I would agree with the man that Alexander the Great was not so much of a great leader after all. Even though he highly contributed in the spread and implementation of Greek culture and believes across its conquests, he highly underperformed as a statesman that he was. According to my perspective, Alexander the Great failed to perform satisfactorily in most of the areas that define a great leader. For a leader to be considered great, he or she should be able to leave behind a legacy, his performance as a leader should be outstanding and his missions and methods of attaining the said missions should be clear and justified. Alexander the great failed in all of these three areas (Briant 67).
As a leader, Alexander the great exhibited various shortcomings that stripped him of the “the great” title. In my perspective, Alexander never changed or addressed the issues faced by the Greek. In fact, he left things worse than he found them during his father’s leadership. He was a selfish leader who pleased himself as he wished through a narcissistic type of leadership (Briant 73). Instead of performing his obligations as a leader, he satisfied his own military passions. He adopted a leadership style which altered between generosity and cruelty.
It is worth noting that he conquered so many territories through his victory in battle. His leadership style enabled him to conquer Sidon, Damascus, Egypt, Persepolis and Babylonia. These victories and conquests enabled him to at least spread Greek culture and beliefs across his empire. As a leader, Alexander focused more on what was a head of him and forgot his obligations as a statesman. As opposed to the leadership style of a statesman, Alexander adopted a heroic general style of leadership. In summation, he was not such a great leader as claimed.
Works Cited
Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: a history of the Persian empire. Eisenbrauns, 2002.
