Alexander the Great = Darth Sidious!?!?

Alexander the Great is notable for his successful military campaigns against Persia. These great victories gave Alexander the title of a military genius in history. The reading however brings up a very disturbing point. Alexander's army committed blatant mutiny against him and he agreed to follow his army's wishes. This is not the way a legendary military commander does. His men's "refusal to obey orders" and his subsequent agreement to turn back showed that he was not an all powerful son of Zeus. But a man who pushed his army to far without thinking about anything other than himself. This is interesting when looking at the democratic ideas in ancient Greece and the monarchy of the Greek empire. It actually parallels with Star Wars quite nicely. The old republic, the evil new empire and the rebel army. It goes to show that all encompassing power into one man leads to the needless death of thousands for personal gain.

Alexander the Mediocre

It's official, Alexander the Great is no longer great, at least in my books.

While he was obviously a brilliant military mastermind who had the power to conquer territories faster than the ocean could spit them out, does that really make him great? How about the fact that he was able to establish the legendary empire of Greece and continue to rain fire down around himself all while being a young adult. Pretty impressive right? At what cost.

Maybe back in the day when conquering was hip this would make someone great. Important thing to note: In the modern day, Alexander would most likely not be considered great, in the past when being an insane warlord was plausible this was probably what earned him the title Alexander the Great. Today Alexander looks like a bloodthirsty maniac who caused the death of thousands of people and natives including his own men just to continue increasing his range of power but back in the day this was totally acceptable and he has every right to be considered great.

Except for the fact that he was insanely violent towards his friends to the point that he would murder them. The fact that he would often drink himself silly to the point that even people back then would be telling him to lay off (SOURCE: HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN SIX DRINKS). Alexander the Great was really not so great because of his bloodthirsty attitude that would be the end of many peoples lives, the insane temper he had when he wasn't on the battlefield. Although it could be argued that the empire he created is enough to consider him great, at the end of the modern day, it really isn't that Great.

Plain Old Alexander

Alexander the Great, in my opinion, was dubbed great simply because of his accomplishments. But we've also witnessed many other leaders who have had the same exact success but have been in the shadows for a long time. He is "great" because he himself thought he was extraordinary, so if he wanted, he could have called himself whatever he wanted and his people would have still followed him and supported his decisions.
Yes, he is not so great when it came to what he did to his people, his arrogance, and his temper, but the man still was great in other areas, most importantly holding his position for the duration he did.
The article is definitely leaning towards the (not so great) side of the argument, but as MK wrote, it "could be done for any ruler, there is always evidence to argue good and bad, it just depends on how you look at it."

Ungreat or Great?

Historical figures are painted out by history books over time to be good or bad. Alexander the Great, is obviously deemed a powerful mighty ruler, judging by just his name. However, behind every evil dictator or beloved ruler is discussion over whether they deserve it or not. After all, there are some people who argue that Hitler was a good ruler. This article explores the negatives to Alexander the Great, and how he does not deserve to be respected. It talked about how he was not an ideal king, and he caused the death of many of his own men. Alexander The Great was immature and would sulk when he did not get his way. He forced his men through a desert, ill prepared, and they ended up killing their baggage animals for food. Washington exposes the ugly side to Alexander the Great, thus questioning his title. This can be done for any ruler, there is always evidence to argue good and bad, it just depends on how you look at it.

Quiet Greece and Loud Persia

The brains versus the bold has been a constantly battle between the nerds and the jocks. The Persians and Greek are not very similar at all.  While the Persians valued war-like activities and warriors at a very high standard, the Greeks however thought that brains were much more important than killing other people.  The Persians didn’t care for the Greeks because Persia at the time had a very large and growing empire without needed the Greeks and their intellect.  The Persian Empire stretched from the India all the way to the Mediterranean Sea; their empire in 500 B.C.E didn’t need to grow any larger and didn’t need the help of Greece. Greece didn’t bother anyone and were not a threat to the Persians so there was no need to involve themselves with people with completely different values.  Persian had no need to get involved with Greece because they saw Greece as lowers considering Persia at the time was a power house and dominated almost all of Asia and parts of Europe.

Greeks vs. Persians

The Persians likely looked down on the Greeks because as a whole, the Greeks valued intellectual pursuits over military ones, while the Persians placed warriors in high regard.  With the exception of Sparta, the Greek city-states focused on technological and philosophical ideas.  They had militaries, but not the desire to conquer the world.  However, the Greeks did spread throughout the Mediterranean through colonization.  The Persians could have thought of Greece the same as Egypt, which they managed to overcome.  Also, Greece was not zoroastrian, and the Persians likely looked down on Greece for its pantheon of gods.

Starting Drama: Greece vs. Persia

"The rivalry and wars of Greeks and Persians ... were the first act of a drama that has continued." It's well-known that a person dislikes another who is most similar to him/her. The same concept applies to Persia and Greece; both empires were so similar they had to disagree on something. They shared very similar cultural traits and religious outlooks on life, as well as sharing the same language origins stemming from the first Indo-European family. Persia wanted to show how disobedience would be treated, and that resulted in its multiple wars against Greece, nevertheless Greece continued to thrive, and so did Persia.
Personally, I think Persians were just not interested in going after Greece in the end because they had enough. Why go after something similar to yours when you have the same exact thing right in front of you, you know? If they did fight, it was for purposes of expansion and power, but not really for anything other than that.