Conquered the entire known world
Never lost a battle
Lead the most successful military campaign of all time
Died at 32
Any thorough study of history would not be complete without at least touching on the conquest led by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Also known as Alexander III of Macedon, the name will likely be name-dropped at least a few times in your life, as it has been for me. But if you are also like me, you would have graduated school having no idea who he was. A truly fascinating and important historical figure, not just for his accomplishments, but also for how history has remembered him.
History is written by the victors, and Alexander was the most victorious military leader in history. Crowned king of Macedon (basically Greece) at age 20 after the assassination of his father Philip II of Macedon, for the next 12 years of his life he set out from Greece with his army and laid conquest to the entire Persian empire which stretched as far west as India. Historical records recount 20 separate battles in this conquest, and Alexander won every single one of them, an unprecedented record.
Mentored as a child by one of the greatest teachers and philosophers of all time, Aristotle, he grew into not just a king by birthright, but a visionary leader, with enough charisma to inspire an army thousands strong to win every battle and fight to the death. He was so great at what he did, he and his followers viewed him as a god. No doubt that the leadership qualities portrayed by Alexander remain timeless and anyone today looking to embody the pinnacle of what a leader can accomplish should study this man.
But greatness comes at a cost. His campaign was responsible for at least several hundred thousand deaths, if not millions. At the time, Greeks and Greek colonists in the Persian Empire viewed him as a liberator and welcomed him with open arms. The Persians undoubtedly viewed him as a tyrant, oppressor, autocrat, take your pick. But the problem is, there aren’t any recounts of Alexander from the Persian point of view, which is one of the reasons why it seems that the salient interpretation of this story, squeezed through the lens of time, has favoured the Greeks.
To be clear, the Greeks did not unanimously praise Alexander, he even quarrelled and killed some of his closest friends and allies. Furthermore, his own inner circle plotted mutiny against him near the end of his life. But a perfect military record, especially after enduring extreme heat, rain and disease, would not be possible without widespread support.
Read any of the thousands of literary sources recounting Alexander’s life and you will undoubtedly receive a rich recounting of the heroics, triumphs and conquests that highlighted his life. But the question arises, how should this be interpreted? Which lessons from this story can be taken into the modern world for good and which ones should be left in the past? And how can this help you interpret other historical stories?
How tyrannical was he?
Depending on your view on history, allow me to either make a just comparison or else an offensively egregious one. Alexander lived over 2300 years ago, from 336-323 BC, but in more recent times, another well known tyrant set his army out from Germany in the 1930s and conquered much of Europe before ultimately being defeated. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s campaign lasted roughly the same amount of time as Alexander’s. They both set out to take over the known world, to spread their armies as far and wide as possible. They were both ruthless, tyrannical, admired and feared leaders whose campaigns resulted in countless human suffering and death and both have been historically immortalized for their efforts.
Simply say the name Hitler to nearly anyone today and the first thing that will come to mind is one of the most evil people who have ever lived. But do the same with Alexander and I’d bet you won’t get the same result. You probably won’t get a comparison to Mother Teresa, but the Devil on Earth is unlikely to be the image in your friend’s mind. Why then are the salient interpretations history has provided on these two figures not the same?
Is time a factor?
The differences in their respective campaigns may offer some insight into the different views on these two men. For one, There are over 2200 years between the time of Alexander and Hitler. This is such a large gap that there are still people alive today who remember the 2nd world war, whereas Alexander lived so long ago, his story is almost as much myth as it is history. To make matters even more ambiguous, the earliest records of Alexander that we have are from around 300 years after he died from Romans who largely glorified his life.
There can be a certain comfort that comes with egregious acts happening a very long time in the past. “That is far enough away in time and/or location that I don’t have to worry about it”. “That’s over there, and we’re over here”. Alexander is much more ancient history than the still-fresh second world war, but ideas, values, and story themes are timeless. Groups of people have been invading other groups of people for as long as groups of people have existed. So if you do take comfort in knowing the Persian Empire fell so long ago, just don’t be surprised when a similar event takes place during your lifetime.
But surely, the moral standards of 2300 years ago…
The moral standards of the collective do indeed change over time. If someone equally as ambitious attempted to conquer the world today would it be met with the same reception? Of course not. 2300 years ago, laying siege and claiming land for your own was likely more commonplace, albeit still met with much hostility. That is not to say the victims of such sieges used to not mind having their lives uprooted or ended. But the moral perception from an average outside viewer would undoubtedly have viewed the events differently.
How then should the conquest of Alexander the Great be viewed then? Through the moral standards of the times? The moral standards of today? Whose moral standards should be taken? The “average” of the times you are viewing the situation from? From the victors? The losers? Your own?
I suggest trying them all, if you’re able to. I can’t imagine more practitioners of multiperspectivalism in today’s world being a bad thing.
Would more people have died if Alexander never tried to conquer anyone?
What if? Is there a collective ethos that has somehow unconsciously decided that Alexander’s conquest was for the greater good, thus giving it a pass? If you ask me that is a pretty absurd idea but one I can not outright dismiss. The true answer is I don’t know, and no one can ever know. Debating it can be a fun exercise but I won’t delve into that can of worms here. In short, for the purposes of this article, this idea is irrelevant. The conquest that did happen was brutal, bloody and laid claim to countless lives. But even in a world where the alternative would have been worse, the real story was pretty horrible in its own right.
But even with that said, it seems to me, the most important reason why history has remembered them differently is simply the results of their respective conquests.
Alexander won, Hitler didn’t.
There remains little to no recounts of Alexander’s tyranny from the Persian side. He and his army evidently suppressed and killed any potential storytellers who could produce a viewpoint on his life in a negative light. Every battle that he fought he won, and so every recount of each battle was only able to be told from Alexander and his compatriots who no doubt were as biased as they come.
Hitler on the other hand ultimately lost his attempt at a 1000 year third Reich and as such there were and are more than enough of his opponents who will gladly remind you of his tyranny, and rightly so.
History is written by the victors. One can only imagine how much richer our body of knowledge would be if more lasting records from the losers survived to the present day. But in one way, the bias and ambiguity are precisely what makes stories like Alexander’s intriguing. Since it is such an old tale, on one hand, it may have been embellished over the years to be more fantastical than it actually was.
Bias toward the victors is not a phenomenon exclusive to ancient figures who lived thousands of years ago. It is present in our lives today. How skewed are the views of the media you consume? What don’t you have access to when the largest companies in the world attempt to create monopolies? What political policies do you vote for, and what does it take for you to create political opinions that are actually completely your own?
So… was he a hero or a tyrant?
Alexander III of Macedon:
Was responsible for millions of deaths
Had no remorse or empathy for his enemy
Forced assimilation – forced people to adopt Greek culture, customs and beliefs
Commanded absolute authority
Had enough ego to feed an army
But he also had:
A clear vision of what he wanted
Unparalleled confidence
An upbringing that involved a good quality education and physical combat training
Charisma and energy to spare
We’re all the heroes of our own story. Compartmentalizing anyone to a single archetype, I believe, is flawed, no matter who they are. Alexander in many ways was a bloodthirsty tyrant, but he was also a great leader, those two qualities often do go hand-in-hand. He was also a husband, warrior, murderer, and to many, the greatest hero to have ever lived. It is the nuanced nature of this story that makes it so compelling. There are many perspectives to this story that when put together can offer such a rich narrative.
The story of Alexander is one of the greatest stories ever. Studying it, as well as how it has been interpreted throughout history, can not only be an entertaining exercise but can teach you about yourself and the world you live in. Determining what has potentially been left out of the story will help you recognize such biases as they arise in your life.
I graduated school having no idea who Alexander the Great was, despite being one of the most influential people ever to live. Some even claim him to be the most important human ever. The story of Alexander is one that everyone should learn as it exemplifies some of the most revered human qualities at its absolute peak.
Want to be a great leader? Study Alexander the Great. Want to understand how and why so many military leaders have been so hell bent on invading other territories? Want to study bias within history and yourself? Want to understand the absolute limits of human potential? This story is one of the very greatest.
We are all the heroes of our own story. Regardless of how you view anyone, be it a tyrant or a saint, they’re all the heroes to themselves.