was alexander the great a good or bad man?

Answer 1

Alexander of Macedonia was probably a real pain to have around.

First, he was stuck up. His private tutor was Aristotle, the most famous student of Plato, who was the most famous student of Socrates. And he was a prince - the son of the wise and resourceful Philip of Macedonia, who laid the foundations for Alexander's success.

Second, he was really, really good at things, especially warlke things. He was a master horse rider, a strong tactician, and a natural leader. Really talented - and therefore really annoying.

Third, he was a complete drunkard. He drank himself to death (according to some historians - this used to be the consensus, but now people question it) in his early thirties. Drunks are a pain to be around.

For a contemporary comparison, he was part Warren Buffett, part Kurt Cobain. Shaky analogy, but with his inherited wealth, undeniable success and talent, and self-destructive behavior, he would have been -um- interesting to be around.

By our standards, he was probably a bad person. He didn't have strong family ties, didn't plan well for the future, and broke lotsa stuff.

However, he was also successful, and so if your value system holds success higher than ethics and character, he was good.

Funny, isn't it, how all questions about the past ultimately resolve into questions about ourselves?

Answer 2

Basically he was both. Now by today's standards , and we do live in a comparitively peaceful and comfortable armchair life, one could very well consider him an agressive ruthless murderer.
It is true that he did start the war against the Persain empire. He didid destroy Thebes except various temples and the house of Pindar the poet. He did level Tyre and sell the remainder into slavery. And was reputed to have burnt the palace at Persapolis.
He did a number of things that today we must consider bad.
However then was not today. They had differnent standards and ideas about war and killing. It was true that the Persian empire was a large looming threat which more than once used it's influence and power to interfere in Greek and Macadonian affairs.
It had twice invaded Greece. And although it was bad of what he did to Thebes and Tyre, it was after a tough campaingn and great defiance. And by the standards of the day and the realities of the political situation, what he did, had mitigating circumstances. And it is only rumoured that he was responsible for the burning of the palace at Persapolis. More than likely it was the result of carelessness at a drinking party which got out of control.
And he did do a lot of good. He removed the theat of Persia foreve from Greece. He let the Athenians who didn't want to go with him when he was in Asia Minor go and mearly added in his writting about the enterprise being that of Alexander and the Greeks-except the Athenians. He founded a lot of cities to spread the Greek idea of Liberalism, Freedom, Science and Humanity. Although admittitly he did call them all Alexandria-s. He brought about a new fresh air to an Asia that had been bent under the ruleship of absolute and godlike monarchs. He brought east and west together and opened up the silk road to Europe. He paid of his army's debts when he married Roxanne. He introduced the idea of racial equality(as the Greeks had thought themselves superior) and introduced the idea of the fellowship of all humanity. The first such of the idea in history.
He also treated captured enemies , mostly, generously, marrying Darius's daughter and burying Darius with honours when he found his body. He executed Darius's murderer Bessarius because he valued the idea of loyalty. And although he treated Menmon harshly, he regarded Menmon (an Athenian who deserted the Greek alliance to work for Persia) as a traitor to the alliance and Greece and a very dangerous traitor as well.
So on the whole he was a good man but he could act very bad.
He was more humane than most and was after or only human.
There was , like the rest of us, good and bad in him. However on the balance I would favour the good.
Hope this helps.

Answer 3

It depends what you consider "Good" or "bad". He conquerd 60% of the then known world. He was a bisexual, he was son of Zeus (Or so he claimed, it is thought that his father is actually Philip II of Macedonia) and Olympius. He treated his army with respect and did not put himself above anyone else. I consider him a brave warrior, an incensere lover (He married 6 or 7 times for political alliances) and a respected friend and leader.


He was so obsessed with conquering, that he created conflict (Today's version of a he-said-she-said thing) between two weaker city states. He then waited until they fought so much they became weak, then came in and easily conquered both.

One story says that on a hot and dry day in Egypt, he was offered water because he was the leader, he dumped it out because none of his troops had water so neither would he.


But another story says that he murdered a friend because they got into a heated argument over him being so nice to his inferriors. He thought everyone was equal and his friend thought not. They got into a yelling match and Alexander killed him. This was not held against him because he was of such a high status, but it haunted him for the rest of his life.


After al the wars and battles he had endured, he died of a high fever. What a shame.

Answer 4

Well, it's a very difficult question to answer. It's took easy to look at Alexander through contemporary eyes, but it's not really fair to view him from a 21st century standpoint.

However, even commentators nearer to him in time considered that he committed "bad" acts - the murder, under the influence of drink, of one of his closest friends, for example; or the arrest and execution of one of his literary entourage, with what amounts to very little real evidence against him.

However, not only was the earliest of our extant histories of Alexander written nearly 300 years after his death, but overall the histories do not classify him as "bad", merely as someone who occasionally did bad things, and specifically who did them through being corrupted by the "East".

He massacred people, he engineered a protracted war that cost an unknown number of innocent lives ... but at the time that was what great people did. He wasn't considered "bad" for doing it then.

Answer 5

He was one of the best conqueror of the world he never lost a battle against his enemies he defeated the persian empire the most powerful nation of that time, so i think he is Alexander the Great

Answer 6

Caucasians and Christians should be thanking him if no one else and give him his own national holiday. Christopher Columbus gets to most of his credit since he is the one that created the idea of expanding the white/western way of life and thinking. Lives were lost, women were raped, and children were orphaned because of him.

Alexander conquered most of the Eastern World dividing it into 4 successive states. He efforts were architecture for Western Expansion or should I say invasion, which eventually meant forced expansion of Christianity. If you refused to acknowledge Christianity, you were sentenced to death. Caesar, Constantine, King Santiago, Queen Isabella, Christopher Columbus are just a list people that followed in his footsteps. Believe it or not, most people are Christians not because they want to be, it was enforced upon people by kings and popes and eventually governments. After centuries it becomes a norm and people become none the wiser.

Thanks Alex!

Answer 7

At the time, having wars and murdering lots of people was considered to be what great leaders did. These days he'd be considered a military dictator and would probably finish up on trial for genocide.

Answer 8

From the Macerdonion veiw he was a hero from an asian potentates veiw he was a monster , from the potentates slaves or people it made little differance

Answer 9

He was a great warrior.Good to the surrendered to him and bad to who fought with him

Answer 10

A good one.