Did Alexander deserve to be called 'Great'? - The Oppostiton

Great can be defined as 'one who is highly skilled in a particular area'. However, shown by Alexander's apparent vanity and recklessness, one can argue that the ancient ruler is undeserving of this widely-accepted title.


'Highly skilled' is, in most cases, a very apt way of describing Alexander as a general and commander. He never lost a battle, and maximised the use of complex battle tactics to ensure his army were never defeated by the Persian enemy (the fact that our most useful sources were Greek accounts by people such as Ptolemy who would have wanted to extol Macedonian glory is very important in considering the reliability of these accounts.) Although, there are many examples of Alexander, in a spurr of the moment attack, fueled by the heat of battle, breaking from his position among his men as a commander and going after King Darius himself. This shows Alexander as being not only impulsive, but also selfish and inconsiderate of the needs of his army. Fortunately, his trusted adviser Parmenio was able to command effectively many elements of battle, and even offered Alexander potentially useful advice which the king chose to ignore. We see another example of this in Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander, in which Arrian recounts that Parmenio suggested to Alexander that they attack Darius' forces in a surprise attack at night, to give them an guaranteed advantage. However, Alexander declined this advice, claiming that he 'did not want to steal his victory'. Perhaps this gives us an indication of how much Alexander cared about his image, and how vanity remained a recurring characteristic of Alexander throughout his life.
When Alexander's Policy of Fusion was implemented, his image became all the more important. The Policy included the introduction of proskynesis (obeisance). In Persia, citizens presented before the king were expected to prostrate themselves on the floor; an act of upmost respect that is reserved only for he Gods in Alexander's native Macedonian culture. Regardless of his army's traditional customs, Alexander insisted that his companions should greet their king in this way. It could be said that Alexander was merely acquiescing to the customs of his new kingdom in an effort to assimilate the new peoples (also achieved by Macedonian nobles marrying Persian women at Susa and wearing Persian dress). However, considering the fact that Alexander truly believed he was the son of Ammon, it would not be incorrect to assume that Alexander saw himself as a god, and believed he was worthy of the honour of proskynesis.


Alexander's brutality should also be addressed when assessing how 'great' he really was. For example, when he captured Persopolis, Alexander razed the Persian royal palace to the ground, against the opinions of his adviors and perhaps unnecessarily. Even Arrian who, throughout his book and notably in the Preface seems to see Alexander as almost god-like, commented on the matter: 'I myself share the view that there was no sense in this action of Alexander's, and it could hardly constitute punishment of trhe Persians in a distant past'. Actions like this should not be seen as necessary, as actions that were taken by Philip upon capturing cities (forging alliances) could be seen as far more effective and kind than Alexander's actions. When he sacked Thebes, Alexander killed all the men and sold all the women and children into slavery. Diodorus Sicculus commented: 'All the city was pillaged. Everywhere boys and girls were dragged into captivity as they wailed piteously the names of their mothers'. Hardly a 'necessary' task considering a huge number of these citizens could have surrendered to his rule without question.
Although brutal to captured enemies, it is clear that even his closest companions were victims of his spasmodic ferocity. Upon learning of the assassination conspiracy of Philotas, the son of Parmenio, Alexander had Philotas put to death. To avoid an rebellion, Alexander also put Parmenio to death without a trial. Parmenio had been an important general of Philip's before Alexander came to the throne, and perhaps was seen as more consistently reliable than Alexander, especially in battle where his leadership of the left wing of the Macedonian army undoubtedly helped Alexander to victory. Also, at one of many drinking parties held by the king and his companions, when one companion, Cleitus, dared to speak out against Alexander, Alexander killed him with a spear. It is said that Alexander mourned profusely after his friend's death, however this shows, in some ways, how he may not have been completely stable emotionally.
A vast majority of Alexander's military achievements could not have happened without Philip's weaponry innovations. If not for his premature death, could Philip have achieved everything Alexander did, yet in a more merciful, diplomatic way? It is impossible to know what the outcome of Alexander's predecessor's reign could have been, but we could say that Alexander, being as fiersome and unpredictable as we have seen, did not deserved the title of 'Great' that was bestowed on him after his death.