As is commonly the case with great conquerors, historians vary greatly in their opinions of Alexander. On the one hand he is seen as a civilizer who unified much of Europe and Asia, bringing advanced Hellenistic culture which flourished for centuries. The Roman historian Plutarch saw him as a philosopher-king with a universal vision of a harmonious world. The Romans admired him greatly for setting the stage for their own Empire, which in many ways was a continuation of his. Others saw Alexander as a ruthless, blood-thirsty tyrant, so self-centered that his only goal was to feed his insatiable need for power and lust for battle.<ref> On the debate see Professor Ian Worthington "How 'Great' was Alexander?" ''The Ancient History Bulletin'' [http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html v.13 #2 (1999) online]</ref> | As is commonly the case with great conquerors, historians vary greatly in their opinions of Alexander. On the one hand he is seen as a civilizer who unified much of Europe and Asia, bringing advanced Hellenistic culture which flourished for centuries. The Roman historian Plutarch saw him as a philosopher-king with a universal vision of a harmonious world. The Romans admired him greatly for setting the stage for their own Empire, which in many ways was a continuation of his. Others saw Alexander as a ruthless, blood-thirsty tyrant, so self-centered that his only goal was to feed his insatiable need for power and lust for battle.<ref> On the debate see Professor Ian Worthington "How 'Great' was Alexander?" ''The Ancient History Bulletin'' [http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html v.13 #2 (1999) online]</ref> |