Alexander the Great

Was Alexander the Great a good king or a relentless narcissist? A chivalrous leader with great visions, or an obsessive tyrant? Lastly what is good and why should that be argued by the warped standards of today?

I'd like to start this article correctly, by defining what constitutes a 'good king'. Arguably, a 'good king' is to be defined by both comparison to the moral and expectational standards of the time, and the way in which he was viewed by the people whose lives depended on him (such as conquered nations, his army, and his friend and generals).

Alexander was dependant on the Army following him, and needed to retain their loyalty. In this he came close to ultimate failure. The aims of Alexander’s invasion of Persia were twofold – to plunder its riches, and to conquer land. In this King and Army were united. Whether Alexander secretly intended to displace the Great King at the outset is uncertain, but as his successes mounted he certainly acquired that aim. To govern Egypt, he had to be seen to be a ‘legitimate’ Pharoah, which Persia’s Great Kings never bothered to do, and suffered many rebellions as a result. Similarly, Alexander had to become a ‘legitimate’ Great King to be accepted by Persians –hence the Persian customs – dress, hunting lions from chariots, proskynesis, appointing Persian Grandees as Satraps etc. And this is where King and Army parted ways, for the Army wanted nothing more than to take their looted wealth – slaves, money etc home.

Alexander, then, was an absolute ruler. He was responsible for the mass murder and death of thousands, he conquered ruthlessly, and allowed none to get in his way of achieving his great dream. One must not forget that all though by modern morals this is unacceptable and reprobative in the least, for the time in which Alexander lived this was considered perfectly normal. Indeed, conquering was seen as a heroic thing.

Another important aspect to importantly consider is how Alexander treated his peers and those in need, for instance, wounded members of his army, having served him in battle. Acts of kindness towards the unfortunate are always a valid indicator of one's moral inclination. Alexander not only paid off the debts of those soldiers in debt, but when the 10,000 veterans were discharged, they received full arrears of pay, including their journey-time home, but also a gratuity of one Talent ( 26 kg of gold). This made the veterans fabulously wealthy, especially when their own loot is added in.

He visited wounded soldiers after Issus. The stench of humans rotting in pus, vomit & urine obviously didn't put him off, nor did bloodcrusted stumps, bowel hanging out of bellies and slashed faces. He saved Lysimachus' life near Tyre, and so on.




Therefore, despite the mass murdering and conquering, which by our standards deemed ethically repugnant, considering the time and its values by which he lived, and his treatment of both veterans and soldiers, as well as barbarians, Alexander was a remarkably good king, and a hero with a vision.