Alexander The Great

Alexander the Great is arguably the most famous King that has ever lived. Alexander’s historical perception is without a doubt not entirely accurate, but in the facts of his Kingdom, and in reading the few historically relevant sources, we can interpret something about the life of this man. Through the writings of Plutarch, Arrian, Curtius Rufus, and Pliny, I see Alexander the Great as a justly motivated, intelligent military hero. We will never truly know how Alexander would have turned out as a ruler due to his early death, but in his fifteen years as king he motivated people from different cultures and different countries to come together and execute, under his rule, the most impressive military conquests the world has ever seen.
Many modern historians, including those in the ETEP module, have differing views of Alexander the Great. Some claim that he was a deranged, bloodthirsty general who only sought personal triumph, while others thought that he was a military hero who sought unity among all men. W.W. Tarn was a proponent of the latter statement, who wrote about Alexander’s lasting impact of blending culture in the East. Tarn notices that there are many conflicting sources with regards to Alexander’s triumph, and focus’s more on the positive impact that Alexander left on the Eastern world. I agree with Tarn in that Alexander’s conquers led to cultures coming together and advancing at a rate that otherwise would have been unattainable. Tarn argues that Alexander “greatly enlarged the bounds of human knowledge” and “gave to Greek science and civilization a scope and an opportunity which they had never yet possessed” (Tarn). Evidence of these opportunities is shown in the writings of Pliny, in which he tells of Alexander gathering thousands of professionals to study wildlife across new territories that led to nearly 50 volumes of studies in zoology (Pliny). These are undeniable impacts of the reign of Alexander, and those impacts rightfully defend the positive legacy of Alexander the Great.
Another modern Historian, Peter Green, wrote Alexander the Great in 1970, and has a much different opinion of Alexander than that which I argue. Green sees Alexander as a bloodthirsty, alcoholic, maniac, who did not seek to unify the Eastern world, but rather immortalize his own personal history. Green does however acknowledge Alexander’s unparalleled military prowess, but sees most of his conquests as unnecessary. I do not believe that Alexander ever lost sight of his goal to unite the world, and I believe that the blood spilled in the process was necessary. The personal flaws that Green points out, such as alcoholism, were all after returning from his conquest, and if you can only imagine the things that Alexander saw and had to do in those years of battle, then you can agree that drinking too much was probably the least harmful side effect that he could have returned home with. Green also points out that the lands Alexander conquered were better off before, because it eventually led to anarchy. I argue that Alexander did not live long enough to set order to his empire, and therefore cannot be at the blame for what happened following his death.

Alexander’s successes as a conqueror were a result of his heroic characteristics, one of which was intelligence. With prestigious tutors including Leonidas, Lysimachus and Aristotle, Alexander gained knowledge, and training that shaped his young body and mind into that of a military genius. Alexander had an unmatched ability for seeing opportunity where others saw impossibility. Plutarch tells a story of a young Alexander that wonderfully exemplifies this trait. Alexander accompanied his father to look at a horse, Bucephalus, that he was considering for purchase. Everyone present saw a horse that was too wild and aggressive to be of any use, but Alexander was displeased with this portrayal and made that apparent. Alexander then accepted an elder’s challenge and attempted to ride the horse, because, unlike the others, he saw that the horse feared its own shadow. He turned the horse away from its shadow, calmed it down, and rode the horse back to the others (Plutarch). Alexander was a superior to all of his enemies as a military general, as seen by his victories against much larger Persian armies. Alexander had an uncanny ability to predict the actions of the enemy forces, and plan accordingly. One source of this ability is the first century writings of Curtius Rufus. While his accounts may be romanticized, seeing as they are written over three centuries after the fact, but his sources include accounts written by Alexander’s own followers and generals (Rufus), so the military strategy is likely credible. Rufus writes that Alexander marched his troops to Issus, while Darius believed them to be retreating west. Outnumbered and exhausted Alexander decided to meet Darius at the narrowest pass ahead in order to avoid being surrounded. Alexander sent his strongest army, the Phalanx, to the front of the pass where they would see the most combat. On the wings he sent cavalry, slingers, and archers, and had reinforcements in all areas. As Darius’s armies came into sight, Alexander held his troops back to keep their energy, meanwhile delivering speeches to prepare his troops for battle. Alexander fought beside his troops and handily defeated Darius’s army. Casualties included 100,000 Persian infantry and 10,000 Persian Cavalry, while Alexander’s army only lost 32 infantrymen and 150 Cavalry (Rufus).
The ability to motivate troops is a key component in military success. Alexander led an army of Macedonian’s and Grecian allies. This was a very diverse army, and Alexander knew that they were not all motivated by the same things. The aristocrat, Arrian, around the time of 150 A.D. wrote of a speech Alexander delivered as his army was in the final stages of their conquests in the east. His troops no longer wanted to fight this war, and Alexander encouraged them that they were so close to their goal, that to turn back now would be to risk everything that they had already accomplished. Alexander spoke to his Macedonian soldiers, and assured them that if they continued, they would immortalized for their accomplishments, but if they were to turn back then the areas left unconquered could rise and take back areas to the west (Arrian). Alexander had a different messages for his troops that hailed from Greece, reminding them of what this Persian Empire they aimed to conquer did to their beloved homelands, and how they mistreated those that they conquered (Rufus). Alexander’s personal bravery was also key in boosting morale, as soldiers are more likely to follow a leader that is taking the same risks that they are. Alexander fought side by side with his troops (Phalanx) and even sustained injuries in battle, including taking a sword to the right thigh in the battle of Issus (Rufus). Alexander’s conquers would not have been possible if not for his ability to rally and motivate troops for a seemingly never-ending conquests.
The common perception of Alexander the great is not entirely based on facts, but more embellished stories that portray him as an almost mythological god. But upon investigation the primary sources depicted in this paper, I am of the belief that his perception is rooted in heroic truths. Alexander’s astonishing military successes are not argued by anyone, and his leadership, strategy, and bravery that led to those accomplishments are nothing short of heroic traits. In order to be considered a hero, though, your actions must be rooted in a just cause. Alexander had the goal to unify what was then the Eastern world, to blend cultures and to ease the flow of knowledge and advancement of civilizations. His role in that goal was to conquer the lands to the East, and that is just what he did. Alexander the Great will live forever in history, and his story is rightfully that of an ancient hero.