The Argument Of Greatness

One of the greatest difficulties that historians and people in general face is the question of what to believe and what not to believe about the things and people of the past. This can clearly be seen in the case of Alexander the Great. This is a hot topic because depending on the sources that you are using and the people involved there are two very different arguments that usually surrounds the historic figure of Alexander. That argument that can be so divisive is whether or not Alexander truly deserves to be called the Great. To me this argument would seem pointless to anyone who has read anything about the man because his vision and conquests of the ancient world should make it obvious that he deserves the title of the Great.

It could be argued that throughout history there has always been some great leader that arises during each time period that makes sweeping conquests and reforms, yet none of them have quite accomplished what Alexander did in a mere thirteen years of rule. He had already united much of the known world in a fairly peaceable empire at the time of his death. This great achievement was due not only to his exceptional military ability, but his great skill as a statesman as well. It was this ability that allowed him to incorporate the many diverse people that he had conquered into his empire and allowed them to blend their ideals with his own. This incorporation was helped along because he was able to win over the native leaders of these conquered people and raise them to high levels of respect and power in his empire. Some of the people that he raised to power in his empire were the satrap Mazaeus of Babylon and the nomarch Doloaspias of Egypt. He was able to earn these men's loyalty and trust because he was able to do something that few conquers were willing to do and that was to allow the people that he had subjugated to carry out their own laws and traditions. This meant that there was significantly reduce tension and these conquered people were willing to remain a part of the empire with few rebelling against Alexander's rule.

It could be argued that he was a brutal conquer and anyone with that title is undeserving of being called the Great, but I would be quick to point the fact out that he only used as much force as required and used significantly less that some other famous military leaders of the past. The only times that he resorted to drastic means of warfare was when his attempts at peaceful means of incorporation failed. This can be seen in the way that he forced nomadic and marauding tribes to settle down in cities. Yet this isn't as bad as it sounds because with this urbanization came agriculture,

...