Alexander the Great?

An analysis of the "greatness" of Alexander of Macedon must first begin with the question of what greatness has meant to certain societies over time. In general, history has regarded "great" leaders as those who have not only protected their constituents, but also expanded the territory over which they rule, both physically and psychologically. The ancient Persian rulers were considered successful when they overthrew smaller surrounding territories and unsuccessful when they could not. A modern example of this would be the success of the United States' "Manifest Destiny," which involved not only claiming huge swaths of untamed land as their own, but forcibly taking it from natives. Other societies, which place less emphasis on conquest (though virtually all place at least some value on it) and more on other endeavors such as ancestral veneration or religion, may fail to see greatness in acquisition of land. Alexander of Macedon certainly acquired territory, but I tend to believe that his universal glorification is merited. An amazing military tactician? Obviously. A great ruler? I argue that the opportunity to to prove that trait was never fully realized. It is my belief that while his conquest and unification of much of the known world ranks his among extremely limited company, he most likely died before he could have proved true greatness by keeping his hastily constructed empire intact.

Before discussing the achievements of Alexander in depth, one must acknowledge the great debt he owes to his father, Philip II. Uniting the weakened but still very independent and militaristic city-states of Greece is a feat that is often overshadowed by Alexander's campaigns, but was perhaps equally remarkable. Unity amongst Greek city states to that point had only been achieved militarily in the face of foreign enemies that threatened to conquer the entire Greek world. Philip brought virtually the whole of Greece under a single rule by force, and would cultivate the army Alexander used to carry out his conquests.

Several events during Alexander's war of revenge against Persia reveal significant flaws in Alexander's character that made him a very effective leader of an army, but would likely have perhaps made him a poor leader of an empire at peace. His willingness to execute his subordinates after little or no trial points to paranoia that would not have translated well to a stable government. His famous fondness for Persian dress and customs (including taking an Asian wife) alienated his army and distanced him from the men who began to believe that they were fighting more for Alexander's glory than that of their nation. These and various other episodes (such as his acqusition of the title of the son of Ammon in Egypt) and likely only inflated Alexander's prodigious megalomania, a trait that, when untempered by outside advice, can be a ruler's downfall.

The chaotic aftermath of Alexander's death reveals further problems that would have face Alexander had he lived longer. As with most things in history that take shape over a very short period of time, Alexander's empire quickly devolved following his death. Predictably, the shaky division of kingdoms agreed upon by prominent generals who had known nothing but war for several years led to conflict. This led to the formation of three large states in Greece, Egypt, and the former Persian Empire. Although they were initially led by successors of Alexander, they essentially would develop independent of each other. It would have taken a monumental effort (and philosophical change) on Alexander's part to keep his new empire stable much longer than his successors did.

Of course, we will never know if Alexander would have been able to bring his ambition under control and effectively rule his empire. If a leader like Cyrus the Great is to be a standard, I would argue that Alexander's chances were doubtful at best. It seems to me that while he was obviously willing to accept his subjects' customs, he was out of touch with what needed to be done beyond his military capacity to keep his vast lands under control. It seems fitting to me that so soon after his military campaign ended, Alexander mysteriously died. Men who revel in conflict often find peacetime unbearable and even physically draining (see: George S. Patton). It was perhaps in the best interest of his future image that Alexander die so young. Had he lived longer, I believe that while he was certainly a great general, he would have made a poor peacetime ruler. A modern example of this principle can be found in Nazi Germany, where had its leader died at the peak of his country's territorial expansion, he would not have been blamed for its downfall.

Trees

My first memories are of trees.

As little as I can remember about my childhood, I know unequivocally that there were trees.

To this day, nothing evokes sentimental and pleasant emotions in me like autumn at my home among trees.

Attempts could be made to rationalize these phenomena.

They would be wasteful.

The combination of the changing colors, falling temperatures and the smell of rotting leaves and smoke from a wood burning stove is one of the few things left in my life that truly overwhelms me.

Every year I fear that the feelings that autumn has given me since I was a child will not return, and every year I am pleasantly surprised when they do.

There is no sensible reason to explain why autumn weather caused me to run to the end of the street when I was young just to better soak in the moonlight on clear nights.

It comforts me to know that there are still such mysteries.