Alexander the Great (Katie)

1) Alexander does not deserve to be called great because although his military was undeniably powerful, he was not a leader that one would want to follow. When looking at great kings in the past, all three aspects of their responsibilities must be considered: their responsibilities as a king, a commander, and a statesman. Alexander does not deserve to be called great regarding any of these three categories because he practically abandoned his kingdom in search of new territory to conquer, his military success was based mainly on luck, and he was focused on his own personal gain instead of the gain of his kingdom.

While Alexander is away from Macedon conquering new territory, he leaves Antipater in charge. Antipater was the one keeping Macedon from falling apart, and Alexander didn’t make it easy on him. Alexander constantly withdrew more soldiers from Macedon, pressing on and on in his conquest for power. This drew away resources for Antipater, so Macedon was not very prepared to control a rebellion. When the Greeks did try to rebel, Alexander had to quickly fix the problem with his money. Although he managed to correct his mistake, that much money wouldn't have always been available to him. His constant depletion of the soldiers left in Macedon could have caused a problem that he wouldn't have been able to fix, which could have resulted in an overthrow of the Macedonian Empire. 

Alexander is mainly known for his military skills, but not many of his achievements were due to his apparent brilliance. One of the things that was so successful about the Macedonian military was the phalanx. This particular military tactic as well as other military tactics used by Alexander was started by Alexander's father, Philip, not Alexander himself (Wepman, 24). Alexander did go on to conquer Persia and beyond, but he made many mistakes and his victories were not based entirely on his apparent brilliance. One major error that Alexander made was not immediately pursuing Darius when he defeated the Persian army. This gave the Persian leader time to regroup and led to another battle between him and Alexander. The Macedonian Empire won again, but there were unnecessary lives lost.

Lastly, Alexander was nowhere near an adequate leader in general. Many people consider Alexander as a king whose goal was to unify the world, but in reality, his entire mission was to serve himself. This is demonstrated by the mutinies at the Hyphasis river and Opis. At the Hyphasis river, Alexander wanted to keep marching, but his army was getting tired. His men did not want to go any farther, and when Coenus backed up the soldiers, Alexander had no choice but to go back. Alexander was not used to being defied, and as a result, Coenus was found dead a few days afterwards. The mutiny at Opis was also caused by Alexander not considering what the people who he is leading wanted. Alexander wanted to include Persians and Iranians in the Macedonian army, but his veteran soldiers considered this to be an insult to their capabilities. Alexander solved this mutiny by threatening to rank the foreign soldiers higher than his current ones. Although he managed to solve most problems and fix his mistakes, everything he is revered for was done for himself, not the people he lead.

2) Based on their views of what is great, one can tell what a society values because their leaders that are considered "great" embody their ideals. This is demonstrated by Alexander the Great and the people of Macedon that held him to such high standards. The reason they thought of Alexander as "great" is because he accomplished the goal they had been working towards for so long, and they were willing to look past all of his faults in order to build their empire.

When Alexander was young, he was tutored by Aristotle. At that time, Aristotle thought that Alexander was brilliant and thoroughly enjoyed tutoring him (Downey, 54+). Even later, when Alexander became king, Aristotle still fully supported him. However, later Aristotle spoke out against his former student. This makes one wonder what Alexander could have done in order to turn a man who had such good connections to the Macedonian empire as well as Alexander himself against him. This is because Alexander used bring different things to Aristotle from his expeditions, and Aristotle valued these advances in science and history, which made him support Alexander and his interest in learning. When Alexander became so bloodthirsty, Aristotle found it easy to point out Alexander’s cruelty because he didn’t worry about the effect it would have on the growth of the Macedonian empire, something Aristotle did not value.

Although some Greeks openly spoke out against Alexander, the majority of the people he ruled supposedly supported him. This seems strange, considering how the Macedonians could have overlooked Alexander’s cruelty and lack of good intentions. "The Greeks began to see Alexander as a typical Oriental despot, every bit as cruel and bloodthirsty as the barbarian Darius" (Wepman, 95). When people realize that the Macedonians did recognize why Alexander might not be great, this calls into question how Alexander could be so widely supported if he was this strongly hated. His soldiers undoubtedly noticed how self-absorbed Alexander was, even causing a few mutinies. However, they still chose to follow him. It again goes back to their values. Alexander may not have been a great leader, but he was expanding the Macedonian empire and apparently trying to unify the world. The Macedonians didn't care how cruel or bloodthirsty he was, as long as he was making their empire great. Even if his goal wasn't to please his citizens, he still helped them achieve their goals and values.

Alexander is still inspiring some people today, but others regard him as a cruel and incompetent leader. The main thing people look to him for is his military tactics. In other areas, he falls short of the desired results. This is because the only thing Alexander was so "great" at was expanding the Macedonian empire. He did not manage it well, he was not a great leader, but he was undefeated. Because Macedon valued their military prowess and the growth of their empire, Alexander was almost worshiped as a god, or at least a divine or superhuman being. Based on varying societal views, different people are regarded as being great in different ways. 

3) Time and distance greatly affect one's popular perception because their views on different issues have changed. This is demonstrated not only by Alexander the Great, but also by Christopher Columbus. When Alexander was alive, he was widely supported. There were several dissidents, but overall, he was considered great. There were many books written about him detailing his great exploits and victories, and people considered him a great leader. Now, people realize all the flaws of Alexander's empire. Being far away from the actual events change your perspective. Since Alexander's conquering of many territories don't help the people now, they are able to look at other aspects of his rule. When people aren't directly affected by things that have happened or are happening, they are able to look at it in a more unbiased way, leading them to form their own opinions.

Just like Alexander, in his life, Christopher Columbus was extremely popular, not only in Spain, but in many other places around the world. His discoveries helped to expand European influence to new continents. His advances signified the beginning of the removal of the Native Americans. During Christopher Columbus's life, it was considered alright for Europe to take over these places, but now, there are a lot people who don't like Christopher Columbus as much. Although Christopher Columbus day is still a holiday, many people do not celebrate it. This is because now that the times have changed, people believe that different things are right or wrong, and it changes their perception of people who lived in the past. 

"But it is by the results of a man's life that history must judge him" (Wepman, 107). Looking back on both Alexander and Christopher Columbus, people are able to see not only their achievements, but also their faults. This is why now there are several opinions that regard Alexander as great, but there are also several that think of him as not great. Time and distance allows one to look at the results of a man's life, not only the achievements that would have helped them if they lived in that time period, but also the many flaws that they may have chosen to overlook. Distance and time so greatly alter people's perspective because they are able to have a more unbiased opinion and the popular views are different.

   

Works Cited

Beck, Roger B., Linda Black, Larry S. Krieger, Phillip C. Naylor, and Dahia I. Shabaka. World History: Patterns of Interaction. Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. Print.

Downey, Glanville. Aristotle: Dean of Early Science. New York: F. Watts, 1962. 54+. Print.

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

Irving, Washington. "Soujourn of Columbus at Barcelona -- Attentions Paid Him by the Sovereigns and Courtiers." Works of Washington Irving. Vol. 3. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1860. 271. The Life and Adventures of Christopher Columbus. UPenn. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

Wepman, Dennis. Alexander the Great. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. Print.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. The Ancient History Bulletin, 1999. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.