Alexander III, on of the youngest conquerors the world has ever known, and an inspiration to both famous and infamous alike. But the question asked by professors, Ian Worthington, and Paul Cartledge; should Alexander still be thought of as a great man likened to be a god, and conqueror of most of the known ancient world, or should he now be recognized for all his misdeeds and terror that he instilled in all his conquered lands, and have his grand title of “Alexander The Great” redacted from the history books. Personally, I side with Prof. Ian Worthington.
His concluding statement on why he believes alexander should be considered great, “…Alexander has been viewed as great…but that greatness…must be questioned” is a type of common ground between the two arguments that could be built upon for one to agree with the other.My point of view is that Alexander should be considered great, but history shouldn’t forget the horrid deeds that he committed to obtain that title. His conquests, alongside his homo/genocides of civilizations, built up his reputation as a great conqueror to be feared, and his upbringing in the teachings of Aristotle taught him to think logically and critically, even if his actions were radical and destructive in nature. He was a friend to his soldiers, yet when one angered him he had no hesitation to dispatch of them coldheartedly. He led with a ferocity and prestige that made his enemies, and his allies, tremble in fear. Alexander III perused deification just as his Father Philip of Macedon had received after his death, but Alexander wanted to be recognized as a god while he was still alive, and he even convinced himself that he was, in fact, a god among men.A soldier in Alexander the Grate’s army might say that Alexander was a marvelous leader, able to achieve feats only a god could accomplish. Or he could possibly say that Alexander was foolish to risk his life and the lives of his men so recklessly just to achieve feats that were so ambitious, not even a leader of our time period could possibly hope to accomplish.
Alexander ruled his army and his conquered lands in a very unusual manner, conquering one nation then leaving one of his trusted men to rule it in his stead. A wiser ruler should have overseen, at the very least the foundation, the implementation of his desired government put into action in the nation he most recently conquered. But Alexander was ambitious to the point were even his higher education couldn’t help him think critically about each and every one of his decisions.In conclusion, I personally side with Ian Worthington most, even though I can concur with some of the conclusions drawn from Paul Cartledge. Alexander III should indeed be considered, and given the title of, Great. Great, not as the definition of something good, but in the sense that he did something amazingly complex at such a young age. His military prowess and leadership were not per usual, but he had vast knowledge of the battlefield and how to take risks even at the expense of his own life.
The questioning of if Alexander the Great should still be called the great, is a stimulating inquiry, sparking discussions such as this in the minds of scholars, historians, and students alike. An inquiry that may never be fully answered but will most likely be debated for years to come. Should Alexander III be considered Great, or shall his “greatness” be redacted from the history books?