Why Alexander was not so 'great': The horrific reality of history's most famous conqueror

Before Alexander's ascent to power, the Macedonian Empire had already begun to establish itself as a formidable force in the ancient world.

Under the leadership of King Philip II, Alexander's father, Macedonia had undergone significant military and administrative reforms.

By 338 BCE, Philip had successfully unified most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony, following his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea.

This victory set the stage for the empire's expansion, with plans to invade the Persian Empire already in motion.

However, in 336 BCE, Philip's assassination led to a sudden change in leadership, thrusting the young Alexander into the limelight.

Alexander's early reign was marked by challenges, as he had to quell revolts and solidify his position as the rightful ruler.

By 334 BCE, having secured his base in Macedonia and Greece, he embarked on his ambitious campaign against the Persian Empire.

Over the next decade, his military genius was evident in battles such as Issus in 333 BCE and Gaugamela in 331 BCE, leading to the eventual fall of the Persian Achaemenid Empire.

Yet, while these conquests are often highlighted, the broader historical context reveals a world in flux, with various powers vying for dominance and a young king navigating the challenges of leadership, diplomacy, and warfare. 

Alexander's military campaigns, while undeniably showcasing his strategic acumen, came with significant costs and consequences for both the conquered and the conquerors.

As he pushed through Asia Minor, Egypt, Persia, and into India, the sheer scale of his conquests meant that vast regions were subjected to the upheavals of war.

Cities like Tyre and Thebes faced severe destruction, with the latter being razed in 335 BCE as a punitive measure, leading to the loss of countless lives and cultural heritage.

The human toll of these campaigns was immense. Not only did thousands of soldiers from both sides perish in battle, but civilians too bore the brunt of the war's aftermath.

Forced migrations, enslavements, and the disruption of local economies became commonplace in the wake of Alexander's victories.

For instance, after the Siege of Tyre in 332 BCE, much of the city's population was either executed or sold into slavery.

Furthermore, the rapid expansion of his empire posed significant administrative challenges.

While Alexander attempted to integrate the diverse cultures under his rule, often through policies of marriage and shared governance, these efforts were not always successful.

Revolts and uprisings were frequent, as regions struggled under the weight of Macedonian rule and the imposition of foreign customs.

Economically, the constant warfare drained the resources of the empire.

The need to maintain large armies, coupled with the destruction of infrastructure in conquered territories, meant that the economic stability of the region was often precarious. 

While Alexander was known to reward loyalty generously, instances of perceived betrayal or challenges to his authority were met with swift and often brutal responses.

One of the most notable incidents was the execution of Philotas, one of his trusted commanders and the son of Parmenion, a senior general.

Accused of conspiring against Alexander, Philotas was subjected to torture and subsequently executed in 330 BCE.

Following this, Alexander, perhaps out of fear of a wider conspiracy or as a precautionary measure, also ordered the assassination of Parmenion, despite his long-standing service to both Alexander and his father, Philip II.

Another significant event was the murder of Cleitus the Black in 328 BCE.

During a heated argument, fueled by alcohol, Cleitus, who had previously saved Alexander's life at the Battle of Granicus, criticized the king's adoption of Persian customs and accused him of forgetting his Macedonian roots. In a fit of rage, Alexander killed Cleitus with a spear.

This impulsive act deeply affected Alexander, leading to profound remorse and mourning.

The Pages' Conspiracy, around 327 BCE, further highlighted Alexander's growing paranoia.

The alleged plot by the royal pages, the young nobles serving the king, led to the execution of the main conspirators, including Callisthenes, the court historian who had opposed the practice of proskynesis, a Persian court custom that Alexander had tried to introduce to his Macedonian court.

While these incidents paint a picture of a ruler increasingly distrustful of even his closest allies, it's also worth noting that Alexander had moments of magnanimity.

He often honored the families of fallen comrades and showed great respect to the likes of Ptolemy, Hephaestion, and other loyal officers.

However, as his empire expanded and the challenges of governance grew, the fine line between mistrust and necessary caution became increasingly blurred.

Alexander, for all his military genius and vision of a united empire, exhibited personal behaviors and character traits that have been subjects of criticism over the centuries.

One of the most frequently discussed aspects of his personality was his temper.

Impulsive and at times uncontrollable, his anger led to decisions that were both politically and personally costly.

The killing of Cleitus the Black, a close friend and officer, during a heated argument is a stark example of this impulsiveness.

While the act was one of immediate regret for Alexander, it underscored the volatile nature of his emotions.

His relationship with alcohol also raised concerns. Excessive drinking sessions were common, and many of his decisions, both personal and administrative, were influenced by his inebriated state.

Some historians speculate that alcohol might have played a role in exacerbating his temper and making some of his more controversial decisions.

Another significant character flaw was his growing sense of divinity.

Influenced by the cultures he conquered, especially the Egyptian and Persian traditions of deifying rulers, Alexander began to view himself as a god-like figure.

This behavior was not well-received by his Macedonian peers, leading to tensions within his inner circle.

Furthermore, as his conquests grew, so did his sense of paranoia. The execution of trusted officers like Philotas and the old general Parmenion, based on suspicions of conspiracy, highlighted a growing mistrust of even his closest allies.

This paranoia, coupled with his belief in his own divinity, created an environment where dissent was dangerous, and loyalty was constantly tested.

Recognizing the vastness and diversity of his newly acquired territories, Alexander actively sought to amalgamate various cultures under a unified administrative system.

One of the most significant impacts was the spread of Hellenistic culture, a blend of Greek and local customs, traditions, and practices.

This process, known as Hellenization, saw the proliferation of Greek art, architecture, language, and philosophy across regions as diverse as Egypt, Persia, and parts of India.

Cities like Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, and Pergamon in Asia Minor became thriving centers of Hellenistic culture.

Greek became the lingua franca, facilitating communication and trade across vast distances. 

In regions like Persia, Alexander adopted a dual approach. He retained many of the existing administrative structures, understanding their efficiency in managing local affairs.

At the same time, he introduced Greek settlers and officials to ensure loyalty to his regime.

This melding of Macedonian and Persian governance was evident when he adopted Persian court customs and attire, a move that, while aiming to bridge cultures, often alienated his Macedonian compatriots.

However, this cultural diffusion came at a cost. As Hellenistic culture became dominant, many indigenous cultures and traditions faced the threat of being overshadowed or entirely erased.

In regions like Persia, a civilization with a rich history and its own sophisticated culture, the imposition of Greek customs often led to tensions.

While some local elites adopted Hellenistic ways to gain favor or better integrate into the new administrative setup, others resisted, leading to cultural clashes.

Furthermore, Alexander's policy of "fusion" sought to integrate the ruling Macedonians with the conquered populations.

He arranged mass weddings, most notably in Susa, where Macedonian soldiers were married to Persian women.

This was a symbolic gesture, aiming to create a new ruling class that combined both Macedonian and Persian elements.

However, these policies were not without challenges. In places like Bactria and Sogdiana (modern-day Afghanistan and parts of Uzbekistan), resistance to Macedonian rule was fierce, leading to prolonged conflicts.

Moreover, the establishment of Greek cities and colonies often meant the displacement of local populations.

These new cities, while marvels of Hellenistic architecture and planning, sometimes stood on the ruins of older, indigenous settlements.

The spread of Greek religious practices and pantheon also challenged local religious traditions, leading to syncretism in some cases but erasing certain local deities and rituals in others.

The introduction of foreign customs and officials in these regions often met with resentment, leading to revolts that Alexander had to suppress with force.

The story of Alexander the Great, like many historical narratives, has been shaped by the perspectives of those who recorded it.

Over the centuries, his image has been molded, sometimes into that of a visionary leader and unparalleled military genius, and at other times, into a ruthless conqueror with unchecked ambitions.

The challenge for modern historians lies in sifting through these narratives to arrive at a more balanced understanding of the man and his legacy.

Much of what we know about Alexander comes from sources written centuries after his death.

Historians like Arrian, Plutarch, and Diodorus Siculus, while providing invaluable insights, relied on earlier works, many of which are now lost.

These accounts, influenced by the political and cultural contexts of their times, often oscillate between hagiography and criticism.

For instance, while Arrian's portrayal leans towards admiration, emphasizing Alexander's military prowess and leadership qualities, other accounts highlight his flaws, excesses, and instances of cruelty.

Furthermore, the Hellenistic world's narratives, from which many of our primary sources originate, had their own biases.

The political landscape post-Alexander was marked by rivalries among his successors, and the histories written during this period often reflected the vested interests of different Hellenistic dynasties.

The glorification or vilification of Alexander was, at times, a tool to legitimize or challenge the rule of these successor kingdoms.

In recent times, with the advent of new archaeological findings and a more critical approach to ancient texts, there has been a push to reevaluate Alexander's legacy.

This involves not only revisiting Greek and Roman sources but also exploring Persian, Indian, and other regional accounts to construct a more holistic picture.

Such endeavors highlight the importance of diverse perspectives in historical analysis, reminding us that history, far from being a fixed narrative, is a dynamic discourse shaped by time, place, and the storyteller's lens.