How Great Is Alexander The Great?

Alexander the Great established the largest empire of his time. He encouraged the spread of Greek culture throughout his empire, becoming the basis for the Hellenistic Age following his death. Despite his military strength, does Alexander deserve to be called ‘Great?’ While Hammond believes that Alexander should be called ‘Great’, Worthington has stronger evidence to support his claim that Alexander does not deserve the title ‘Great.’
Hammond argues that Alexander demonstrated qualities that made him ‘Great.’ Alexander supported the sovereignty of the Greek Community and the Greeks supported him. Many Greeks even fought in his army. He also ordered that all exiles be sent back to their homes. This plan was strategic because it decreased instability,

mercenary service, and the tension between rival groups. Hieronymus, a historian, said that the people believed that sending the exiles home was a good idea and benefited them. Alexander did ask for divine honors; however, it wasn’t because he believed he was a god. Instead, he wanted to compete with his father who was worshiped after his death. In order to best Philip, Alexander believed he needed to be worshiped as divine while still living. Some city-states including Athens granted him divine honors, building him shrines, establishing games in his honor, and sacrificing to him. Alexander was great militarily. He was brilliant and quick. He was able to predict what would happen in battle beforehand, allowing him to strategize successfully. Alexander respected the Greeks, made good policies, was worshipped as a god, and was a brilliant strategist.
Worthington argues that he does not deserve to have the title ‘Great.’ He allowed Macedon to become weak by demanding more soldiers and leaving Antipater not enough to defend his country easily.

The war of Agis III in 331 BCE demonstrated that a war that should have been easily won was not; however, it was won in the end. Alexander also bought the loyalty of his troops with high pay, bonuses, remission of taxes, cancellation of debts, and signs of royal favor. Even with these benefits, his troops weren’t always loyal to him and sometimes mutinied. They mutinied once in 326 BCE and refused to keep marching, forcing Alexander to turn around and head back. He also risked the lives of his men. While heading back, Alexander took a different route through the Gedrosian desert, resulting in starvation, heat, dehydration, and the slaughter of baggage animals. By taking this route, he unnecessarily cost many of his troop’s lives. He also endangered lives during the unnecessary siege of Tyre in 332 BCE. In addition to his own troops that died, he killed all the men of Tyre. Another reason Alexander didn’t deserve the title of ‘Great’ was that he murdered his friends and people that disagreed with him. For example, he had Philotas and his father killed because they didn’t support his policies and strategies. While Alexander was a brilliant militarist, he didn’t rule his conquered territories. He was more concerned with conquering than with ruling what he had already conquered. He ruled

Macedon for only a few years before he left for war. Territories he conquered rebelled as soon as he left. Alexander was not a great leader because he allowed Macedon to become weak, tried to buy the loyalty of his troops, did not have the support of his men, risked people’s lives, and killed his friends.
Hammond argues that Alexander deserves the title ‘Great’; on the other hand, Worthington supports the argument that Alexander should not be called ‘Great’ and he has better evidence to support his claim. Worthington gives several reason why Alexander is not worthy of the ‘Great’ and he backs up each reason with multiple pieces of evidence. For example, to support his reason that Alexander didn’t have the support of his troops, he provided two examples when the troops mutinied because of a disagreement with Alexander’s strategy. Hammond doesn’t provide as many examples about how Alexander was a great king.