Alexander III, on of the youngest conquerors the world has ever known, and an inspiration to both famous and infamous alike.
But the question asked by professors, Ian Worthington, and Paul Cartledge; should Alexander still be thought of as a great man likened to be a god, and conqueror of most of the known ancient world, or should he now be recognized for all his misdeeds and terror that he instilled in all his conquered lands, and have his grand title of “Alexander The Great” redacted from the history books. Personally, I side with Prof. Ian Worthington. His concluding statement on why he believes alexander should be considered great, “…Alexander has been viewed as great…but that greatness…must be questioned” is a type of common ground between the two arguments that could be built upon for one to agree with the other.
My point of view is that Alexander should be considered great, but also history shouldn’t forget all the horrid deeds that he committed to obtain that title. His conquests alongside his homo/genocides of civilizations build up his reputation as a great conqueror to be feared, and his upbringing in the teachings of Aristotle taught him to think logically and critically, even if his actions were radical and destructive in nature. He was a friend to his soldiers, yet when one angered him he had no hesitation to dispatch of them coldheartedly.
He led with a ferocity and prestige that made his enemies and his allies tremble in fear.
