Is Alexander III Worthy of Being Called "the Great"?

[Sharukinu]

When evaluating a historical figure we should take into consideration not only one aspect of that figure's rule, but also his/her performance overall throughout the entire duration of his/her reign. The same reasoning should apply to Alexander III of Macedon, commonly known as "Alexander the Great". But unfortunately Alexander seems to be exempt from this line of reasoning. The vast majority of people, professional historians and amateurs alike, have been bestowing the epithet of "the Great" upon Alexander III simply because of his military skills and the fact that he conquered the largest and most powerful and sophisticated empire the world had known. The Alexandrian cult of personality has dominated history since the days following the death of Alexander himself, and a lot of people in the West for example find in the figure of Alexander III an ideal hero of Western civilisation who set out to successfully conquer the "oriental" Persians and spread the glory of Western civilisation to the "barbaric East", which is a skewed Eurocentric perspective to say the least. That he swiftly conquered the Persian Empire without losing a single battle and ushered in a new era has led people to unduly glorify the figure of Alexander beyond its actual prominence and merit.

If Alexander had only been a military commander and not a king, I would not have disputed his epithet. But on the contrary, Alexander III was not just a general, but also a king, and kings are judged based on their conduct not only in the battlefield, but also on the throne as rulers of men and women, leaders of nations, upholders of justice, promoters of prosperity, and citizens of civilisations. On the battlefield, Alexander was indeed great (disputed by some), but outside the realm of warfare he was an abysmal failure. He had severe alcohol problems, murdered friends, was extremely arrogant, did not respect his men and their limits, marched through the Gedrosian Desert in order to punish his soldiers; engaged in mass murder of innocent men, women, and children, razed cities to the ground, and died without naming an heir, leading to the immediate disintegration of an empire that had kept order, stability, and prosperity throughout most of the known world for 230 years. His legacy was the dawn of the Hellenstic Age that brought about the death/decline of many native cultures, which is not something to celebrate unless you are a chest-thumping Philhellene. With that having been said, it appears that judging Alexander as a "complete package" as opposed to only a general leads me to the conclusion that Alexander III is not worthy of being called "the Great". Overall, Alexander seems to be on par with history's most despicable figures, the likes of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun; great conquerors, but worthless rulers.


On a related topic, what epithet do you think we should attach to Alexander III other than "the Great"? Well I have a few in mind:

- The Conqueror
- The Terrible
- The Winesack
- The Drunk
- The Hammered
- The Tanked
- The Murderer
- The Paranoid
- The Narcissist
- The Pseudo-God
- The Spoilt
- The Egotist
- The Overrated
- The Mediocre
- The Lucky
- The Undefeated

[Spajjder]

Hey.

I'm not entirely sure when he got his epithet, but he probably got it because of his renown, the major impact he had on the world, and that he did what was seen as close to impossible (conquer the known world, kind of)

I'm not sure what he is called by persian scholars, but the name was probably given to him by a western one, who, as you said, thought it was an achievement that he spread western (or greek) culture to the east. I agree that it is likely that the same person didn't regard persians as favourably as he viewed the greeks.

I think many kings, or emperors named the great like Alexander, weren't exactly saints. And yes, in a way, it could be problematic that we give essential mass murderers such names, in case it invokes such feelings you are worried it might.

I think the reason historians chose to keep the name is because, that is his name - we don't change it, it's against customs- , and also because they think what he did was great (close to impossible) and because he had such a big impact on the world, not because they think it's great that he killed innocents and the like.

[Cyclops]

Well we're still hotly debating him 2338 years after he died so its fair to say he's a very big figure in the history of the world. "The great" literally means 'the Big" and he's a figure of enormous importance.

There's other discussions about the epithet "the Great" to be had. Frederick the Great? More like Frederick the Opportunist Backstabber. Napoleon the Great? Why not? Alfred the Great lolwut? Not great at cooking cakes.

[The Despondent Mind]

I think any man that can change the course of History on that scale is "Great" to me, I'm guessing it all depends on personal preference and context. I might even call some figure "Great" because they were a Paragon of good morals or because they were really fat.

[saxdude]

He didn't really change it though, he exploited a dying empire through an army his father built. It's debatable the impact the Diadochi really had in the grand scheme of things, since they were all eventually defeated by the Romans, and would eventually just give way to new middle eastern powers like the Sassanids, and the Muslim Caliphates.

He was a good general though, and a conqueror, obviously. But I don't think he deserves to be called The Great in the grand scheme of things, but more on a local, contextually apropriate level. After all, it wasn't us who called him The Great nor himself and his men, but Pompey, so really he was Great by roman standards. By modern standards he is but a product of his time, allowed to do what he did by the context of his time period; Everything he did could have gone different by mere chance, as with most men we have deemed so significant.

[Påsan]

I detect a little bias in the Op.

Basically he is one of the most influential historical characters in western history and pretty much changed the world he lived in for all future. Also as a king his responsibility is to protect and care for his people, and defeating their greatest threat and especially enabling Greek culture to become dominant in the Levant and Egypt for well over a thousand years achieved that pretty well. Think about it, the Greeks favored greatly from the dominant position his conquests put them in right up to the Islamic conquests.

[saxdude]

Well isn't that a massive over stretch, the influence of the Diadochi over the middle east is negligable compared to that of the Romans (arguable the Romans did more for the greeks in the East than the Diadochi) and was subverted by the Sassanids, I doubt Alexander had much, if any, influence over the Celts and anybody west of Greece... Except perhaps inspiring Julius Ceaser and Pompey?
As for protecting and caring? Whom exactly? The greeks certainly weren't better off for it, considering the years of constant infighting cause by the succesor states, though I suppose that granting the Hellens some level of superiority over the conquered subjects is a form of care.

A lot of historians tend to place waaay to much emphasis on single individuals and events, without acknowledging the actual deciding factors that allowed individuals like Alexander to succeed or fail.
In and of himself, Alexander didn't do much to earn the title of Great, he won battles and founded lots of cities with his name on them. His father gave him an experienced army and the infrastructure to support such a campaign, years of infighting caused by an unstable and largely hegemonic empire gave him a less then capable adversary, and an untold number of social, economic and ecological factors in the mediterrenean allowed the scenerio to play out as it did.

[Abdülmecid I]

On the military aspect, yes, he was great, as he managed to win all the battles he participated in, against a variety of opponents, from Illyrians (mountainous warfare) to Scythians and Thracians, while Zopyrus and the Lycian guy, whose name I can't remember, were decisively defeated in Danube and Oxus respectively. On the other hand, he was starting to become mentally unstable, crossing the Gedrosian desert, just to look cooler than Cyrus and Semiramis isn't particularly clever. I wouldn't be surprised if his planned campaign against Carthage ended in disaster, somewhere in the deserts of Tripolitania. So, military-wise, I'd call him Alexander the Great At First But A Bit Delusional In the End. Regarding his administrative skills, I put him somewhere in the middle: He neither protected the Greeks much, when he sacked Thebes, nor the Persians, when he executed every satrap available.

[Himster]

It was not just his own actions that contributed to his title of the great, but also the actions he inspired in others: Hannibal, Pompey, Caesar, Napoleon, Pyhrrus, Scipio among others, then you have all of the people inspired by the people who were inspired Alexander and then all of the people inspired by them and so on and on and on.
In this sense, nobody in history has matched Alexander's greatness, not even close.

[KEA]

Ah, the next "Alexander-doesn't-deserve-the-title-Great-because-he-destroyed-the-most-enlighted-empire-in-history"-thread.

Well, let's see what we have got here.

Now, first thing to keep in mind is that the Achaemenid Empire not was the natural order of things east of the Aegean, but a conquest robbed, stolen, plundered and massacred together by Cyrus the Great and his kinsmen. As a highlight we have the torching of Athens when Xerxes tried to get his boot onto the mainland Greek neck as well. That's the reality of the historical background in the 4th Century. So what exactly changed with Alexander? The Persian masters of Asia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and where else they had been expanding where they originally didn't belong to, were replaced by Greek masters. The Greeks didn't belong there either, but so didn't the Romans, Arabs and Turks that followed them. Judging by the relative importance and development of the Near East compared to the neighboring regions, the Hellenistic Period certainly were no 'Dark Ages' of sorts.

So, what did Alexander actually do? He did not trample down dozends of local cultures in order to forge himself a new empire where there had been none. That job had been done by the Persians before him. He took over said empire and made it his own. That's no West vs. East thing but Alexander the Great vs. Darius the Failed.

While Alexander's military achievements were by no doubt 'great' (and in fact he got that epithet because of his conquests and not because he was so famous with the lyre), there seems to be some question of his qualification as a ruler. Why? He only ruled peacefully for a short period and there seems to be nothing that indicates he would have been a bad or tyrannical ruler. Alexander in particular was concerned about the successful incooperation of Asians, notably Persians, into his rule, even if that meant to anger his Hellenic retinues - just to name one feature of Alexandrian rule.

[+Marius+]

I find it hilarious how, after a century of Eurocentrism, we now have, instead of learning from such mistakes and having an objective narrative to history, a complete opposite and equally bigoted agenda of bashing everything that is even remotely "western" or, God forbid, "European"

have been bestowing the epithet of "the Great" upon Alexander III simply because of his military skills and the fact that he conquered the largest and most powerful and sophisticated empire the world had known.

Simply because

Yea...simply because

Not like he was declared GodKing of the civilized world at the age of 26...


The man is responsible for the complete and utter dominance of Hellenistic culture in the entirety of the Middle east and a large part of northwestern India that lasted for centuries(even the ever popular Sassanids had significant Hellenistic influences well into the early middle ages that the Zoroastrian culture itself often fought against).

Every aspect of human life from the Balkans to the Indus valley was influenced or changed because of him.


He is literally dead last on the list of people whose epithet "Great" should be questioned.

[Linke]

Alxander was a great military commander, it is true though that he could not have been great without his father. He won all
his battles, and most importantly gained control of the entire Persian empire. Now the Persian empire was temporaily weakened. The new king, calling himself Darius III was not directly related to the previous few kings (of course both were part of the Achaemenid house, but that was a rather large family) and didn't enjoy full support of the Persian nobility who had power as satraps. With more time to establish his rule however, he would have had an easier time organizing the defence against Alexander, especially after having been beat at Issus. Alexander was able to get a safe haven for his army in Egypt, wich recently had been reconnected with the Persian empire after 70 years if independence. The Egyptians thus hated the Persian rule and preffered Alexanders. In order for the about 1 million Persians to control almost half of mankind they had to options, do as the Spartans and become a militarizes society to rule far more subjects, or grant the subjects much liberty in religion, law and be tolerant to them, so that they may enjoy peaceful Persian rule as much as the Persians themselves.
This is what the Persians did, resulting in a powerful empire, but one where the Persians didn't control the countryside of most of the empire. Thus Alexander could simply take control of the Persian satrapal capitals instead of having to drive them from the countryside. Alexander took over much of the Persian infrastructure and the satrapal system. He keept Persian satraps or simply replaced them with Greeks, he first presented himself as marching againt the "unrightful" ruler, Darius III
(remember many Persian nobles at the time of the invasion were still hostile to the king, and some went over to Alexander).
And later when Darius was murdered by Bessos he presented him as the avenger of the just late king. He even married into
the Achaemenid dynasty and were as said in many ways, especially for the countryside. Another, or the last of the Achaemenids.

back to the question, was he "great"?
Alexander with the help of his fathers army, the temporary political instability in Persia and by using the Persian infrastructure assumed control of the Achaemenid Empire. Even though he was helped by these he was the one who did the great deed of conquering the empire, winning all the battles. He was far from an ideal ruler, and his conquest of Persia was made possibly by many factors other than his military and political skill but they were also essential in the expedition succeding.
What makes him great is in my opinion not himself or what laws he wrote down, but the gigantic impact on world history he had. Finaly, we don't have two options, Alexander the great and Alexander the terrible. Even though he was far from an ideal ruler, rather a very competent commander he was in no way terrible to his subjects (more than any other ruler that is).
He pushed his army far but he did agree to take them home. He preserved the Achaemenid culture and enrichened it (or tried), not destroyed it. In my opinion he was no more great than Pompey or Alfred the great but not as great as Cyrus.

[Hmmm]

When evaluating a historical figure we should take into consideration not only one aspect of that figure's rule, but also his/her performance overall throughout the entire duration of his/her reign.

Not really - all it takes is a particular skill and achievement of great importance and given the context he lived in, accomplishment in war was easily the most important kind. Ergo the entire premise of your argument is wrong.

The same reasoning should apply to Alexander III of Macedon, commonly known as "Alexander the Great". But unfortunately Alexander seems to be exempt from this line of reasoning.

This line of reasoning is not applied to anybody else either, so I wouldn't call it an exception as much as the general rule. Theodoric the Great and Xerxes the Great (yes, the guy who lost in Greece) didn't accomplish nearly as much - apparently that doesn't concern you.

The vast majority of people, professional historians and amateurs alike, have been bestowing the epithet of "the Great" upon Alexander III simply because of his military skills and the fact that he conquered the largest and most powerful and sophisticated empire the world had known. The Alexandrian cult of personality has dominated history since the days following the death of Alexander himself, and a lot of people in the West for example find in the figure of Alexander III an ideal hero of Western civilisation who set out to successfully conquer the "oriental" Persians and spread the glory of Western civilisation to the "barbaric East", which is a skewed Eurocentric perspective to say the least. That he swiftly conquered the Persian Empire without losing a single battle and ushered in a new era has led people to unduly glorify the figure of Alexander beyond its actual prominence and merit.

Why is it beyond its actual prominence and merit? Alexander ranks as one of the most successful military commanders ever, on any continent. His charismatic personality, undefeated record and massive conquest while starting out in an underdog situation entirely justify the title "Great" - there is a reason following great military leaders would continue to look to him as the level to aspire to. His legacy justifies itself.

If Alexander had only been a military commander and not a king, I would not have disputed his epithet. But on the contrary, Alexander III was not just a general, but also a king, and kings are judged based on their conduct not only in the battlefield, but also on the throne as rulers of men and women, leaders of nations, upholders of justice, promoters of prosperity, and citizens of civilisations. On the battlefield, Alexander was indeed great (disputed by some), but outside the realm of warfare he was an abysmal failure. He had severe alcohol problems, murdered friends, was extremely arrogant, did not respect his men and their limits, marched through the Gedrosian Desert in order to punish his soldiers; engaged in mass murder of innocent men, women, and children, razed cities to the ground, and died without naming an heir, leading to the immediate disintegration of an empire that had kept order, stability, and prosperity throughout most of the known world for 230 years.

Completely unfair assessment - his "severe alcohol problems" are conjecture at best and certainly did not seem to affect his ability to rule. Murder and intrigue is to be expected in an empire of the time and it would be stupid of him to fail to partake in it (and I'm referring to the murder of Parmenion and execution of Philotas), whether he was arrogant or not is irrelevant to his accomplishments, he certainly respected his men which is why he turned around at Hyphasis and futhermore led by example - I don't recall many instances where he asked more of them than he himself was prepared to do. The Gedrosian desert march wasn't intended as any kind of punishment (most likely he planned to have Nearchus supply his army with the fleet except they were driven off by a storm - there is a reason he also sent a good portion of his army north where they had come from) and the mass murder wasn't unique to him given the period he lived in. Additionally, you are literally blaming him for dying of a disease, as if that was within his realm of control. Ludicrous. I suggest you read Hammonds "The Genius of Alexander the Great" before spouting ignorance on the forums.

His legacy was the dawn of the Hellenstic Age that brought about the death/decline of many native cultures, which is not something to celebrate unless you are a chest-thumping Philhellene. With that having been said, it appears that judging Alexander as a "complete package" as opposed to only a general leads me to the conclusion that Alexander III is not worthy of being called "the Great". Overall, Alexander seems to be on par with history's most despicable figures, the likes of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun; great conquerors, but worthless rulers.

Why is the preservation of native cultures something to define his greatness by? Alexander intended a mixture of Greek culture with the native ones, by the way. This is why he schooled Persians in Greek and had his Greek troops marry Persian women. That is what in his view would have led to a stable, cohesive empire. He died before his plans could be completed, I would not put blame on him for that - his plans were sound. The fact is he butted heads with his Greek generals and troops several times over his acceptance of the native cultures. All we know about Alexander point to him actually being a good statesman - his founding of cities all over the empire (something he learned from his father) to consolidate rule, populating them with veterans and Greeks which he knew to be loyal, was nothing short of brilliant (including the fact that he founded a city which came to be one of the most successful in the ancient world). His use of the lion skin in the early stages of his campaign to muster support, his readiness to adopt Persian custom for the same reason, his usage of adoptions and intermarriages (he allowed himself to be adopted by a local queen, for instance) which at best only had one fault (his marriage to Roxanne, and even that is debatable), his play on godhood in Egypt (a country populated by people who by tradition had been ruled byyyyy - surprise: godkings!), his undertaking to improve the irrigation system of Mesopotamia, his plans to include Arabia in order to control the trade routes between India and Egypt all speak to a mind which fully comprehended how to rule an empire, much better than the individuals today who criticize him in spite of the fact that they seem to know next to nothing about him. His one actual slip-up was the murder of Cleitus, and that hardly weighs more than the sum of his accomplishments. Heck he left such an impression on his commanders that it took them 15 years after his death, which came suddenly and meant he only had a very short time to consolidate his (and by extension his heirs) position before they named themselves kings.

On a related topic, what epithet do you think we should attach to Alexander III other than "the Great"? Well I have a few in mind:

- The Conqueror
- The Terrible
- The Winesack
- The Drunk
- The Hammered
- The Tanked
- The Murderer
- The Paranoid
- The Narcissist
- The Pseudo-God
- The Spoilt
- The Egotist
- The Overrated
- The Mediocre
- The Lucky
- The Undefeated

The Great.

[Sharukinu]

It was not just his own actions that contributed to his title of the great, but also the actions he inspired in others: Hannibal, Pompey, Caesar, Napoleon, Pyhrrus, Scipio among others, then you have all of the people inspired by the people who were inspired Alexander and then all of the people inspired by them and so on and on and on.
In this sense, nobody in history has matched Alexander's greatness, not even close.

Being worshipped by a bunch of prejudiced Graeco-Roman wannabes does not grant Alexander the epithet of "Great". The world does not revolve around the West, and neither does history. And since Alexander's history is intertwined with that of other civilisations, he should not be assessed only within a European context in which some may find him great out of cultural bias. In the grand scheme of history, Alexander was an insignificant fluke, and the magnified image we have of him is a product of his propaganda and Eurocentric historiography.

Now, first thing to keep in mind is that the Achaemenid Empire not was the natural order of things east of the Aegean, but a conquest robbed, stolen, plundered and massacred together by Cyrus the Great and his kinsmen.

False. Cyrus the Great did not "rob, steal, plunder, and massacre" his way throughout the Near East. There was transfer of foreign royal treasures to Persia, but it was a controlled affair, not mindless looting, and Sardis is the only reported case of controlled looting during the reign of Cyrus, and it was justified, since Croesus was the one who declared war on the Persians without being provoked.

I'm going to reject your statement unless you provide me with a source proving that Cyrus "robbed, stole, plundered and massacred".

As a highlight we have the torching of Athens when Xerxes tried to get his boot onto the mainland Greek neck as well. That's the reality of the historical background in the 4th Century.

He wanted to finish his father's work, that is to punish the Greeks for torching Sardis and destabilising areas under Persian rule. The Persian Wars were punitive campaigns launched by men who wanted to take revenge, and since mainland Greece was a backwater that could not offer the Persians additional value to their domains, this becomes more evident. The mainland Greeks had lit the match.

So what exactly changed with Alexander? The Persian masters of Asia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and where else they had been expanding where they originally didn't belong to, were replaced by Greek masters. The Greeks didn't belong there either, but so didn't the Romans, Arabs and Turks that followed them.

Alexander disrupted a world held together by one authority that monopolised and therefore minimised warfare in the Near East, facilitated trade, maintained cultural diversity, and protected the entire region from external threats that had scourged the sedentary peoples of the region. Aside from revolts launched by ambitious and opportunistic men, the Persian Empire was stable, safe, prosperous, and harmonious. After the death of Alexander and disintegration of the former Persian Empire, the Near East descended into a long period of chaos and bloodshed. The place was no longer under one authority, but divided amongst many competing powers that disrupted order and stability.

Also, what made the Persians unique was their imperial ideology and the almost perfect order they established in their empire. It was an order based on diversity and harmony maintained by the Persian Emperor who considered himself an essential instrument in the cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. The Persian Gardens were a manifestation of this world view: a Persian Garden contained all manners of flowery brought from all corners of the Persian Empire which was a symbol of the Empire's diversity and harmony, and it was no coincidence that the Persian Gardens were called paradises, since according to the Persian imperial ideology diversity and harmony was the perfect order of things.

The Greeks and those who came after them to rule the Near East had a completely different world view, and it was "my way or the highway".

Judging by the relative importance and development of the Near East compared to the neighboring regions, the Hellenistic Period certainly were no 'Dark Ages' of sorts.

Near East had already been the most developed region in the world before the advent of the Hellenstic Age. In cultural terms it was a "Dark Age", because it brought about the death and decline of many native cultures that had thrived before and during the Achaemenid era. The place became culturally monotonous, but some cultures did manage to survive the Hellenestic onslaught.

So, what did Alexander actually do? He did not trample down dozends of local cultures in order to forge himself a new empire where there had been none. That job had been done by the Persians before him.

Incorrect. Cyrus did not trample local cultures, and anyone familiar with the history of Cyrus the Great knows that. These cultures did not decline under Persian rule, and we have evidence for that, such as the preserving of local cults in Mesopotamia and Egypt and the participation of Zoroastrian priests in those temples. The Greeks were the ones who brought death and decline to these native cultures. They call it the Hellenistic Age for a reason.

He took over said empire and made it his own. That's no West vs. East thing but Alexander the Great vs. Darius the Failed.

It might not have been an "East vs. West" thing, but some people have been making it so for as far back as the Roman era.

there seems to be some question of his qualification as a ruler. Why? He only ruled peacefully for a short period and there seems to be nothing that indicates he would have been a bad or tyrannical ruler.

No offence, but either your perceptions of "bad" and "tyrannical" are different from mine or you have not removed yourself from bias. Or perhaps you are just unfamiliar with the history of Alexander III.

Alexander in particular was concerned about the successful incooperation of Asians, notably Persians, into his rule, even if that meant to anger his Hellenic retinues - just to name one feature of Alexandrian rule.

Just an propagandistic excuse to sit on a Persian throne, steal Persian women; he must have been insincere and was appeasing the Persians, otherwise we would have heard of instances of marriages between Persian men and Greek/Macedonian women.

Also, was the persecution of Zoroastrian priests also a "feature" of Alexandrian rule? I guess it was.

I find it hilarious how, after a century of Eurocentrism, we now have, instead of learning from such mistakes and having an objective narrative to history, a complete opposite and equally bigoted agenda of bashing everything that is even remotely "western" or, God forbid, "European"

That's just your modern Western persecution complex kicking in, accusing anyone of bigotry whenever they criticise/question/scrutinise anything even remotely Western or European. If not worshipping the ground on which Western/European people tread makes me a bigot, then I'm a proud bigot.

Simply because

Yea...simply because

Not like he was declared GodKing of the civilized world at the age of 26...

An upstart who declared himself a god-king and slaughtered and murdered his way through the civilised world does not automatically make him "Great", more like an delusional, psychopathic mass murderer.

As for the "age of 26", well he did inherent a war machine perfectly oiled by his father, didn't he? He had everything perfectly prepared for his conquest: 1) a great war machine 2) a Persian Empire in decline and 3) an incompetent Persian monarch.

He was simply Alexander the Lucky.

The man is responsible for the complete and utter dominance of Hellenistic culture in the entirety of the Middle east and a large part of northwestern India that lasted for centuries(even the ever popular Sassanids had significant Hellenistic influences well into the early middle ages that the Zoroastrian culture itself often fought against).

Such as? I can't think of any Hellenstic influence on the Sassanids other than some of their kings claiming of divine descent, their patronage of translating Greek philosophical and scientific writings in addition to other writings from various cultures, their coin design, and some of their trilingual inscriptions that contained Greek. The claim that there was a "significant" Hellenistic influence on the Sassanids is itself a significant exaggeration.

Every aspect of human life from the Balkans to the Indus valley was influenced or changed because of him.

Do not aggrandise. The degree of Hellenisation throughout these regions differed and is still debated. Some regions maintained their local cultures but remained under the rule of Hellenistic elites. Saying that "every aspect of human life" was influenced or changed by Alexander is ridiculous.

[Hmmm]

Being worshipped by a bunch of prejudiced Graeco-Roman wannabes does not grant Alexander the epithet of "Great". The world does not revolve around the West, and neither does history. And since Alexander's history is intertwined with that of other civilisations, he should not be assessed only within a European context in which some may find him great out of cultural bias. In the grand scheme of history, Alexander was an insignificant fluke, and the magnified image we have of him is a product of his propaganda and Eurocentric historiography.

How is Cyrus the Great relevant to anyone outside of the Middle East? That's right, he really wasn't. Isn't it a "Middle Eastern cultural bias" to find him great since it's only done from a Middle Eastern context? From a Greek perspective, which is the one we should look at Alexander through, he was absolutely and unquestionably great. Charles XII of Sweden accomplished less than him and affected the world less - he's still known as the Great because one looks at him from the perspective of his culture.

In the grand scheme of things Alexander ushered the period of Hellenistic dominance in the Middle East, a dominance which would remain in large parts of it through Roman times all the way until the Arab conquests - it is the reason that the Eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek and why the New Testament was first written in Greek. Characterizing him as an "insignificant fluke" is ridiculous and reeks of bias on your part.

He wanted to finish his father's work, that is to punish the Greeks for torching Sardis and destabilising areas under Persian rule. The Persian Wars were punitive campaigns launched by men who wanted to take revenge, and since mainland Greece was a backwater that could not offer the Persians additional value to their domains, this becomes more evident. The mainland Greeks had lit the match.

He wanted to finish his fathers work, sounds familiar... Oh, right, that's what Alexander was doing. The war he launched was done with the expressed goal of taking revenge for the Persian invasion of Greece. But I guess those arguments are only acceptable to you when they go one way. Furthermore - "the mainland Greeks"? Not all mainland Greek city-states had aided the revolt in Ionia, in fact only Eretria and Athens did so, and Eretria was burned to the ground by Darius - yet it doesn't seem unjust to you for Xerxes to plan to take his revenge on all of mainland Greece?

Alexander disrupted a world held together by one authority that monopolised and therefore minimised warfare in the Near East, facilitated trade, maintained cultural diversity, and protected the entire region from external threats that had scourged the sedentary peoples of the region.

How did Persia come to control such a large part of the world? Oh, right, by conquest. Now all of a sudden you fault him for beating the Persians and taking over their empire. Seems to be perfectly fair, they gained their empire by the sword and lost it the same way. Hell, let's look at your own signature:

If now thou shalt think, "How many were the lands that King Darius held?" Behold the images of those who bear the throne. Then shalt thou know, then shall it be made known to thee: the spear of the Persian man has advanced far. Then shall it be made known to thee: the Persian man has delivered battle far indeed from Persia.

~ Darius the Great ~

A quote by a Persian Emperor, called "the Great", specifically praising Persian belligerence, and yet you find it fitting to reprimand the Greeks for doing the same? Tell me, how did Persian rule end up in Macedonia and Naxos? Why did Darius undertake an invasion of India?

Aside from revolts launched by ambitious and opportunistic men, the Persian Empire was stable, safe, prosperous, and harmonious. After the death of Alexander and disintegration of the former Persian Empire, the Near East descended into a long period of chaos and bloodshed. The place was no longer under one authority, but divided amongst many competing powers that disrupted order and stability.

It did so because he died young, that's no fault of his.

Also, what made the Persians unique was their imperial ideology and the almost perfect order they established in their empire. It was an order based on diversity and harmony maintained by the Persian Emperor who considered himself an essential instrument in the cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. The Persian Gardens were a manifestation of this world view: a Persian Garden contained all manners of flowery brought from all corners of the Persian Empire which was a symbol of the Empire's diversity and harmony, and it was no coincidence that the Persian Gardens were called paradises, since according to the Persian imperial ideology diversity and harmony was the perfect order of things.

The Greeks and those who came after them to rule the Near East had a completely different world view, and it was "my way or the highway".

The "my way or the highway" seems to have been the attitude of the likes of Xerxes or Cambyses with the Greeks and Egyptians, respectively - emperors of that "diverse and harmonious empire" you are talking about. Are you sure you're being entirely unbiased in your portrayal of the Persians as the super-enlightened empire of all that is good and holy and the Greeks as the evilest most dastardly devils this world has ever known?

The Egyptians seem to have welcomed Alexander - perhaps all was not so well and good with the "diverse and harmonious Empire of Holiness"?

Just an propagandistic excuse to sit on a Persian throne, steal Persian women; he must have been insincere and was appeasing the Persians, otherwise we would have heard of instances of marriages between Persian men and Greek/Macedonian women.

"Stealing Persian women" - now you sound like some kind of bigot. You wouldn't hear of instances of marriages between Greek women and Persian men simply because it was mostly men who were part of Alexanders army - he encouraged people who he could trust and who he could use to administer the realm. The purpose of marrying his soldiers to Persian women was to create a class of Greco-Iranians brought up by his veterans and settled in the Empire.

As for the "age of 26", well he did inherent a war machine perfectly oiled by his father, didn't he? He had everything perfectly prepared for his conquest: 1) a great war machine 2) a Persian Empire in decline and 3) an incompetent Persian monarch.

And let's not forget, arguably the greatest talent for kicking Persian ass in the history of ever.

He was simply Alexander the Lucky.

You are coming off as having a personal spat here. That's never a good sign.

[+Marius+]

That's just your modern Western persecution complex kicking in

First of all, I am not exactly western, second, you just outed your own subjectivity, simplicity and the actual(personal) purpose of creating this thread...with that single sentence.

accusing anyone of bigotry whenever they criticise/question/scrutinise anything even remotely Western or European.

I did not accuse you of anything.
I simply find it hilarious that, ever since people like you found out about the existence of historical forums, there has been several times more threads about bashing Alexander than Genghis Khan or Timurid.

If not worshipping the ground on which Western/European people tread makes me a bigot, then I'm a proud bigot.

Go crawl back to tumblr, you will not find much of your kind here.

Nobody calls Einstein or Mother Teresa "the Great" because the term has nothing to do with kindness or the ethic/morality of the person but rather, nearly solely, his/her impact on the world(which absolutely, in every single instance, includes mass murder or other forms of inhuman brutality) thus "The Great" should not, and will not be removed from Alexanders name regardless of how infuriating you find the image of a pretty blond boy blue eyes roflstomping everything in his path.

[athanaric]

I did not accuse you of anything.
I simply find it hilarious that, ever since people like you found out about the existence of historical forums, there has been several times more threads about bashing Alexander than Genghis Khan or Timurid.

Good point - both Genghis and Timur are probably responsible for the deaths of far more Iranians than Alexander is.

Nobody calls Einstein or Mother Teresa "the Great" because the term has nothing to do with kindness or the ethic/morality of the person but rather, nearly solely, his/her impact on the world(which absolutely, in every single instance, includes mass murder or other forms of inhuman brutality) thus "The Great" should not, and will not be removed from Alexanders name regardless of how infuriating you find the image of a pretty blond boy blue eyes roflstomping everything in his path.

Well, if we were to follow Christopher Hitchens's line of argument, we'd actually have to award Mother Theresa an epithet like "the Terrible" or "the Vile".

Generally speaking, some achievements (military, sports, showbiz) are far more popular than others (science, engineering, etc.) in most human societies. I think that goes a long way to explain phenomena like calling great military figures "the Great", but others not so much.

[hellheaven1987]

Greater than Frederick, that is certain.

[KEA]

Greater than Frederick, that is certain.

Winning against 4th Century BC Persia counts for more than winning against 18th Century Russia, Austria and France together? Oh, that's hard.

False. Cyrus the Great did not "rob, steal, plunder, and massacre" his way throughout the Near East. There was transfer of foreign royal treasures to Persia, but it was a controlled affair, not mindless looting, and Sardis is the only reported case of controlled looting during the reign of Cyrus, and it was justified, since Croesus was the one who declared war on the Persians without being provoked.

Ah I see. So the creation of the Persian Empire was a controlled process of transferring foreign property to the Persian crown, independent states to Persian Satrapies and opposing people to hell? OK, in this case I stand corrected and what Alexander did was of course something complete different!

The mainland Greeks had lit the match.

Yes, I am pretty confident that the so called Ionian Revolt is a fabrication by Eurocentric historians in order to somehow create the lie that the Persian expansion into Asia Minor, ah sorry, the controlled transferation of Greek property to the Persian crown somehow had triggered the Greco-Persian conflict.

Aside from revolts launched by ambitious and opportunistic men, the Persian Empire was stable, safe, prosperous, and harmonious.

Surely, aside from revolts most empires tend to be harmonious.

In cultural terms it was a "Dark Age", because it brought about the death and decline of many native cultures that had thrived before and during the Achaemenid era.

such as?

No offence, but either your perceptions of "bad" and "tyrannical" are different from mine or you have not removed yourself from bias. Or perhaps you are just unfamiliar with the history of Alexander III.

For example?

Just an propagandistic excuse to sit on a Persian throne, steal Persian women; he must have been insincere and was appeasing the Persians, otherwise we would have heard of instances of marriages between Persian men and Greek/Macedonian women.

hmm. How many unmarried Greek women did accompany Alexander to the East? Well, there certainly had been some, but I highly doubt that you find any records of whom those kind of women later married (but I can guarantee you that many locals had been among them).

[+Marius+]

Generally speaking, some achievements (military, sports, showbiz) are far more popular than others (science, engineering, etc.) in most human societies. I think that goes a long way to explain phenomena like calling great military figures "the Great", but others not so much.

Come to think of it, was there ever a single person with the term "The Great" added to their name without his achievements being, mainly, a result of military accomplishments?