In the beginning of the nineteenth century war began to be viewed as a moral evil. This idea would have been incomprehensible to any Macedonian in the 4th century B.C. and to Alexander it is entirely inapplicable. He was a warrior king born to the crown and the sword; it was his raison d'etre. Macedonian kings fought and conquered and the more they fought and the more they conquered the better kings they were perceived to be.
He was born early into the Hellenization of Macedonia not far from a time when no young man was allowed to eat with the adult males until he had brought the head of an enemy to the table. Alexander yearned to be a great king, greater than his father Philip who had been the greatest king in the history of Macedonia. There was only one way to accomplish this and Alexander took it.
In later times the Romans greatly admired Alexander for his conquests. If conquests came at the expense of tens of thousands of human lives, the conquests were honorable and the lives lost honorably.
This social value has only recently changed. Ironical in the last two hundred year period of constant human slaughter Alexander is criticized as having caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Again the application of contemporary mores is inappropriate. He did and for thousands of years was admired for it.
|