Alexander the Great was better than the average conqueror

Alexander, the handsome young Macedonian king remembered as “the Great,” is often compared to the mythical Greek hero Achilles. Both are loved by their soldiers and are almost invincible. But telling the story of Alexander’s life is similar to the story of another legendary figure, Icarus, because his martial skills, good luck and ambition have taken him far. While trying to reach the end of the world as we know it, Alexander flew too close to the sun.

The last years of Alexander’s life are often used by historians to provide a moralizing lesson that is often based on anti-Asian racism. Even in his lifetime, Alexander faced criticism because his campaigns in Asia were damaging to him. When he conquered other lands, the story goes, he became megalomaniacal: unnecessarily violent, easily offended and preoccupied with conquest. In this version of the narrative, Alexander’s offenses piled up to the point where some historians assert that he did not die of natural causes and must have been killed.

That’s why Rachel Kousser’s new biography, “Alexander at the End of the World: The Forgotten Final Years of Alexander the Great,” is a breath of fresh air on the subject. Kousser neatly sums up the myth of “Alexander’s trajectory from famous Macedonian king to corrupt, brutal Oriental despot” and then spends several hundred pages debunking it.

Instead of taking on his entire life – a daunting prospect given that ancient biographies of Alexander sometimes span 10 volumes – Kousser focuses on the most misunderstood years, from 330 to 323 BC, a relatively short but powerful period that cemented his legacy.

Perhaps calling these years “forgotten,” as the book’s subtitle is, is hyperbolic: Alexander’s life was obsessively documented and embellished. However, it is true that many historians do not give these years because they are compared to the glorious days of Alexander’s meteoric rise. These are the years of loss, failure, near death and anticlimactic death.

Kousser brings us to the story in time for the famous burning of Persepolis, the jewel of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. Alexander’s consolidation of power, the conquest of Asia Minor and the founding of Alexandria were all behind him at this time. When he burned Persepolis, he had just returned from Egypt, where he claimed to be the son of a god.

Alexander’s destruction of Persian cities after clearing the treasury is often considered the beginning of the despotic downfall. But Kousser points out, he lives to regret the fire. As he pursues conquests throughout Asia, he quickly learns that the wrath of the gods and the futile tactics of the earth.

It is not surprising that Alexander learned new and better ways to rule as he aged. Only 25 when he pursued his enemy Darius III, the last Achaemenid king, through Persia, he was barely old enough to set his course. But that’s not how the story usually goes.

Kousser illuminates many of Alexander’s lessons in building his empire. He shared how he learned to negotiate, control his impulses and integrate different cultures. His Alexander was not only cosmopolitan but also tried to create a multicultural empire. Despite his mistakes, Kousser wrote, Alexander showed “grit, resilience, and resilience uncommon for his age, or for others.”

Nor are we surprised that this has led to conflict with those who maintain the status quo. For the Greeks who were convinced of their superiority over the peoples of Africa, Persia and India, Alexander’s egalitarian approach was very difficult. When their governors wronged them, they were not only punished swiftly but equally, Kousser said, regardless of their background.

Kousser’s biography goes beyond Alexander’s military movements and emotional life. He treats his lifelong dream of seeing the edge of the world — and dreaming that dream — with the appropriate emotional weight. He examines his relationship with his friend and general, Hephaestion, and his grief at his death, with the help of historical context and archaeological evidence. He brings to life a charisma that certainly inspires immense loyalty in soldiers even when they are disgruntled.

Rachel Kousser

(Nina Subin)

But Kousser is no apologist. Although he treats Alexander with a compassion that is usually absent in accounts that focus on his military achievements, he holds him responsible for his failures. They also detail their efforts to correct and learn from their mistakes.

Importantly, Kousser does not rely solely on Greek accounts of Alexander’s life, which tend to ignore the populations of the conquered places. Through cuneiform tablets of Babylonian astronomers, Aramaic inscriptions found in modern Afghanistan and archaeological remains of the conquest, Kousser teases out the forgotten perspective of the conquered as much as he considers the conqueror. His account is exhaustively researched – many chapters exceed 100 footnotes – but remains approachable.

Kousser is above all professors who have lessons for us. He compares Alexander’s efforts at an integrated multicultural empire to later European efforts to “civilize” the conquered subjects. Although he probably is at a proto-imperialist, Alexander celebrated and respected the diversity of the people he conquered.

Although thousands perished, those who survived were part of the most diverse kingdom of antiquity. Alexander never tried to force conformity to Macedonian culture or religion. He supported Persian rule, Indian philosophy and interfaith marriage. In it, Kousser sees a road map to a multicultural future.

Kousser’s work is a necessary addition to the historiography of Alexander’s life. Rejecting the myth of Alexander’s fall, he tells us that “the East did not destroy the Macedonian king. However, from the beginning he contained the seeds of everything that would become him one day.

Valorie Castellanos Clarkwriter and historian in Los Angeles, as the author of “Unruly Figures: Twenty Stories of Rebels, Rule Breakers, and Revolutionaries You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of.”