer Persia. To paraphrase pages on this (Alexander the Great, by Robin Lane Fox): "He completely succeeded in his attempt, but not before allowing Darius (the ruler of Persia at that time) to regroup his army and create a much bigger bloodshed than necessary on both sides" (Fox 224-225). He [Alexander] was prone to drunken rampages and needlessly giving away the lives of his own men. When retreating on a path and heading a different way would have taken longer but prevented many deaths, he chose to continue through the desert and ended up with a smaller army in result.

            While chasing Darius and his army, Alexander began to adopt that of Persia’s culture and style, as well as claiming himself a god, enforcing that his soldiers begin to call him as one. He decided that he would then abandon the “veteran” soldiers on his conquest and integrate new, Persian soldiers into his army, much to the veterans' chagrin.

                 What this says about Alexander: in my opinion, he does not deserve the title of 'great,' because of his drunken, so-called superior demeanor, decisions, and attitude with his soldiers.

*****

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

          Different societies view "greatness,"-- or a hero's legacy-- differently. In turn, what that says about about those societies is varied. For example, ancient Macedonia's values were different than that of Greece's: they put their empire before anything else, while Greece valued histories, sciences, and education generally above their empire. Alexander himself, as he carried forth his conquest over Asia, was taking the Macedonian name and expanding it [the empire], which started to improve the Macedonian army in itself. They came to value their strong, efficient military they hadn't previously had, and this said something new about them. Because this is what the Macedonians were now backing up (enforcing), this tells us that they were a somewhat strong, united people to protect themselves and their home. One can learn, simply from hearing the Macedonians had a high regard for their empire and military, what kind of people they were. This can go for any people: what they regard highest, "put their money behind," and in turn, that says something about them.
          For another example, the United States. We, as American citizens, generally value materialism. This says the U.S. values and collects more material items than other countries, and therefore a higher priority to maintaining, obtaining, and protecting those materialistic items. Which, compared to other places, makes Americans seem more material-based and therefore "greedy" or close-minded.

*****
                      Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?

          I believe that yes, distance and time impact one's perception. The most obvious example here is Alexander the Great--while he was not (is not) deserving of his epithet, in my opinion, many choose to skim over the more unwanted, gruesome facts. After Alexander passed, many fables were spun about his greatness, his death, but they were all untrue. He never really became a mermaid, obviously! But many people choose to romanticize heroes (that lived and died long before they did), because it's so easy to enlargen or "puff up" someone to make them seem better than they actually are. It's quite common, not just for Alexander, but other nineteenth/twentieth century characters, such as Joseph Stalin. I make this comparison for several reasons; of course Stalin himself was not a good person internally, but he was extremely intelligent.
          To provide a brief background context on Stalin: he was appointed secretary for the Communist Party in 1922, and slowly started consolidating power so people would have to go to him for anything; once previous leader Lenin died, he basically had control over the Soviet government and signed a contract with Adolf Hitler. These two people, Alexander and Stalin, have almost nothing in common, except for being 'romanticized,' or thought of as a man who did nothing but help others, and a man who left a wake of complete terror and destroyed Russia.
          It's been about fifty-eight years since Stalin's reign, and since then, people have been realizing his true ruthless intentions, yet also how he formed Russia into a "world superpower," modernizing it and defeating Nazism. This can be said--in a different way--about Alexander. He lived about 2,300 years ago, killed people needlessly, constantly drunken and made terrible decisions--yet he also was the flame for the Hellenistic period, integrating cultures, and uniting Greece.

Works Cited

"Alexander Romance." Encyclopedia Britannica. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14218/Alexander-romance>.

Ansari, Ali. "Alexander the not so Great: History through Persian eyes." BBC. N.p., 4 July 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18803290>.

Bialo, Ellen. World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. N.p.: n.p., 2014. ABC-CLIO eBook Collection. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1185181?terms=alexander%20the%20great&webSiteCode=SLN_HANC&returnToPage=%2fSearch%2fDisplay%2f1185181%3fterms%3dalexander+the+great&token=3A678D1387C57B100F66A831B74121CA&casError=False>.

Fox, Robin Lane. Alexander the Great. New York: Penguin, 1986. Print.

Gandeto, J. S. "Differences Between Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greece." History of Macedonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/gandeto.html>.

"Joseph Stalin-Biography." Bio. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.biography.com/people/joseph-stalin-9491723#communist-party-leader>.
Kohls, L. Robert. "The Values Americans Live By." ClareMontMckenna. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. 

Thayer, Bill. "Life of Alexander the Great." Penelope UChicago. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Curtius/home.html>.

Worthington, Ian. "How 'Great' Was Alexander?" The Ancient History Bulletin (1999): n. pag. Print.