What’s so Great about Alexander? by Peter Khan Zendran

If any one figure in history has a bloated reputation it is Alexander of Macedon, commonly given the epithet the Great. When people speak about Alexander they speak of him as if he were one of the greatest people who ever lived. Those who speak of him in such a way do not understand the damage that this individual had done to the world with his rash and petty actions.

Violence is the first thing that is associated with Alexander. He grew up in a violent household which ruled a violent country, Macedon. Even if Hakhamanish Iran had never invaded Greece the people of Greece would have found other outlets for their violence. The Macedon that Alexander was born into had spent centuries of warfare with other Greek states that included Athens, Thebes, and Sparta and had become the dominant nation in the Hellenic region. Due to the fact that societies at war for continuous periods produce people who have nothing but a desire for war that was what Alexander spent most of his reign doing, violence and war.

As far as Alexander’s reputation as a military leader goes when one looks at his military career one sees that his success was based on one thing, luck, and this shows when compared to the great commanders of history. Unlike Kurush, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Timur-I-Lenk, Pytor Veliky, and George Washington Alexander did not use his conquests to build up civilizations and nations. Compared to Julius Caesar, Yoritomo, Tokugawa, and Fredrich der Grosse Alexander was excessive in seeking high casualties in battle against his enemies. Unlike Hannibal, Gustavus Adolphus, Napoleon, and von Moltke Alexander did not make any lasting innovations. His battles show that he really did not have much opposition. His consolidating Macedonian control over the Hellenic region was possible because his opponents were drained by long, drawn-out conflicts. His victories at Granicus, Issus, and Gaugemala over Hakhamanish Iranian forces were over forces, like the other Greeks he had fought, that were exhausted from years of conflict and that furthermore did not learn from technological advances that they’re enemies had used against them. The same was true for the forces he fought in Egypt, Central Asia, and India. Had these forces not been exhausted from years of warfare and learned to adapt to their enemy Alexander would have faced real opposition. In fact, the only real opposition he had was from his own forces who threatened to mutiny at the banks of the Indus and he caved in to their demands.

Nor was Alexander a man of culture. His tactic of playing factions off against each other among conquered peoples was counterproductive, especially without understanding their cultures, and led to the breakup of his empire upon his death. His excessiveness against Hakhamanish Iran, particularly the burning of Persopolis, was the foundation of what would be called the Orientalist mentality in regards to Asian attitudes towards European cultures. By completely destroying armies, cities like Tyre and Persopolis, forcing Iranian women to marry his Macedonian soldiers, portraying himself as a god, and diverting all his resources to war Alexander gave the impression of an unstoppable enemy bent on destruction and assimilation, completely spitting in the cultural faces of the Asian peoples he fought and oppressed. By his excessiveness the peoples he faced developed the mentality that foreigners were not to be trusted and that anything done to foreigners, right or wrong, was acceptable as long as their culture was preserved. With such excessiveness it is not surprising that Roxane, the Hakhamanish Princess Alexander married by force, would use strychnine poison to kill Alexander and his General Hephasteion. Also Macedonians were biased historians so any impartial account of Alexander’s campaigns is theoretically impossible. Not to mention the fact that Macedonian historians destroyed so many indigenous documents they make accurate historical information of cultures like Hakhamanish Iran difficult, notice the names Persia for Iran and Darius for Daryush in contemporary Western histories of Alexander and Ancient Iran. Such distortion, especially today when many Iranians are born into multiethnic families and which Iranians are harassed because of their heritage, is destructive and the equivalent of cultural genocide.

How is Alexander perceived today? In Western societies he is perceived as a hero and founder of Western civilization, someone who is greatly admired. Yet only recently has Alexander received any attention. With television programs and a forthcoming movie by Oliver Stone he is receiving more attention than before. However, his recent portrayal coincides with American aggression in and towards the very lands Alexander campaigned in. One thing that television shows and movies about Alexander demonstrate in the past is they do not have a lasting popularity. Unlike the movie Gladiator Oliver Stone can’t say he is doing a remake since there were no popular Alexander movies made. Stone’s film does however focus on Alexander’s campaign’s against Hakhamanish Iran and his doing so is reminiscent of how filmmakers in Nazi Germany would do films focusing on aggression against Poland before the Gleiwitz incident which started WWII so it would not be surprising if this was a propaganda film to incite aggression against Iranians. It would not be surprising if Alexander scholars were used, knowingly or unwittingly, as spies, as scholars who investigated the travels of Marco Polo during the 1990’s were, after all what is forbidden to governments is open to scholars. Either way Alexander is perceived in Western society his perception outside Western civilization will never change. That of a man who caused unnecessary conflict and destruction.