Defining A Legacy Blog

Emily Johnson
G Block
Does Alexander deserve to be called great? This question was looked at by Professor Ian Worthington in his paper, "How "Great" Was Alexander". I would like to expand upon Professor Worthington's point where he identifies Alexander as a king, a general, and a leader. In this paper I will be, as Professor Worthington has done, examining some of the aspects of Alexander; however, I will also be looking at another aspect of Alexander. That is, who he was as a person. I will be examining his morals and motives in his actions, as I personally believe this is also a contributing factor of the term "great"

First I will be examining Alexander as a general. There is no doubt that he was a powerful general. He was the commander of an empire that stretched across 3 continents, he kept a strong and purposeful army, with every member of his army moving over 10 to 15 miles every day(Sienkewicz, 154). This is made even more impressive by the fact that the soldier had over eighty pounds of equipment with him at any given time (Sienkewicz, 154). He was bold on the battlefield, once taking on an army with one hundred elephants and large numbers, which he outwitted by sending the infantry first and having his infantry scare the elephants. The elephants then panicked and began attacking their own army, which helped Alexander immensely (Sienkewicz, 155); however, was he great? For another viewpoint I first turn to "The Life of Greece" by Will Durant in which he says "... he forgot then his duties as a general, and plunged ahead into the thickest of the fight.."  all in referencing his absurd love for life threatening situations(Durant, 541). Not only did he charge into battles with disregard for the consequences, Durant also points out his alcoholic manners stating  "His increasing resort to drink as a means of quieting his nerves led him more and more frequently, in his last years, to outbreaks of blind ferocity, followed by brooding fits of violent remorse" (Durant, 541).  Although he had some instances of greatness, these cannot outweigh his selfish and at times idiotic battles, which he fought just for the sake of fighting; nor can his acts of insight outweigh his alcoholic tendencies which ,according to Professor Ian Worthington, had "resulted in him killing.... some of those close to him." Therefore I will accredit him as an intelligent and wise general, but would not, taking into account all his tendencies, grant him the title "great".

Next I will be examining Alexander as a leader.He pronounced himself Pharaoh of Egypt (Wood, 72), was king of Macedonia (Wood, 18) and all the land they occupied, and was a general in charge of many soldiers. There is no doubt he was a powerful leader, but was he a great leader? He united many nations and countries, all coming together under Macedonia (Durant, 542). Alexander was a strong leader, and the rumors and legends surrounding Alexander  prove to us that he was held in high esteem among those who lived not only when he lived, but also long after. Alexander was a Pharaoh of Egypt, a title not easy to achieve. In order to become Pharaoh, he only had one option: to prove he had a parent that was a god (Wood, 72). He must not have thought this strange, as there had been rumors that his father was actually a god from a young age (Wood, 24). Taking into account that he became King at twenty, and led Macedonia for twelve years until he died(Wood, 18), I find him to be a great leader, because he led an empire, was a leader for over one-third of his life, and influenced people greatly.

I now must look at Alexander as a King. Alexander became a King at twenty (Wood, 18) but was obviously more preoccupied with being a general, as he transferred his power over Macedonia to Antipater when he left on military business. This shows a lack of concern for the country he is supposed to be governing and watching over, and does not convince anyone that he is a great king.He had no significant heir to put in power after his death, and as such he allowed for his military commanders to quarrel and fight over his land after his death. This proves how little he cared about continuing and upholding his blood line to the throne, and shows even further how little he cared about his kingship, and as such I do not find him to be a "great" king.

Finally I will be examining Alexander by his morals and try to use his actions to find out whether or not he was a great person. Meriam Webster defines great in a sense of the word as "markedly superior in character or quality; especially :  noble<great of soul>", and I will try to find if Alexander can be found under this definition. Alexander was certainly not a particularly kind person, as when he gained power after his fathers death, one of the first things he did was to brutally murder Philip's second wife and child. (Wood, 24) This shows an unseemly side of Alexander, one that indicates he was violent and overly aggressive person. "In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great" by Michael Wood describes Alexander as "....he [Alexander] exhibited an sadistic malevolence towards those who crossed him." (Wood, 29). This quote is not without reason as Plutarch, a historian had said "he [Alexander] would.. become offensively arrogant" (Wood, 29) because of these instances and remarks about experiences with him I cannot be led to believe that he is a great person.

Although Alexander had some aspects that were certainly great- his leadership, his legend and the rumors surrounding him, and his impact on the world- he was not, overall, great. He was a successful general, but not a great one. He was a great leader, but not a great king or person. His influence was large, but I did not find him to be a "great" enough person, king, or general to deserve the title "The Great" after every reference of him.

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness? When looking at a society, one can gather much from their views of greatness. One can learn what they think of as important, what they put the majority of their effort into, and in some cases, the morals of that society.

I take as my example the United States of America in the present day. In the United States of America, most of the things revolve around social standing, power, or wealth; and although these things are true for many other countries as well, I take this country as my example because I have the most knowledge of the values of The United States. In this country, the majority of things that are important revolve around these three things. For example, the stock market- a vital part American news, concern, and worry- is about maintaining, gaining, or losing wealth. This shows that we value money, as those who attain money through the stock market are considered great businessmen. The President of the United States is considered great because he has power and social standing, showing that these are important to the United States. 

In the United States, much effort is spent on appearing of high social standing, of appearing powerful, of appearing wealthy. Money is spent on brand names like "Coach" purses, when they could get a much less expensive purse of the same quality. So then:Why would someone buy a Coach purse over another purse of equal quality for less money? Because something with a brand name is considered higher class and, supposedly, appears more wealthy. People spend money and effort to gain power; political advertisements are a good example of this. People spend money and effort to gain power in political advertisements. 

The morals of our society are also shown in what we see as great. That is, someone powerful, wealthy, and of high social standing would be considered great. This indicates that we are a very materialistic society. Our definition of great shows at least a few of our morals, and indicates what parts of life we emphasize.

I believe that our definition and views of greatness show many aspects of our society, including what we place extra effort and emphasis on in our society, what we find important, and what morals we value. I believe that all these things can be found in a society's definition of greatness because greatness implies that it is the highest point one can achieve, and this shows what we, in general, want to achieve.

Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception? I think that time and distance do alter someone's popular perception because they allow for things to become embellished or decreased in influence. Time and distance also allow for people to think more critically and logically, as often at the exact time of an event there are many emotions that can impact opinions. After an event has passed, people can often think more clearly because the emotional, spur of the moment opinions have stopped and this often leads to a changed perspective.

I see this often in powerful leaders. For example, Fidel Castro had power and popularity in Cuba,  but time and distance have allowed the public to think of him as a strict dictator. Another example would be Adolf Hitler, who was voted Times' "Man Of The Year" for 1938. Time and distance have allowed the public to see Hitler for who he really was: an awful tyrant, a maniac, and a murderous madman. These examples show clearly how time and distance can alter a persons perception.

Because I have seen many examples of time and distance altering someone's popular perception, I think that time and distance certainly alter a persons popular perception. Time and distance allow for things to be altered to people's misconceptions of them and can cause a large distance in what really happened and what people think happened. This change of ideas and events can lead people's popular perception of someone to change.







MLA CITATIONS
Wood, Michael. In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great: A Journey from Greece to Asia. Berkeley: U of California, 1997. Print.

Sienkewicz, Thomas J. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Pasadena, CA: Salem, 2002. Print.

Durant, Will. The Life of Greece: Being a History of Greek Civilization from the Beginnings, and of Civilization in the Near East from the Death of Alexander, to the Roman Conquest ; with an Introduction on the Prehistoric Culture of Crete. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1939. Print.

"Alexander's Legacy (Overview)." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., 1999. Web. 01 Oct. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>

Mercer, Charles E. Alexander the Great. New York: American Heritage Pub.; Book Trade Distribution by Meredith; Institutional Distribution by Harper & Row, 1963. Print.