Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness - Report Example

Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness Throughout history Alexander the Great has always been touted as a great hero and military strategist. In the last few decades however, biographies have been written suggesting that Alexander was not as "Great" as history has portrayed him. Some historians have said that he was egotistical, maniacal, and hungry for war and conquering, likening him to such figures as Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan and even Cortes. In the book Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness, Guy MacLean Rogers attempts to dispel those ideas and restore Alexander's name. In the preface Rogers states, "I hope to show why Alexander should be considered the greatest warrior in historyI also will argue that Alexander was a kind of unacknowledged protofeminist, limited multi-culturalist, and religious visionary who planned to establish a world empire of the 'best'" (preface). For the purpose of this paper, I will focus on Rogers arguments on Alexander's abilities as a military strategist as well as his acts as a person as they relate to other historical figures he has been compared to. To understand Alexander's drive, we must first understand where Alexander came from, and how he was brought up. Born to Philip II of Macedonia, and Olympias, a princess of Epirus, in 356, Alexander was raised as royalty, and provided with the best training and tutors, including Aristotle himself, Greece had to offer. His mother, a devoted member of the Dionysian cults, claimed Alexander came from not only royal blood, but was also a direct descendent of Achilles of the Iliad. When Aristotle came to tutor the future king, he gave Alexander a copy of the Iliad, a possession Alexander kept with him throughout his quests. Because his mother had claimed he was a descendent of the gods themselves, Alexander came to take on that persona, believing that the gods had deemed him as being one of the "best", and believed that he could achieve "everlasting glory that came from achieving great deeds of arms" (8). He structured his life around those mythical figures from the great Homeric writings, and even traveled to the sites of the Iliad and the battle of Troy, to make sacrifices to the fallen heroes of that tragedy. Rogers ascertains that this upbringing, and the belief system of being a descendent of the gods that his mother instilled on him, drove Alexander throughout his life. Probably the most prominent argument Rogers makes in defense of Alexander's reputation and his place in history, is on his military genius. His claim stems from the fact that Alexander was never beaten in any battle throughout his ten year crusade. He attempted tactics that had never been used before, often surprising his enemies into defeat. The most prominent of the battles that Rogers discusses are, The Battle at the River Granicus, The Battle of Gaugamela and The Battle of Hydaspes. Each displayed a new tactic Alexander thought up to defeat his enemy, often facing great odds against him. All three of these battles displayed tactical techniques that were born from Alexander himself upon assessing certain defensive and offensive positions. In further defense of this position, Roger's asserts, "Alexander's logistical achievements is the standard by which all others in pre-modern military history are measured" (284). The first battle mentioned, The Battle at the River Granicus introduced Alexander's cunning as a military officer. The Persians had the high ground, so Alexander seeing the problem found the solution to draw the Persians to the water by sending in an initial attack to draw the left and right wings of the opposing armies down. This gave the left and right wing of Alexander's army time to cross the river and draw up behind them. This effectively broke the Persian armies center and they were ultimately defeated. This is just a brief explanation of Alexander's genius, but Rogers claims this battle is the beginning of Alexander's military brilliance when he states, "With the battle of the Granicus River, we begin to see why Alexander is considered a military genius. One hallmark of such genius is vision - here, the ability to see a tactical problem and find its solution" (52). The second very decisive battle was the Battle of Gaugamela. The Macedonians were severely outnumbered, but they still were victorious through Alexander's genius of cavalry formation. The Persian formation was generally linear, while Alexander formed armies into tactical squares, or rectangular shaped formations that essentially were created to resist Persian attacks on all sides. Again, Alexander adapted to the situation, and prevailed. As Rogers claims this victory was the greatest in all of Greek history. At the battle of Hydaspes, Alexander once again was victorious by employing a new military tactic of pinning and turning defeating Porus's Indian Army. Rogers claims, "The Hydaspes was a complex triumph of operational planning, deception, and execution. If Alexander's major battles can be compared to symphonies, this was hi Jupiter, his masterpiece, and like the Jupiter, it was to be his last" (200). Alexander continued to learn about the topography that he faced, as well as the forces he was fighting, maintaining his knowledge of tactical warfare that no one had seen before, thereby constantly surprising his opponents so that they had no defense against him. Aside from his ability for tactical warfare, it is important to note that there was another force driving Alexander. This force, that proved to be a threat for all of his enemies, was his attitude toward death. As we heard before, through war, Alexander could gain his everlasting glory and, "seemed to have been willing to accept deaththat was his great advantage over those who wanted to live longer" (8-9). Throughout his crusades Alexander fought with the attitude that he would either conquer and rule over the lands he invaded or die trying. There was no middle ground, something which gave him an advantage. Rogers claims that this explains the zealousness with which he fought, as death was not a fear, but a destiny - he would succeed or die trying. Though protagonists against Alexander's place in history do give Alexander some credit for his military genius, they still don't believe that grants him the grace he deserves for the wars he waged. Some scholars insist that his ego drove him, and he brutally killed those he defeated to satisfy that ego while trying to create one race, much like Hitler did. Rogers vehemently disagrees with that comparison, and those comparing him to Stalin and other tyrannical figures in history. Though he did conquered many races, it was through Alexander's piousness and affection for other cultures that actually sets him apart from those other dictators. After the battle at the River Granicus, he made sure that all of the Persian soldiers who died received proper burials, an act which became a common theme through all his victories. Also, unlike many leaders of our time, when an army or race was conquered, Alexander often times incorporated the survivors into his own army. He never tried to delete a race and replace it with only Macedonian tradition, instead he worked to fuse the different cultures together. One example of that is after Darius' death, Alexander made a promise to his mother Sisygambis, that he would provide her daughters with marriages fit for princesses. He and his top soldiers married those daughters, and the nuptials were conducted according to Persian tradition rather than Macedonian. Throughout his quests, he tried to maintain the traditions of those he conquered, and warned his men not to needlessly plunder those lands they conquered. Alexander has also been chastised for his conquests and the amount of lives lost pursuing his goals. Though many died, and even argued with Alexander over his zealousness, Rogers argues that one item should not be overlooked - Alexander never asked his men to do anything he wasn't willing to do himself. This is significant when looking at historical figures because he is one of the only leaders that has ever fought directly on the front lines with his troops. He didn't stay in the background and command, he was always fighting right along side his armies. Prior to qualifying his statements on Alexander's warfare genius, Rogers makes the argument for why Alexander is so important to study by stating, "The tale is important to anyone who wishes to understand clearly the deep historical roots of the deadly conflicts that currently plague the lands he once ruled, and that threaten to enflame the entire world" (xvii). He is claiming that Alexander's conquests and rulings can be directly linked to the current state of affairs in what was once part of his empire. Rogers also makes that point of how detrimental it can be to judge any historical figure in current day context. We live in a completely different time and place, and cannot possibly conceive what it was like to live over 2000 years ago. This is an extremely important aspect of Rogers arguments, as "greatness" is ambiguous and should be viewed as subjective. In Rogers closing he asserts that, "I hope to have shown that Alexander was an ambiguous figure who combined great and admirable deeds and qualities with terrible mistakes, sporadic crimes, and lapses of judgment. Like Mozart, Alexander also disturbs our rest and reminds us that individual greatness often comes at a high price, that life indeed is fragile and uncertain, and that the interpretation of the end of the drama can be viewed from many different perspectives" (293). With that he continues by showing that many of the historical figures throughout history including, Winston Churchill and Harry S. Truman, were not without faults and tactical mistakes. Rogers clearly succeeds in making his argument that while Alexander was not without these faults, he was a military genius who blended cultures and is responsible for much of the blueprints of Greco-Roman civilization. Works Cited Rogers, Guy MacLean. Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness. New York: Random House Inc., 2004. Read More