Transcription
Translator: Hani Eldalees
Order, order! Who do we have on the stand today? Alexander... the Great, is that right? Well, what’s so great about him? Your Honor, the better question is, what isn’t great about him? He was king of Macedon and considered by Egyptians and Greeks alike to be a living demigod. He conquered Persia when it was one of the largest empires on Earth. He was a studious pupil of Aristotle, and resourceful enough to cut the impossibly tight Gordian knot in half. The Gordian knot is a myth – much like the countless other stories invented to bolster the Alexander myth! His being called "Great" only serves this propaganda and glorifies his ruthless military ambitions, like his unjustified invasion of Persia.
Alexander invaded Persia to liberate the Greeks! A century before his time, Persia had sacked Athens and invaded countless Greek territories. So after Alexander's father Philip extended Macedonian control over most of Greece, he planned a final campaign to liberate those still under Persian rule. "Liberate" is a generous word – these Greeks were moving from one tyrant to another! Not that they ever experienced Philip's leadership, as Alexander assassinated his father to seize power for himself.
Objection, Your Honor. We don't know for certain who killed Philip. Some evidence suggests he was killed by a scorned former lover.
Please, the "spurned lover" story is ridiculous. Before his death, Philip took a new Macedonian wife to father a new heir. So it's highly probable Alexander killed his father to seize the throne and reap the glory from Philip's planned campaign. This is a messy family.
Regardless of Philip's fate, Alexander barely rode his father's coattails. His tactical brilliance was essential to defeating Persia. At the Battle of Issus, for example, he strategically positioned his forces along a riverbank, forcing his enemies onto a narrow plain that disrupted their formation, limited their maneuverability, and neutralized their numerical advantage. So what if he was a military genius? His power-hungry wave of conquest left a trail of widespread death and destruction.
In fact, his conquests were neither bloody nor destructive! The Persian satrap of Egypt surrendered without a fight. And after most victories, he typically expanded existing infrastructure. Not at Persepolis! He razed the Persian capital to the ground! He only did that to maintain Greek support – the destruction of Persepolis was retribution for what Persia did to Athens. Besides, Persepolis was the only city he destroyed during over a decade of campaigning. Typically, Alexander founded cities. And fitting his immense ego, he named over 20 of them after himself. That's a lot of Alexandrias.
And that's a big part of why his legacy seems so impressive when in reality, he only conquered one empire. He just thought he conquered the world because he had such a narrow perception of it. He didn't even know India existed until he stumbled upon it. And when he tried to invade there, his soldiers mutinied and forced him to turn back.
It's true his men mutinied after being pushed too far, but Alexander and his troops had a deep respect for each other. He fought alongside them in battle, led cavalry charges, and never asked them to do anything he wouldn't do himself. Part of his greatness was his ability to cultivate talented individuals. If only he'd paid the same attention to all his subjects. His attempts at cultural assimilation led to resentment and rebellion from Greeks, Persians, and Macedonians alike. And he left Macedon in the hands of a regent for almost his entire reign.
That regent was highly regarded. And in his defense, all of Alexander's diverse subjects expected their king to behave in very different ways. The Macedonians saw him as a hereditary king who needed popular support to stay in power, so they expected him to respect their wishes. Since the Greeks refused to be ruled by a king, they believed he should act as a first among equals. And the Egyptians and Persians believed he should act as an absolute demigod-king! It was an impossible balancing act.
And since he died suddenly of an unknown illness at age 32, he simply didn't live long enough to rule his ruling capabilities. I'll judge what we can judge. Of course, Your Honor. I just think the failure to plan for his death tells us how little he invested in ruling. On his deathbed, he declared his empire should go "to the strongest," paving the way for decades of destructive power struggles.
You're buying into the myths now. Those last words were likely fabricated to imply Alexander's approval of the conflicts that followed. But you can hardly judge a man by those who invoke his name to justify their own ambitions. If we're going to talk legacy, let's give him credit for initiating the Hellenistic Age, where Greek cultural influence spread throughout Europe and Asia. Like it or not, Alexander fundamentally changed the world.
Fair enough. But it's hard to judge anyone clearly when they cast such a, well, great shadow. Whether a ruthless conqueror or a beleaguered leader, Alexander the Great is undoubtedly a legend. But trying to separate fact from fiction is part of history's trial.