Chapter 7 - Alexander III - Lord of Asia - Part 02

what was good for the Persians and non-Macedonians was certainly viewed with contempt by some Macedonians, so we are told. A great deal of this information comes to us from ancient City State sources and personally I believe it is biased. There may have been differences of opinion between Alexander and his officers but not to the extent emphasized. Alexander always showed interest in foreign cultures because he knew that he could benefit from their diversity. Alexander also knew that he could not rule a vast empire such as this by spear alone. He needed to elevate the feeling of belonging among all people. What better example than for Alexander himself to show everyone that even a king was not beneath participating in other peoples’ customs. There was bound to be some friction between his more conservative officers and himself but I don’t believe it was mutinous. Philotas may have had good reason to despise Alexander’s fraternization with the enemy. His brother died for Alexander and yet Alexander was too busy to give him a proper burial. There were also those who were tired of fighting a war without end and who were bound to complain. What good is wealth if one can’t enjoy it? History should judge the Macedonians not by what other people, especially those from the City States, have said but by what the Macedonians did. Despite the negative comments from ancient authors, there is one overriding truth that can’t be denied. The Macedonian army remained loyal to Alexander to the end. No army can remain intact or win battles the way the Macedonians did if there is dissension between its leaders. Alexander was unquestionably loyal to the Macedonians and the Macedonians were in turn unquestionably loyal to Alexander. The rest is nothing but rumours. Outside of these rumours, no ancient author has left any record of a real mutiny or conspiracy that may have allegedly taken place within the Macedonian army. There is not a single record of one Macedonian raising arms against another Macedonian. By this I am referring to Philotas’s trial and Parmenio’s execution. There are claims that Philotas was aware of a conspiracy to murder Alexander and Parmenio may have been part of the same conspiracy. It seems to me that in their preoccupation with their tabloid style denigration of Alexander, the ancient authors “simply forgot” to mention his more important accomplishments. They simply forgot to mention Alexander’s desire to unite all cultures of the world as equals, which has been a Macedonian quality passed on from generation to generation and has survived in the hearts of many Macedonian revolutionaries. Those who had contempt for Alexander have left us with the impression that Alexander and his officers were disgusting drunkards and petty, suspicious little men spying and exacting revenge on one other. Is this the making of a great army? Are we to believe that Alexander and his officers who, at all odds, won every single battle they fought and made possible out of the impossible because they were a bunch of drunk paranoid megalomaniacs? It is truly a shame that we know practically nothing of Alexander’s vision of a future world. His desire to create a truly democratic and pluralistic society has been clouded and coloured by those too small to see beyond themselves and their own prejudices. Alexander’s vision, be it out of necessity or by design, was so

far ahead of its time that we today are grasping to comprehend it. Alexander may have conquered the world by force but there is no doubt that he had desires to turn it into a modern “United Nations”.