Alexander the Great has a great reputation – literally. He was accredited for conquering most of the known world in his time, spreading Greek and Roman culture across his empire, and being one of the first “philosopher” kings as being tutored by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Although, the question is was he truly as great as we have come to believe according to authors N. G. L. Hammond and Ian Worthington, the answer is yes and no. Hammond believes he has greatly earned the title of “the Great” by not only being an extremely intelligent and strong leader, complete belief in his culture, but was a firm compassionate ruler who did everything in his power to advance his kingdom and spread his Greek influence. Worthington believes Alexander was not worthy of his name, ‘the Great.’ He argues that Alexander went on unnecessary military conquests that were hugely detrimental to his empire, who had such a violent temper he murdered friends, and toward the end of his life was a pompous, drunken, moron who had a god complex. To form ones’ opinion on such a matter, one must analyze both stances.
Analyzing Hammond’s argument, Alexander, during his brilliant military campaign, made an offer for any of his Macedonian troops who wanted to go home, even
paying them their wages and sent them home from the campaign in Asia. This is incredibly unique for a ruler, as most kings would never fathom allowing soldiers to go home during a campaign. Alexander showed immense love and respect for those who followed under him. Since his key objective throughout his actions was, of course, military glory he had to put faith in his men. Truly putting complete faith in Man, he believed that there was absolutely no limit to ones spirit and that his pains should produce fantastic triumphs. Going so far as to promise his warriors that their deaths would bring glory and that their deaths would be retained in history. Alexander was also for immigration, allowing exiles to that had been enemies of the empire take military positions and grant them citizenship.
Hammond states “His belief in the superiority of Greek civilization was absolute.” While in power, Alexander did everything he could to further Greek superiority and status around the world. Hammond argues that Alexander deserves his reputation of greatness due to his unwavering cultural beliefs. Even returning works of art that were, earlier, confiscated and returned them to their rightful Greek state, demonstrating how much respect he had for the community. The belief that Alexander had in Greek civilization was unconditional. His most cherished possession was his copy of Homer’s Iliad. Although this stemmed from his early year because his private tutor was the famous Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who instilled Greek values in him.
Not only was he a military genius, he was also a brilliant and compassionate man. Alexander had so much love for his mother that he would send lovely letters and fantastical gifts. He was also an extremely loyal friend, a loving doting husband to his wife, Roxane, but he was also very fair. Taking the same rations as his fellow man and
even enjoyed the same parties, shows how much fairness mattered to him. Hammond writes: “Alexander combined his extraordinary practicality with visionary, spiritual dimension which stemmed from his religious beliefs…” and “The power of his personality was all-pervading.” (63)
Although on the other hand, Worthington starts off his article answering the question of why Alexander is called the ‘great.’ Apparently from an early age, Alexander has been achieving supposed ‘great’ things. Conquering most of the known world at the time, going on numerous military campaigns, and was often cocky and rude. Worthington states the Alexander constantly endangered the lives of his soldier by pursuing multiple military campaigns that were meaningless. Not only were they useless conquests, these conquered territories were slaughtered ruthlessly.
Though there is credit paid to Alexander by praising him for spreading Greek culture and education in his empire. Worthington understands the massive impact Alexander had and the influence he spread during his reign by spreading the culture and putting emphasis on education. While Alexander is credited for essentially creating the Hellenistic world, his flaw was the fact he believed himself to be a god, or descendant of Hercules. Worthington even says he believes, whole-heartedly, in his own divinity, causing a giant ego.
To combat such a ‘great’ legacy, his unsteady family life paved the way for his alcoholism, paranoia, and conviction of his self-divinity. By completely relying on his money and the empire formerly built by his father to solve his. The amount of risk he would take usually would benefit him, unfortunately in the end these were poor decisions made that risked the lives of him and his army. This lack of self-control in consuming
alcohol and gaining military power caused numerous deaths therefore does not deserve the title “great” although exhibiting many characteristics of a great ruler. Without self-control his thirst for both military power and alcohol escalated. Worthington still gives Alexander props on being fearless on the battlefield; never backing down from a battle has negative reproductions.
In Worthington’s conclusion, while Alexander was a military genius and an advocate for the spread of Greek culture. However his lack of self-control, useless campaigns, alcoholism, and his full belief in his own divinity prove how ‘Alexander the Great’ has not earned such a title. Nearing the end of his life though his expedition was a victory, after he died, nothing was left. The empire did not outlive its emperor. His generals killed his kin, his wife, and his son. His empire broke apart into separate kingdoms, though his legacy will become inspirational to people such as Napoléon Bonaparte.
Both Worthington and Hammond make excellent points, although in a way they are both correct. Hammond says Alexander personally led his armies into battle teaching his men that dying in battle would earn them a place in history. On the frontline, Alexander stood out as fantastic strategist. He was an extremely influential person, his conquests and rule inspired the greatest and richest empire ever, Rome. Alexander was a hero to the Romans. He even helped to expand Greek culture into the known world. By bringing Greek culture to other parts of the globe, Alexander helped expand the world’s knowledge and improve literacy. By conquering so much land in a short period of time, Greek culture was introduced to others at an extremely fast pace. While Alexander the Great was a fantastic military leader and a leader in the spread of Greek culture, there is
no real accounts for Alexander’s personal life. Worthington even points out Alexander could have stretch the truth of his triumphs by essentially telling people to write stories about him. Not only could these stories be completely false, but this coming from someone who fully believed in his own divinity.
Although Alexander was a great general, much of his military campaigns were unnecessary because much of his territory he inherited. His drive to conquer as much land as possible was to be compared to Darius, Philip, and other great conquerors.
While Worthington seems to base more of his opinion on historical fact, he goes as far questioning it. Hammond seems to only what seems to be research with personal opinion. The conclusion is that there is truth in both arguments, while Alexander the Great did achieve so much his life may have not been as glamorous as it seems. Essentially saying he was as human as us; he lacked self-control in decisions as well as he was a raging alcoholic with a giant God-complex.
Both articles clearly represented their stance well, there needed to be more evidence. Evidence such as scholarly journals and artifacts to back claims, merely by only citing one book or article is most definitely not enough to accredit such claims as true. If Hammond had, had more substantial citations and less glorification of the man, more people would be ensured to believe him. The same goes for Worthington’s argument, without the blatant dislike of Alexander the Great and lack of sources to provide evidentiary support, people would be more inclined to agree with him. Although, personally, I would like to side with Hammond for the fact that Alexander was a truly great military leader and furthered literacy and education. Fully understanding the Alexander was human the man had problems. Although if these problems
were as horrible as extreme alcoholism, complete lack of self-control, inability to back down when his pride was challenged at the expense of his people, and the fact he may have falsely believed himself to be a divine being, the answer to if he was a great emperor – the answer is no. Militaristically, Alexander truly deserved the title of ‘the Great’ but when it comes to if he was a great emperor, no he was merely just another king who had too much land and too much power.