Alexander the Great: Visionary or Tyrant?

Alexander the Great was treated as a demigod for a long time (among the people of the West), and although understandably not so favoured among Middle Eastern and Persian civilizations that distaste has recently been transmitted to some extent to Western historical scholarship. To what extent do western historians still idolize him, and to what extent have they condemned him? More importantly, is he deserving of hero-worship? Or should his reputation be revised to that of a bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrant?

I choose the second option...

It is ok to eliminate a constant threat etc etc but his mission had practically finished in Persia. Ok, Bactria became a beautiful Kindom and many places flourished under that time, but that was a natural consequence unrelated to Alexanders plans. He had megalomania! I like his way to join cultures though.

I'm kind of ambivalent to Alexander's reign, though I chose the 2nd option above.  He really didn't take up rule long enough for his influence to grow beyond the initial conquest of Achaemenid Persia and the lands it ruled over.  He really seemed preoccupied with conquering additional lands (Arabia to the south, then Carthage and the western Mediterranean), so I'm uncertain if he would've been as effective a rule as a conqueror.  At any rate, he seemed confortable with assuming the role that the Great King of Persia once had over his subjects and would've earned hostility from some quarters (most notably the Athenians, Spartans and other Greeks who could've viewed this as trading in one king for another).

I went with the first option, though I'm rather biased in his favor, so something to keep in mind.  Now, that being said, I think his impact on the conquered was obviously mixed.  Of course it also depends greatly on which of the conquered peoples we are referring to:  egyptians, persians, those of anatolia and the levant etc. 

Were his conquests beneficial? To the conquered?

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator More importantly, is he deserving of hero-worship? Or should his reputation be revised to that of a bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrant? On what basis would you be applying these two terms to him - I would be assuming that you are intending to grant him one of these terms on the basis of our perceptions of him about 2200 years later. This is an interesting topic, but frankly that question is just screaming out for cultural bias - there is no way that we can apply those terms to Alexander in any meaningful sense unless we lived in that time. We shouldn't really say that his reputation "should" be either of these, and naturally there will be divisions amongst historical opinion, cultural bias or no. However, Alexander has turned into a metaphor more or less for absolute imperialism and power, and various civilizations and rulers have used him in the metaphorical sense rather than in the sense that he truly was. For example, we can't judge Alexander to be "bloodthirsty" etc just because he as a pseudo-mythological figure was favoured by vile emperors of Rome such as Elagabalus. I personally think that, from a historical basis rather than a moral one, Alexander destroyed one of the most bureaucratically advanced nations in the ancient world and destroyed one of the first well-administrated world empires. However, I as a rule of thumb just completely avoid morally judging figures from ancient history - unless historical sources can be displayed that judge Alexander as himself rather than the pseudo-mythological figure that he has invariably become, then it isn't really worth much. Also, from a moral perspective, Alexander will obviously in the western and eastern worlds be judged as a tyrant - the Persian empire is generally viewed as a benevolent empire to the Jews (at least in the context of the Babylonian captivity), and the "Cyrus cylinder" contains many moral maxims that people who followed a Judeo-Christian ethic will obviously find sympathetic. Also there is the problem of the "east-west" issue - the Koran states that Alexander is a devil of sorts, and naturally the modern-day Iranians patriotically generally wouldn't find much sympathy for the man that destroyed their largest and arguably most successful empire (actually wasn't the Umayyad caliphate larger?). The Greeks and Macedonians (no I'm not going into that debate here...) will naturally want to feel affinity with the man and dynasty that spread Hellenistic culture to most of the known world then. Many could argue that Alexander brought Hellenistic culture to distant parts of the ancient world and thus created an interesting cultural synthesis, but one could equally say exactly the same thing about the Persian empire and Mesopotamian culture, although granted, Alexander did penetrate further into previously unexplored areas.

Originally posted by Scaevola Why is it that you're biased in his favor, Justinian? What attracts you to admire him? (Not that I don't, just think it would be interesting to see why you like him)

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator It wasn't merely Aristotle - the Greek "barbarian" is merely a word which describes those who do not speak Greek (the "bar bar" sound apparently comes from the sound that those who didn't speak Greek were supposed to repeat - a xenophobic approach to another peoples linguistics) and do not live the life of the Polis - it does not necessarily imply any lack of development or civilization. Remember that the Greeks themselves respected Egypt and many of the "Hellenic-Hittite" states to an extent (by this I mean those such as Phygria, Lydia and Lycia, all of which shared a common Hattian ancestry and some cultural aspects)  as - despite the fact that they were "barbaric" - civilized.

Are you sure about that? The Hittites (who weren't Hellenic as you mentioned) were even allied with the Trojans against Greeks. To be honest I don't think they considered Anatolian civilizations to be civilized at all, especially knowing the way they dealt with Trojans.

Originally posted by Justinian Originally posted by Scaevola Why is it that you're biased in his favor, Justinian? What attracts you to admire him? (Not that I don't, just think it would be interesting to see why you like him) Basically, it started when I read my first book about him.� A funny anecdote; back before I had read any history books, I had originally thought Alexander had gone around conquering large portions of�eastern europe/russia.� That first book was a reasonably neutral one, but it blew me away.� The story of Alexander was a remarkable one, his military exploits were stunning, and the vision (conquered to be united as equals with conquerers, spreading of greek culture and mixing of it with others; hellenism resulting etc. etc.�peoples to be ruled by one enlightened monarch, powerful stuff) was what really intrigued me.� I just was amazed at the ideas of Alexander�(or has been attributed with...) because it was so far ahead of its time and his personality and actions as well.� I suppose its hard to explain really, but his life story is just so far beyond any others I've come across.� As I've read more books on the subject, it has only solidifed that initial opinion because the argument of the opposition (not referring to anyone hear, just to clarify) just doesn't hold up, to me, when compared to the "more favorable" outlook. � Hope that explains my feelings on the subject, if not just ask and I'll try and elaborate or clarify.

Like you, I also have a fairly positive view of Alexander - as if my handle and avatar didn't already give that away! I'm into all kinds of great figures of history ranging from Alexander to Einstein to composer Wagner to da Vinci to Jefferson to Nietzsche, and I have to say Alexander's story, to me, is the most fascinating and remarkable figure I've read and really studied about. As far as conquerors and rulers go, I've also delved into Caesar, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc. and as fascinating as all these figures are, none quite compare to Alexander.

I'm not a blind worshipper. I've read the anti-Alexandrian (or at least very critical of Alexander) school of writers like Ernst Badian, Brian Bosworth, Ian Worthington, Peter Green, etc. and I can understand why Alexander can be viewed in such a harsh light. I've also read the pro-Alexandrian school of historians like W.W. Tarn, Nicholas Hammond, Mary Renault, J.F.C. Fuller, Guy MacLean Rogers, etc. as well as the more balanced scholars like Paul Cartledge, Robin Lane Fox, Ulrich Wilcken, Frank L. Holt, etc. It's pretty amazing when you consider the sheer diversity of views there are on Alexander.

The following is a section of a foreword written by Paul Cartledge for a book called 'Alexander: Destiny and Myth' by Claude Mosse. I think it gives us an insight to why the range of views run the gamut:

-----------------------------------------

"Every student has an Alexander of her or his own. Just to canvass in outline the views of some of the leading scholars of the past century, we have had Ulrich Wilcken�s reasonable Alexander, the gentlemanly and visionary Alexander of W.W. Tarn, the titanic and Fuhrer-like Alexander of Fritz Schachermeyr, the Homerically heroic Alexander of Robin Lane Fox, and the amoral and ruthlessly pragmatic Alexander of Ernst Badian and Brian Bosworth.

There are three main reasons for this enormous diversity. The first is common to pretty much all historiography or biography: we � whether �we� are formally paid-up historians or not � make the past in our own image, and all history is, up to a point, contemporary history, in the sense that present concerns and our own self-image inevitably condition or at any rate colour our perception and representation of past figures.

Second, there is the specific character of the extant written evidence for Alexander: though ample in quantity, it is poor in historical quality, being mostly non-contemporary and partial in both senses (both incomplete and biased). So far as its dating goes, it is as if, one historian has written, we had to try to recover the history of Tudor England (sixteenth century) only from the essays of T.B. Macaulay (nineteenth century) and the histories of the philosopher David Hume (eighteenth century). So far as the bias is concerned, it is one of the paradoxes of history (and historiography) that this king, who took unusual trouble to secure the preservation of his own desired point of view, should have been handed down finally in history as an enigma.

Which in turn leads to the third reason for the diversity of modern estimates of Alexander: so stupendously mind-boggling were his achievements, however one glosses them morally or in any other way, that we historians inevitably interpret the great drama of his life and career in terms of our own � relatively puny � dreams and experience."

-----------------------------------------

I think that first of all Alexander was not Greek but Macedonian,and second,in the age of Alexander lands were conquered for the greatness of the kings,and not for ideas that serve humanity.