The Constitutional Alamo

In his new book, Power Ambition Glory, Steve Forbes compares the leaders of the ancient world with leaders today.  As a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio show on July 8, Forbes compared Barack Obama to Alexander the Great.  I respectfully beg to differ.

by Michael Naragon

One of the most damaging forces in the study of history in recent years has been revisionism.  Revisionist historians have painted Thomas Jefferson as a slave owner who took liberties with his property.  Revisionists have tried to make slavery the primary cause of the Civil War.  Revisionists have done their damage to figures in the ancient world, as well, with none taking the brunt quite so squarely as Alexander.

In his interview with Hannity on Wednesday, Forbes was discussing his most recent book and gave his take on the oft-misunderstood conqueror, calling Alexander one who was given to passions that ultimately destroyed him.  Forbes said that Alexander did not match up favorably to other leaders of the ancient world, such as Cyrus the Great of Persia, whose policies of tolerance helped establish an empire that lasted generations.

What we know of Alexander comes from only a few ancient sources, none of whom were contemporaries of the conqueror himself.  Most of the history comes from Arrian, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and a few scattered others, who themselves used primary sources and were required to sift through biases and conjecture to formulate their histories.  Arrian, in particular, has come under fire from modern historians for using the work of Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s generals, who some claim distorted certain facts in order to boost his own reputation in history.

In fact, Arrian himself questioned the validity of several of the accounts contained in his primary sources.  After Alexander defeated the Persian king Darius III at Issus, securing for himself the better part of his known world, Arrian records that the young Macedonian king was approached by the mother of Darius.  Alexander was standing with his lifelong friend, Hephaestion, and the Queen, unsure of which man was Alexander, bowed before Hephaestion.  One of the Queen’s servants pointed out the error, to her extreme embarrassment, and Hephaestion stepped back, also uncomfortable with the mistake.  Alexander, according to those with him, calmly assured the Queen that Hephaestion was also an “Alexander” or “protector of men.”

The reason I bring up this account is because of the way Arrian handles the validity of the story.

“I record this anecdote not as necessarily true, though it is credible enough,” wrote the Roman historian.  “If such were indeed the facts, then I cannot but admire Alexander both for treating these women with such compassion and for showing such respect and confidence toward his friend; if the story is apocryphal, it was at least inspired by Alexander’s character: thus he would have acted, thus he would have spoken–and on that account, I admire him no less.”

It was Alexander’s character that was admired.  Not his speaking ability, not his physical features, but his character.  This is where Alexander differs greatly from Barack Obama, and, indeed, from many of his fellow notables of the ancient world.  In Forbes’ conversation with Hannity, he discussed the passions of Alexander and how those passions drove him on, regardless of the cost.  Truly, Alexander was passionate–no one conquers the world without a driving internal force–but I believe that Forbes has read a few too many of the revisionists who enjoy painting Alexander as a hard-drinking bisexual who murdered his way to the top.

Alexander was a leader in the truest sense of the word.  At his first battle against the Persians at the Granicus River, Alexander led his men across, braving the spears of the bewildered Persians in a wild charge.  This scene was repeated throughout his short military career, accounting for several injuries sustained by the young general.  In one particular instance in India, Alexander was so upset with the slow advance of his troops  on a city that he took it upon himself to scale the wall alone.  For several moments, Alexander fought the enemies inside the city single-handedly until his men, afraid for his life, entered the city and intervened.  Alexander suffered several grievous wounds, but the Macedonians took the city.

It is true, as Forbes said, that Alexander’s men eventually balked at further conquest.  The Macedonians understandably wanted to return home after years of warfare.  Alexander evetually–reluctantly–agreed.  Upon his return to Babylon, he grew sick and died soon after.  It is still unknown exactly what illness killed Alexander, though some have speculated that it may have been malaria, given his symptoms.  The temporary abandonment of his conquest–Alexander had plans to push into China–did not indicate a man who lost to his passions.  Instead, it indicates a man who, through force of character, led his men thousands of miles, through years of successful battle, until their will to fight expired while his continued to burn.

It is also true, as Forbes said, that Alexander’s empire dissolved almost immediately upon his death.  Forbes seemed to indicate that this was a failure of Alexander’s leadership.  I believe the exact opposite was true.  Alexander was a conqueror, not a politician.  He had been well trained by his tutors, including Aristotle, and showed a great deal of tolerance for Persian culture and the Persian people.  He even used the Persian system of governance, satrapies, to rule his vast holdings.  But, at heart, Alexander was a general, not a president.  His men followed him to the edge of the world, and his empire was held together by his presence and legend.  When he died, the empire died with him.  This does not appear to be weakness–his strength of character had been the adhesive of the largest empire the Western world had ever seen.  The fact that the political structure failed upon his untimely death shows just how powerful he personally had become.

And did his empire truly fail?  Politically, it was divided among his generals.  Culturally, Alexander had succeeded in spreading Greek language, culture, and influence throughout the Middle East and Asia.  His conquest opened the door for another world empire, Rome, to come later.  And the standardization of language which came from his rule paved the way for the spread of Christianity, which became the most dominant religion in the West and gave English pilgrims reason to settle the New World centuries later.

To compare this great man, Alexander, with Barack Obama is an insult to the conqueror’s memory.  While Alexander led from the front, taking the dangers with his men, Obama waits upon polls and reads scripts from teleprompters.  While Alexander believed in strength to deal with potential enemies, Obama signs away our defense systems in Russian treaties.  While Alexander dealt harshly with those who defied him, using strength of arms at Tyre and in Bactria, Obama has pulled our victorious American forces out of Iraq after years of prognosticating defeat.  While Alexander gained confidence and love from his followers because of his deeds and experiences, Obama, who has little experience, has had to rely on words to gain a following.  While Alexander, against his wishes, bent to the will of his men who begged him to return home, Obama and his comrades in Congress continue to plunge our nation into debt, regardless of the people’s outcry against it.

So while I am sure that Forbes’ book is an interesting read and that he makes many valid comparisons between ancient leaders and businessmen of today, to say that Barack Obama is another Alexander is folly in its highest form.