Immoral Alexander- Lochlin

     Immoral Alexander by Lochlin Wessel

Alexander fighting in battle

  Over time, the debate has grown about whether Alexander deserves great attached to his name or not. Alexander conquered most of Southeast Asia and created new military tactics for Macedonia. He was even tutored by one of the smartest men during his time, Aristotle. While he did have many positives, his negatives are often overlooked. He was often drunk which led to him being irresponsible and his temper escalated. When observing closely it is apparent that he didn't follow through with many conquests, which shows he is missing many key qualities of a great leader. Public opinion has debated his greatness. In today's society, his actions would not seem all that amazing. When googling "great leaders" people like Martin Luther King come up. Does Alexander really deserve to be listed as a legend in current times?     
    
    Alexander was bred to be an intelligent leader because of his parents. Alexander's dad was King Philip and he constantly prepared Alexander for his future. In his father's letter to Aristotle, King Philip says,"For my hope is that, under your education and instruction, he will be worthy both of us, and of the succession to the government of this empire." While of course being taught by Aristotle gave him advantages, being raised to run a country did as well. Alexander tamed a horse that none of his father's friends could, when he was around 9 years old. Looking from his childhood it is clear that he would make an impact. His father prepared Alexander the best he could for when Alexander would inherit his empire. Alexander was prepared in some ways, but not others. When fighting against Persia he found a weak spot in their line of battle and sent his most talented soldiers through it. When he won that battle and had control over Anatolia, he tried to conquer more of the Persian Empire. This proves that things were never enough for him. He wanted to have control of a lot of things, which isn't a good quality. Because he was so focused on expanding his empire, when he conquered a city he would often leave it and move on to something else. It is often said that because Alexander was so well educated that he was a great leader. However, it is not fair to make this assumption because their is evidence that his morals were not respectable. 

   After Alexander conquered these places he would give them new names and most of the names were some form of Alexander. There are around 12 places he named after himself. When thinking deeper about this, it becomes apparent that Alexander wanted to give all of the credit to himself. He was obviously not the only one who conquered these places, he had an army full of men working together. This shows that Alexander's character was questionable. He was egotistical and obsessed with furthering his own career. A great leader is one that thinks about the whole group and not just their self. Alexander was also known for his excessive drinking habits which led to his character being compromised. At that time in Macedonia it was extremely common for people to go out and drink a lot. Most of the people out drinking weren't in charge of a major army. History Today said that Alexander in current times would be considered an alcoholic. Alexander's habit showed that he was irresponsible. If he was in charge of leading a battle the next day, he shouldn't be drunk on the battle field. This side of Alexander is often looked over by society because they are think about what he accomplished, not how he did it.  
    

Persepolis burning to the ground

  Supporters of Alexander the great often elaborate on how he let the places he conquered keep their culture. While this is true to a certain extent, Alexander and his army burned buildings that were very important to cities. When he conquered Persepolis, the Persian capital, he burned the city to the ground. His army took all of the precious treasures and prized possessions of the Persians. This doesn't help Alexander's case for being great. Diodorus Siculus' account of the burning was like this,"But the great royal palace, famed throughout the inhabited world, had been condemned to the indignity of total destruction. The Macedonians spent the whole day in pillage but could still not satisfy their inexhaustible greed." Diodorus also says that Alexander went and raided the citadel. Someone who is great leads by example and doesn't encourages others to steal. If more people in the public were aware of these actions by Alexander, they would think twice about calling him great. 
 
  The argument for Alexander being great or not has support on both sides. When looking deeper into the facts, his greatness becomes questionable. From seeing the awesome examples of leaders we have in the current world, the standard has been set higher, therefore making Alexander not seem so amazing. His morals, personality, and destruction make it clear that Alexander doesn't deserve his title of greatness. In the future when considering if someone is great, it is essential to go beyond the facts and see what they really mean. 

Works Cited

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras, ABC-CLIO,  2016, ancienthistory.abc-

clio.com/Search/Display/575648. Accessed 21 Sept. 2016.

 

"Philip II of Macedon: Letter to Aristotle on the Birth of Alexander (356 BCE)." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras, ABC- 
CLIO, 2016, ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1813280. Accessed 23 Sept. 2016

Great Empires of the Past Online. Infobase Publishing. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.

http://online.factsonfile.com/RecURL.aspx?did=63267
Plutarch. “The Parallel Lives.” Penelope University of Chicago, edited by Plutarch,  
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html. Accessed 23 Sept. 2016.
Mark, Joshua J., editor. “Alexander the Great and the Burning of Persepolis.” Ancient History Encyclopedia, www.ancient.eu/article/214/.