I’m just going to flat out say it. It’s no surprise, looking at the the title of this website and this blog post. This is about Alexander the Great. The real question is: what do I think of him?
The answer is, in this case, not as easy as saying whether I think he’s great or not. I do think he’s great. Great, with a large impact and lots of power. But it’s not settled quite yet. I think he’s great, but I don’t think he’s good. There is, of course, a difference between these other than amplitude. To be great, you just have to be brave enough to speak up, strong enough to do something, and perseverant enough to make yourself known.
The answer is, in this case, not as easy as saying whether I think he’s great or not. I do think he’s great. Great, with a large impact and lots of power. But it’s not settled quite yet. I think he’s great, but I don’t think he’s good. There is, of course, a difference between these other than amplitude. To be great, you just have to be brave enough to speak up, strong enough to do something, and perseverant enough to make yourself known.
These traits sound pretty good, right? Well, they are… alone. There are good traits that match up with these well. But there are bad ones, too. Greed, bloodlust, arrogance. Those are a few. Imagine somebody with all six of those traits. Pretty terrifying, huh? Now, as “Alexander the Great but not Good” was hanging around on planet earth in ancient times, we really can’t tell much about his personality. But (assuming you’re on board with this) there are some things we can use to prove that Alexander was great, but not good.
Okay… “Chart of Alexander the Great’s Legacy…” With this one source, we can kill two birds with one stone(relatively speaking). And it’s not really hidden, either.I mean, seriously, he killed 100,000 soldiers in 4 battles. It’s even in the complete center of the page. Imagine the total of kills in every one of his battles… Well, I guess that checks bloodlust off of our list… except there’s more.
In a battle against Porus, a prince on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes river, he seemingly had no mercy. He snuck up and made the war elephants of his enemies rampage, killing, and I quote, “..friend no less than foe, with men trampled under as as the beasts twisted and turned.”¹ I won’t give you the bloody details because 1) I know some of you are probably squeamish like me, and 2) I don’t have any bloody details to give. It may seem like that wraps it up for this one, but I have to say there’s one more. Now, remember, this is all just for one trait. You might be thinking, “How much merciless bloodlust can one guy have?” And my answer is: a lot. And if you weren’t thinking that, then I’m sorry I couldn’t read your mind before this is even published. But now for the rest of the bloodlust supplied to me.
Remember when I talked about how Alexander conquered lots of land? Now, just wait a minute before you scroll up the page to find that part. I’m going to spare you of that possible humiliation. I haven’t actually talked about it yet. But, I guess, as of now, I have. Now, down to business. Besides the fact that he conquers supports his greed (also shown on the chart of his legacy), there is one specific battle proving ultimate bloodlust, and of course greed. This time, we will hypothetically travel to Tyre, a city that boasts its incounquerabiliy (if that even is a word). Naturally, thanks to his arrogance, (this one proves all three) he tries to conquer it. Once he tried, the city held out for seven months. Instead of giving up to an apparent lost cause like a normal person, ALexander instead kept fighting and lost a considerable amount of his men, and killing 7,000 Tyrians²… And get this: Seeing their rival city struggle, the (former) rival of Tyre came to help the obviously suffering city. Alexander didn’t even stop when the rival came to help. Is anybody else also phased by the fact that their rival came to help? His greed and bloodlust and arrogance must have really taken over, to come to “sacrificing” a considerable number of his men for a single city.
Well, I guess that’s what happens when you take somebody great and add vicious qualities. There are more examples of this, like Donald Trump, Voldemort, and others, but none are really quite as bad, and none are quite the same. Oh, Alexander the Great, why did you have to be so terrible? I guess this really leaves some people thinking, “ What would a better name for Alexander be? He’s a horrible person. His title is misleading. I guess for no, he should just be Alexander the ______.” But if you aren't thinking that after all of the proof of bloodlust and greed and arrogance, I’m sorry, but I don’t know what’ll convince you.
