I just recently read in an interesting book titled Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power that Alexander is not quite correctly depicted in history; or at least that his history is incompletely told in most cases.
The story I knew of Alexander before I read this book was as so: "Alexander was a great general who defeated his enemies, the evil Persians, and then went on to conquer lands all the way to India. However, he grew sick from this constant campaigning, and died in the process. When he was on his deathbed, his soldiers filed by him one by one to pay last respects." Yada yada yada.
Basically, this story puts Alexander forth as a great leader of his people, a skilled general, and a conquerer.. and as an all-around good person. One gets from this that he conquered benevolently, somehow.
In fact, Alexander was not all of this. He was a great general, true. After defeating the Persians he went on to conquer lands all the way to India, true. However, the oft-told tale leaves many things.
One- the fact that Alexander's army slaughtered perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocents along the way- for example, when he reached Persepolis, he offered amnesty to the city if it surrendered, then let his troops loose to slaughter all the city's inhabitants when it accepted his offer. Entire cultures ceased to exist.
Two- Alexander was insanely paranoid, and over the course of time had all of his high-level subcommanders executed or straight out killed them. Once, he killed one of his most devoted followers by spearing him during a party, in a drunken rage.
Three- Alexander died because of his gross excesses on drugs and alcohol- mostly alcohol, as he appears to have had a case of severe alcoholism.
So, if what this book puts forth is true, Alexander the "Great" was only great in terms of power- as a man, he was quite a sh*thead.
Bookmarks