A Look at Both Sides of Alexander the Great
Most likely you, and everyone you know has heard the name Alexander the Great at least once. Gaining this level of fame, the level where almost everyone, 2,000 years later, still knows your name, does not come easily. The heroic and almost god-like king was given his famous title many years after he died because his people continued to think of him as such. But, just as everyone you love has their faults, so did Alexander. It is even said in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology that Alexander was the murderer of his best friend, Cletus[1].
So even though Alexander killed his best friend, he is commonly referred to as great. Why? After doing a lot of research to come up with an unbiased, factual answer, it turns out it is quite simple- the good outweighs the bad. It seems the human habit to base their opinion of a person on the small amount of information they know about that person has barely changed since Alexander’s rule. A modern-day example would be people only thinking of the Watergate Scandal when talking about Richard Nixon. Nixon did a lot to benefit global warming, desegregation, and health care, but are these things the things to come to the front of your mind when hearing Nixon’s name? Most likely not. It’s almost the same way with Alexander, except vise-versa.
As Neil MacGregor said in his podcast “A History of the World in 100 Objects: Head of Alexander”, when heard, the name Alexander the Great “Brings about an aura of nobility and stability to the modern day.”[2] Besides the fact that his title literally has “the Great” in it, it makes us think of his heroic and almost god-like demeanor because of his amazing accomplishments that changed life for the Greeks forever. From conquering nearly a million miles in land, to taming the un-tamable horse, Bucephalus, Alexander did many things that gained him his name. Despite these great accomplishments, there are still many articles, books, journals, etc. claiming that the king had a not so great side to him that kind of got pushed behind the curtain. One example is Ian Worthington’s article “How ‘Great’ Was Alexander?” that talks a lot about this “other side” of Alexander. Worthington tells how the king was known to get rid of people who questioned or stood threat to his power, and would do anything to make sure his empire was credited to him. In fact, this is said to be the reason for Cletus’ death. It is said Cletus was a longtime admirer of King Phillip III, and voiced his distaste of Alexander’s comparison to his father, which Alexander took as a question of his ruling ability, and killed his best friend in front of everyone at the party. In “How ‘Great’ Was Alexander”, Worthington also questions the king’s preference of warfare over the securing of the land he had already conquered, and questions how much credit Alexander should get for the large size of the Macedonian empire. Worthington argues that much more of the empires land was conquered by King Philip III than many thought, which asks the question, did Alexander earn his broad empire like many believe?[3]
The point here is not to question Alexander’s greatness but to ask how and why he is still called such. While being known to have killed his best friend, and being questioned on whether he was even the one who should be credited with gaining his massive empire, Alexander has kept his “the Great” title all this time. And the reason is simple- his good outweighed his bad by a long shot. Alexander started off his reign with a positive view, did many great things for his empire, then ended his reign with a positive view. The few “wrongs” he did during his lifetime, even ones as big as killing people close to him, simply fell between the cracks. When someone like Alexander accomplishes as many great things as he did, people tend to only focus on those outstanding accomplishments and push the “bad” things behind the curtain, so to speak. It’s the same way with “bad” leaders. The little good these leaders do during their reign usually never gets noticed because people have already branded that leader as “bad.”
Alexander was branded as a “great” leader almost from the very start and ended his reign with people praising him, therefore it didn’t take long for someone to refer to him as “the Great”. The name stuck, and all these years later the name Alexander the Great is a nostalgic one. In his podcast Neil MacGregor also makes a very good point when saying, “Dead rulers are still very present.”2 Alexander the Great is still a very present name in today’s time, and most likely always will be. After given a notorious name like “Alexander the Great”, no one nearly 2,306 years later is going to question it. Obviously, that is not including historians.
[1]Smith, William, and Various, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. By Various Writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by Numerous Engravings on Wood., 2005. http://name.umdl.umich.edu/acl3129.0001.001.
[2]MacGregor, Neil, and BBC Radio 4. Head of Alexander. A History of the World in 100 Objects, n.d. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/a-history-of-the-world-in-100-objects/id351096296?mt=2.
[3]Worthington, Ian. “How ‘Great’ Was Alexander? — (The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies — CAIS)©,” 1999. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Post-Achaemenid/alexander.htm.
[2]MacGregor, Neil, and BBC Radio 4. Head of Alexander. A History of the World in 100 Objects, n.d. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/a-history-of-the-world-in-100-objects/id351096296?mt=2.
