Alexander the Great

By Pierce K. Kozlowski

What does great mean? In this context, great can have two definitions.

First, if great in this context means moral and virtuous, then Alexander the Great (336-323 BCE)—King of Macedonia and Conquer of the Persian Empire—is not great. Historically, a figure known for championing righteousness and moral virtue was Jesus Christ (5 BCE-28 AD). During Christ’s ministry, he declared that loving others as you love yourself was one of the most important commandments, and he instructed his followers to love their enemies (Matt. 22:39). However, it can be reasonably argued that Alexander the Great was the diametric opposite of such ‘moral’ teachings.

Alexander’s personal philosophy was probably more in line with Aristotle, who tutored

Alexander for three years, teaching him to “treat Greeks as friends, but [non-Greeks] as

animals" (De Mauriac). This teaching would later materialize in Alexander’s conquest, where he was noted for harshness against the locals, especially in places like Persepolis. Diodorus Siculus (80–20 BCE)—a Greek historian of Agyrium—clearly points out this quality in Alexander in his History of the World: “[Alexander] was very hostile to the local people and did not trust them, and wished to destroy Persepolis utterly...” Alexander conquered territory after territory, pillaged multiple regions, and pursued battles ending in vicious blood baths. Based on those realities alone, Alexander doesn’t seem to possess any Christ-like, moral greatness. However, that is not to say that Alexander did not have some admirable qualities relating to honor and virtue.

When Alexander rose to the crown, his state, Macedonia, had been at war with Balkan factions. Thus, in 335 BCE, Alexander commenced the Balkan Campaign, marched towards and battled them, and won by an astounding margin. After the battle, Alexander sought to honor the warriors and soldiers who died under his command, commissioning statues in their memorial. Plutarch (46-119 CE)—a Greek Platonist, essayist, and biographer—highlighted Alexander’s nobility in Plutarch’s Lives: “Alexander had no more than thirty-four men killed, nine of which were the infantry. To bring honor to their memory, [Alexander] erected a statue to each of them in brass, the workmanship of Lysippus...” Alexander was not bereft of virtue, for he had an admirable loyalty and deep reverence towards his soldiers. However, at least against the moral example of Christ, Alexander’s character did not reflect moral greatness; and yet, great remains in the title of his name. As a result, this brings us to the second definition of great.

Was Alexander the Great, great? Yes. Okay, how and why?

Just as there is righteous greatness, there is non-righteous greatness. Non-righteous greatness can reflect aptitudes or talents which are not oriented towards moral virtues or ethical principles, and it is this type of greatness which characterizes Alexander the Great.

Alexander was a genius war strategist, a valiant leader, and fierce visionary. In particular,

Alexander was noted for his capacity to brilliantly motivate his troops. In August of 324 BCE,

Alexander delivered a speech to motivate his disheartened troops at Opis, Mesopotamia. Arrian (88-150 CE)—a Greek historian, military commander, and philosopher—recorded Alexander’s speech in the The Campaigns of Alexander, which cites Alexander empathetically, but firmly saying to his troops, “I could not blame you for being the first to lose heart if I, your commander, had not shared in your exhausting marches and your perilous campaigns . . . But it is not so. You and I, gentlemen, have shared the labor and shared the danger, and the rewards are for us all.” Alexander averred, “The conquered territory belongs to you gentleman . . . already the great part of it's treasure passes into your hands . . . The utmost hopes of riches or power which each one of you cherishes will be far surpassed, and whoever wishes to return home will be allowed to go, either with me or without me. I will make those who stay the envy of those who return.”

Alexander was an expert in pushing his troops through battle, and pulling them through discouragement. Beyond that, however, Alexander had an even greater ‘talent’: Valiance, and the ability to disintegrate and conquer massive territories. Look no further than ancient map readings of Alexander’s empire. By 323 BCE, Alexander had already conquered part of the middle east, all of Egypt, and the entirety of the Persian Empire. Therefore, Alexander’s colossal empire comprised of Macedonia, Egypt, Syria, Media, Parthia, Bactria, Persia, Afghanistan, Arachosia, and Sogdiana (Winkelman).

So, was Alexander truly great?

Morally and otherwise, no. Militarily, yes. The fruits of Alexander’s conquest is unmatched by any progress or pursuit of any military leader in history. Charles Freeze, Ph.D, echoes this very sentiment in his book in World History the Easy Way, and writes, “Alexander’s achievements as a military leader were remarkable. No general ever accomplished more. He also wanted to be seen as someone who would fuse the Greek world with other ‘Barbarian’ societies . . . He bears the name Great because many people feel he deserves to be remembered as one of history’s noble personalities that changed the world...” (Freeze)

For some, Freeze’s sentiment is a hot take. Even though it can be argued how Alexander wanted people to see him and whether he deserved the title of great, Freeze makes a broader point: It is a verifiable fact that Alexander ‘fused’ Greek and non-Greek societies and cultures. This positively connected the East and the West, opened new opportunities for trade, and unburdened the western world from the heavy rule of the Persian Empire (McLean). In addition to this successful conquest, Alexander never lost a war, he completed the conquest in just under 10 years, and accomplished all of this before his death at age 32, in 323 BCE.

That is why Alexander was Great. It was not because he was a righteous figure or a particularly ‘good’ person, worthy of moral praise; but because his demeanor, achievements, and the fruits of his conquests were unmatched by any person in the tapestry of human history.

References

1. The Apostle, Matthew. “Matthew 22:37-40.” Bible Gateway, 85CE,

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2B5%3A44&version=NLT.

2. De Mauriac, Henry M. “Alexander the Great and the Politics of ‘Homonoia.’” Journal of

the History of Ideas, vol. 10, no. 1, 1949, p. 104., doi:10.2307/2707202.

3. Scilius, Diodorus. History of the World. 30-60CE.

4. Plutarchus, Mestrius. Plutarch's Lives. 2CE.

5. Nicomedia, Arrian of. The Campaigns of Alexander. 336-323BCE.

6. Winkelman, Roy. “Map of the Empire of Alexander the Great, 323 BC.” FCIT, Florida

Center for Instructional Technology , 2009, etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/800/849/849.htm.

7. Frazee, Charles A. World History the Easy Way. Barron's Educational Series, 1997.

8. McLean, Assistant Professor John. “Western Civilization.” Lumen,

courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/alexanders-empire/.