Was Alexander Great? (You should begin by defining your use of the word "great".) Defend your answer. Then tell me:

--

In order to assess whether Alexander of Macedonia is justly described as "The Great", we first have to define what we mean by "great". The usage I will consider is that in Webster’s Collegiate Edition for its noun form: "an outstandingly superior or skillful person".

Skillful Alexander certainly was. Even in his youth, he was outstanding, one of those who excels at everything he tries. He was brilliant at sports, and an accomplished rider to the degree that he could tame a horse that all others had failed with. If his tutor Aristotle had not precisely succeeded in forming his mind, yet he had given him a deep love of Greek literature and a reverence for Greek civilisation. From his father he had inherited a gift for war, which Philip himself acknowledged was greater in the son than the father – "My son, Macedonia is too small for you; seek out a larger empire, worthier of you". At a mere eighteen, Alexander had led the Macedonian cavalry in his father’s triumphant conquest of the Athenians.

Alexander was idolised by Philip’s army, and when Philip himself was assassinated by one of his officers, he in turn took the throne with the support of the army and his mother Olympias, and proceeded to take his father’s advice. At the start of his reign he barely controlled Macedonia and all of Greece excepting only Sparta. When he died, he had not only reinforced his hold on those, but also conquered Persia, Egypt, Jerusalem and even parts of India.

Yet he was not really a great general, though he undoubtedly had the services of such. Rather, he was an enthusiastic and gifted fighter – rather too much so, as he insisted on being in the thick of things; a practice which, while it endeared him to his soldiery on the one hand, also caused them no small amount of concern.

He himself was so energetic, and so fired by his dreams, that he lost touch entirely with the mood of his soldiery, and it took what was tantamount to a mutiny to force him to stop his attempt to conquer India and instead turn back and give his exhausted troops a rest from battle.

He alienated his men again when he proclaimed himself a god, son of Zeus-Ammon. This was not exactly a new invention: the tale had been put about by his mother when Philip was straying and her nose was out of joint. But even she objected to its declaration as truth. It is quite possible that this was a fairly astute political move, as it was unheard-of for a Pharaoh of Egypt, as he then was, not to be deified; and the Persians also respected it. Even the Greeks – barring of course the Macedonians who he was not tactless enough to ask – went along with it. Undoubtedly it made for an easier time controlling the Egyptians and Persians. But his own army, already distressed at how "native" he had become, saw it as further abandonment of their culture and their Greek sense of liberty objected to the obeisance now required.

When Alexander kept his temper – and, in later years, his sobriety – his Greek education and his intelligence combined to make him truly a superior and skillful person. He was sincere and trustful, and generous even to his enemies. He could be wise in governance. He saw the wisdom of his father’s allowing the Greek states a large measure of freedom, realising that while they still maintained their individuality, they would not be nearly as dangerous as if they united. When he conquered a city such as Jerusalem, that gave in gracefully, they would be treated very fairly. But let a city resist too strongly, or otherwise stir up his list for vengeance, and nothing would be spared. It was not at all unheard-of for Alexander’s army to kill all the men of a city and rape the women. Even at a banquet, he killed a friend who had once saved his life, for drunkenly saying that it was not Alexander himself but his men who had won the victories.

By his death, of fever and alcohol at a mere 33, his army had lost their faith and love for him, his empire was united purely by fear of him, and he had no heir. Multiple assassination attempts had made him yet more vicious.

So, was Alexander Great? The honest answer appears to be "Somewhat". He was capable of great things. He had a great ambition. He had great energy. But he was not great enough to hold it all together. He needed to be more of a statesman. He had ascended to the throne at a very young age, probably too young, and he got caught up in the glory of conquest, desiring to constantly expand his empire instead of taking time to consolidate his rule. He did begin to consolidate with the Persians, when he discovered an unexpected nobility in them. Perhaps, had he not taken to drink, and had he lived longer, it might have come together. But it is quite possible that things had simply degenerated too far. It is more than likely that Alexander only has his moniker because he died so young, with all his empire still at his command.

Alexander – or Alexander’s generals – was phenomenally successful as a conqueror. Virtually everywhere he marched upon, he took, though in the case of Persia it took several tries. Even against enormous numerical odds he could win decisive victories.

In his early years he had a deserved reputation for generosity, and cities would willingly open their gates to him, knowing that they would not be sacked. He had it in him to be a great administrator, ruling with kindness and firmness, tolerating no oppression, and keeping to his agreements.

He was clever to see the utility of religion in holding states together. By declaring himself a god, he could hold the allegiance of the followers of otherwise disparate religions, such as the Egyptians and Persians. Once accepted as such by their aristocracy, the peasantry would give him their support willingly.

Alexander’s main failings were those of personality. He was far too susceptible to fair words and flattery, and while on the one hand that made him likeable, especially as a young man, on the other it caused him to become complacent, taking for granted that when his men said nice things to him, they were happy, when in fact they were dangerously near the point of mutiny. But far worse than that was his cruel streak, which became more pronounced as the years went on and he was further removed from the civilising influence of his Greek friends. He was given to exacting hideous vengeances, on individuals and even entire cities. These were then often followed by bouts of violent remorse, and sometimes acts of great generosity, but the damage was done.

Alexander’s ultimate and ignominious failure was to take no heed of who should hold his empire after his death. He was so absorbed in his wars that he had little interest in women, despite eventually ending up with three wives (one Bactrian and two Persians). Philip his father had ensured his succession, and then carefully had the boy educated, appointing the best of tutors. Alexander did not even groom one of his officers to succeed him – quite possibly because in his later years, he had little reason to trust most of them.

Alexander’s most lasting legacy was not his conquests, but the means by which he held them together in his lifetime. His concept of government, using religion to keep the peace amongst an empire of diverse cultures, enabling one absolute ruler, was the model for all the great empires of Europe until very recent times. It was the end of the Greek city-state, and the beginning of a whole new societal structure.

On a more local scale, his respect for the Persians had broken down the barrier between the Greeks and the "barbaroi", as they called non-Greeks. He himself took two Persian wives (one of each major faction) and many of his army took wives there also, at his encouragement. Without this preparation, the Hellenistic Age would not have been as cosmopolitan as it was. He also liberated and stimulated a network of trade throughout the eastern Mediterranean.

And finally, what perhaps he would have regarded as his finest triumph; he had brought Greek culture, philosophy, art and literature to Asia.

Alexander is remembered today primarily as the great conqueror, the ruler of a vast empire in the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, the Middle East and Asia. He ruled Greece and spread its civilisation far and wide, even as Greek democracy itself was foundering.

[1] Will Durant, The Life of Greece - The Story of Civilization, MJF Books, 1939