Evaluation of The Leadership Strategy of Alexander The Great

Alexander is considered one of the most important men in Western History. However, as historians we must ask ourselves is Alexander truly Greek, or does his rule more closely resemble that of Near Eastern imperial rule? As a monarch, Alexander character better coheres to the context of Near Eastern imperial rule. This is evident because; Alexander had complete control over his empire, he was often portrayed as more than a man, and he was given and retained his position of power through birthright.

One way in which Alexander more closely reflects Near Eastern policy is the fact that he was an authoritarian of sorts. For example, in the passage it states “he would often respond to his generals haughtily in anger”. (Plutarch 2) This shows that despite the fact that his generals didn’t always agree with him, Alexander was still able to proceed with his actions as planned. This is very different from Greek leaders who were often subject to review and opposition from other statesmen who didn’t agree with their plans.

Another way Alexander is more closely associated with the Near Eastern rule is that he was often portrayed as more than a man. One example of this is when it states “it was no wonder that the temple of Artemis was burned down, since the goddess was busy bringing Alexander into the world.” (Plutarch 1) This is an example of how even at birth; Alexander was seen as something special and even superhuman. Another example of Alexander’s persona was that many statues were created of him during and after his rule. (Plutarch 1) This not only demonstrates the vast amount of influence Alexander had, but it is also a huge step from the Greeks who refused to create statues in homage of people because they felt it was an affront to the gods. The final example of how Alexander was perceived as more than a man is how he is described as “never frail or sickly”. (Plutarch 1) All of these examples from the passage create a persona of Alexander as someone who was superior to everyone else. This is a huge contradiction of the Greek idea of the citizen in which all citizens are founded on the basis of equality. However Persia and other Near Eastern cultures were more commonly authoritative like Alexander’s rule.

The final way Alexander more closely relates to the Near East than the Greeks is that he obtained his position of power through birthright, and was able to retain it throughout his life. Alexander was a monarch who was granted his kingship because his father Phillip II was king before him. (Plutarch 1) For the most part the Greeks were strongly opposed to any kind of monarch who would threaten their liberties as citizens. The next example of this is that Alexander was able to retain his position throughout his life. In contrast, all forms of Greek officials were subject to elections after a certain period of time. They would have scoffed at the idea of a lifetime ruler. This is how Alexander’s ascension through birthright sets him apart from the Greeks. These are the three ways in which Alexander’s more closely resembles the Near Eastern example, than the Greek example.