ALEXANDERALEXANDERHow should we evaluate Alexander the Great as a conqueror and how could any comparison to the others be possible at all, if we consider the time factor (the many centuries separating each of them). Nevertheless, the question can be asked if we remain aware of these methodological problems and limitations, for example is he superior to Caesar or Napoleon and in what way ?
The first noteworthy difference: he is the only one of the four conquerors to have rightfully taken the place of his father after his death and legally, legitimately and easily inherit his power, without much opposition. All the others (Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and even Caesar) will have to struggle and fight bitterly to gain this power.
As far as home politics is concerned, a series of bad choices in the selection of many of his associates, close collaborators and friends means that key positions were not filled with the right persons and would soon lead to problems (treason, conspiracies and rebellions). Success in foreign policy however, was largely due to the administrative measures he introduces of tolerance and respect towards local customs and traditions. Nevertheless, the policy of "fusion of East and West" he tried (fusion of both administrations and both armies) will have him soon run into difficulties in home politics. In the military sphere, things are better. The quickness with which revolts are crushed by large scale massacres and the extreme mobility and swiftness of his army are warrant of his success.
But, this otherwise fine record of Alexander's accomplishments
is shadowed by two crucial weaknesses that make him grow pale and lose
merit in any comparison with Genghis Khan.
We talk about the mutiny of his army (the one of the Hyphasus) and the
mutiny at Opis. Moreover, to fail to choose or appoint his successor is
a major mistake which leads direct to power struggles between his generals
and succession wars that will divide and destroy the empire. And precisely
this will take place immediately after his death.
3- Young Alexander goes to war
The reign of Alexander begins in 336 B.C., when he is still twenty years old. He possesses some measure of physical beauty: muscular body, pleasant oval face, blond curled hairs, a slim waist, etc... He is full of ardour and bravery. His early taste for armed forces and the government of men is remarkable.
He is confronted to the responsibilities of power at a very early age. He is only sixteen years old when his father Philip gives him command (for a time) of the entire kingdom. Luckily, he has experienced advisers to help him. He would then start a campaign against the Thracian uprising and establish a military colony at Alexandropolis.
During the battle of Chenoree, when he is still only 18 years old, he leads the West wing of the Macedonian cavalry. After the battle, he is sent to Athens as an ambassador with Antipater. He proved he could command the Macedonian army well. This marvelous conquering machine created by Philip could become his instrument. He has already gained the respect of the men, this army will be soon his. Besides, Alexander is good looking and Greeks are appreciative of physical beauty.
As soon as he is confirmed as successor, he proclaims his will to continue his father's work.
Let us say now that the Macedonian power is both undisciplined and anarchic. Philip II (Alexander's father) dies a victim of assassination, but he is not the only one: Perdiccas III is killed by his mother, Ptolemy is murdered by Perdiccas III, Alexander II is killed by his mother's lover (Ptolemy), Orestus is killed by his guardian, Archelas the first is killed by his favorite Craterus, Craterus (king for 4 days) is executed and finally the son of Perdiccas II himself had been killed at the age of seven by Archelas the first. Both successors of Alexander the Great will also be assassinated: Alexander IV will be killed by Cassandra and Philip Arridheus by Olympias (the mother of Alexander). This undisciplined race to power and the anarchic battle for the leadership of the kingdom will weaken the empire and hasten its decadence and fall.
Friendship was very important for Alexander. People were attracted to him because of his strong personality, and he had an almost religious belief in the value of human friendship. He wanted to be liked for himself. When his friendship would sometimes be betrayed by others, this would shake him to the core. Then he could not forgive anymore. He risked his life to save his former guardian Lysimacus; his gratitude for past personal devotions will last all his life.
He was a fiery young man that bore in himself the genius of universal friendship. He inherited from his mother an overflowing vitality that he wanted to put at the service of humanity; then xenophobia and chauvinism were unknown to him.
When asked how he could overcome Greece so rapidly, he answered << by never putting a matter off till next day>>. When Philip entrusts him with the regency of Macedon, it is clear that Alexander already has some experience of war and military campaigns. Although he has an experienced general, Antipater, riding with him as an adviser, his first task will not be an easy one. Tribes at the border, like the Illyrians and the Thracians on the West, are a constant threat for his lines of communication and the supply routes of his army. A victorious military expedition then shows that he can command and be obeyed by the regular Macedonian army, even at such an early age as sixteen. His men will follow him unconditionally in a tough campaign on a mountainous terrain, which means that they trust him.
Later, he will serve under his father with the rank of general to subdue the rebellious Thracian cities to the South. During the siege of Pirinthus, he saved Philip's life in the middle of a fierce battle. At seventeen, he repels an attempted invasion by the Illyrians. It is his third expedition on a difficult terrain.
As a general, Alexander will share all the difficulties and hardship with his men. He will show them that he can bear it all: heat, exhaustion, cold and a long tiresome walk. They would approve and respect the man who gives the example. In showing them consideration, attention and kindness, he will win their respect. He will face himself all dangers and difficulties to gain their admiration and get praised and honoured. He would visit the sick and wounded after a battle, he encouraged and congratulated them. This would explain the affection and admiration they felt for him.
They say that he was not afraid to risk his own life, and that he cared for- and would spare the life of his men. This is the legend and is not true. At the time of the crossing of the Hindu-Kuch (329), the wounded, the sick and those who couldn't keep up are abandoned and left to die along the road. During the wild chase after Darius and the remnants of his army, many of his men die of exhaustion. Their corpses are left for the vultures. Alexander doesn't spare the life of his soldiers: they must follow or perish. This is a mistake ! Genghis Khan spared the life and the strength of his men.
The impetuosity of Philip's son on the battlefield is counterbalanced by a surprising capacity to conceive and realize long-term objectives and wait. His plan was to control all the coast of the East Mediterranean sea before attempting the conquest of the Inland; this would allow him to guarantee both the safety of the newly liberated cities and that of his lines of communication.
Alexander was a fine tactician characterized by an exceptional faculty of adaptation. He could modify the dispersal pattern of his troops if need be. At the beginning of 333, he spends long weeks at Gordion instead of taking the offensive against Darius. He knows how dangerous Memnon's counterattack on the coast of Anatolia could become, if anything went wrong.
Some say that neither the expedition in Egypt (332-331), nor the siege of Aornos (326) or even the coming back from Gedrosia and Carmania (325-324) can be called mistakes or errors in judgement on his part. They say that all his choices were logical and originated from an objective analysis and realistic appraisal of strategic necessities. The fact remains that the "Return from Gedrosia" by a desert-route is a disaster. Alexander loses three quarter of his army there. This is plain lack of foresight.
During the campaign in Sogdiana, he and his men showed unparalleled endurance and fighting spirit. They triumphed over difficult terrain, bitter resistance of mountain fortresses and the resolve of their enemies. We can talk of incredible persistence here, of their capacity to overcome insuperable obstacles.
The love, admiration and devotion showed to him by his army was Alexander's true breath of life. He didn't want to gain an easy popularity. Just before a battle, he greeted his men by their first name instead of making speeches, but sometimes speeches were necessary. He took an interest in the living conditions of his men and would often remember their individual exploits. He built with them a unique relationship made of trust and intimacy and inspired by an instinct of possession growing to an almost superstitious dependence on him.
No other military operation shows better the diversity of Alexander's tactical genius than the battle of Hydaspus against Porus. He shows a mastery of psychological war, self-control, the swiftness of his reactions in cases of emergency, lots of imagination and resourcefulness, organization and the ability to have the full confidence of the men under his command.
What helped his rise to power was this group of devoted friends (most of them older than him) that he had gathered around him. In his friends he will invest his emotional capital and his generosity. Almost all of them will stay true to him throughout his life. This is the reason why, after the death of his father, his rise to the throne will not be disputed. He will become king of Macedon without opposition.
He starts his reign by eliminating all those who could endanger his succession to the throne. He has those responsible for his father's death also found and punished. His first victim will be his cousin Amyntas, the son of Perdiccas III. Two princes of Lyncest in Western Macedon will be next. Attales, a dangerous and openly hostile enemy, was a special problem, then he was still at the head of his troops in Asia Minor (right in the middle of a military campaign). An officer named Hecateus was sent to him with the secret mission to take him prisoner (if possible) or kill him. Attales was finally killed by Alexander's envoy. Attales' case constitutes a precedent. It foreshadows the way Parmenion himself will be executed by other envoys of the new king of Asia.
During his career, he will make numerous mistakes and errors in judgment in his choice of collaborators. For example, on his return from Egypt in 331, he calls back Harpales (a coward who had fled the battlefield before the battle of Issos) and reinstates him at his post of finance controller. This same Harpales had diverted money with an accomplice and plotted against Alexander. It is a mistake to reinstate him among the temptations of luxury and riches and entrust him with the office of keeper and administrator of the public- and army-treasury. He will run away again with, this time, the main part of the army's war-treasury. He will also try to stir up the population in Greece and start a rebellion against Alexander, which represents a double treason.
Many of his collaborators and officers will betray him. Is it only because he had made bad choices or is this due to an insufficient knowledge of human nature on his part ? Both, probably. Philotas, Parmenion's oldest son plotted Alexander's assassination with other young men. Parmenion himself knows about their subversive project. The King's tribunal finds Philotas, Nicanor and Parmenion guilty and sentence them to the death penalty.
Alexander compared and estimated his friend's loyalty according to his own towards them. He will often be disappointed. Until now, the young conqueror had only known the benefits of power; glory, tributes, splendor, unlimited riches and the pleasures of generosity: admiration, love, gratitude. For the first time, he learns the terrible necessities of this power which require not only the death of Philotas and Parmenion, but also the elimination of Kleitos, Callisthenes and Hermolaos.
The case of Kleitos, an old friend of his early childhood who dares insult him in the middle of a banquet, shows that Alexander cannot really trust those around him. He kills Kleitos in a fit of rage, then his criticism, provocations and accusations are becoming unbearable.
Progressively, following a steady succession of conquests and victories, Alexander transfers his hope on the young ones, but even the young will betray him. The third conspiracy will take place among them. Everything begins with the impertinent words and even insults spoken against him by the public speaker and historian Callisthenes during the ceremony of introduction of the proskynesis (prostrate oneself before the king). This Callisthenes would incite the young to openly rebel against the king, in particular, he urged a young man named Hermolaos to commit regicide, asking for nothing less than Alexander's assassination. Six young boys, members of the royal Ephebes were taking part to the plot. In spite of their young age, the guilty ones were sentenced to be stoned to death. Callisthenes was put in prison, later to be hanged.
We see that Alexander's trust if often betrayed. Why ? Is that naïveté, an excess of generosity, or a lack of knowledge of human nature ? Probably all three together. Finally, there is the matter of the growing misunderstanding between him and his army that leads to two major crisis, that are also two full fledged cases of mutiny: the Hyphasus and that at Opis. Earlier, during the sack of Persepolis, his soldiers were already talking of their wish to go home back to Macedon. During the mad ride after Darius they showed again their weariness.
He had to address his troops and make long speeches to convince them to go on. But the fierceness and uncertainty of the battles in Sogdiana and Bactriana will contribute to increase the gap between him and his army, especially since for the first time, a Macedonian army was almost totally destroyed. The final crisis blows up in 326 in India on the shores of the Hyphasus. The soldiers refuse to follow him any further. This time his speeches have no effect at all. He must finally give in and order the return to Macedon. The reason of his soldiers' refusal: their total physical exhaustion. The king is as demanding for himself as he is for his men, but he forgets that the virtue of example has its limitations.
The return home from India takes place on a basic misunderstanding. The soldiers believe they are going back to Macedonia permanently, so there is great anger when they find out at Opis (in 324) that Alexander wants to settle down in Asia and establish there the capital-city and center of the kingdom. The problem is that his men want to go back home. Simple soldiers do not want to take part into the new undertakings and initiatives of their king anymore, because these look like personal initiatives and projects to them leading to personal gain. This decisive resistance of his army constitutes Alexander's most serious failure.
There is a conflict between the collective will of the Macedonians and the personal character that the king intends to give to his power. What his army is complaining about, the list of their grievances reads as follows:
The soldiers know only about their hardships and ordeals, that become greater every day. Between the unlimited nature of Alexander's dream of conquest and the limited nature of human strength, the breaking off was unavoidable. To distribute too much wealth to his soldiers from the enormous booty he accumulates is another mistake. Indeed, men that are too fat, too well fed and too prosperous do not fight well and become lazy, which Napoleon was to find out many centuries later. Excessive generosity cannot buy loyalty or faithfulness. Another reproach concerns the decision to increase the cavalry in embodying and combining Sogdians and Bactrians and also the recruiting of thirty thousand young men of the conquered regions. The Asians become more numerous in the army, which displeases the old Macedonian soldiers. Moreover, when Alexander begins to require the prostration (proskynesis) from them when they approach him, the exasperation of many of his officers and soldiers becomes manifest.
The first mutiny takes place on the shores of the Hyphasus, where the army refuses to follow. But when he upsets the organization (the very nature) of the army by introducing Persians in the elite of his cavalry and even in his personal Guards (up to now the exclusive realm of the Macedonian aristocracy), protests become louder and revolt spreads in the ranks, especially among the veterans. The discontent that was brooding for a long time breaks out at Opis. Alexander will have to put all his prestige and influence in the balance to master the dissension that becomes at a point a real mutiny. But the almost romantic love that he felt for personal heroism and that made men disposed and inclined to follow him, will give him so much prestige in their opinion, that he will almost always be able to reason with them and assert- and push forward his point of view.
With regard to Bessus, Darius' assassin, that his own officers had handed over and betrayed to the Macedonians in exchange for clemency measures, it is out of the question to let him go unpunished. Alexander will show no mercy because he doesn't like traitors. He will have him horsewhipped publicly.
Bessus has betrayed and killed his king: traitor and regicide.
A judgment is reached according to Persian Law: he is flogged in public,
they cut his nose and ears. He will then be crucified on a tree at Ecbatanes.
The murder of a monarch is an act of rebellion and High treason. Such crimes
are punishable by death. Alexander wants to make an example, then he himself
is a king. The murder of a king, even if it is his enemy, concerns him
particularly.
Like Napoleon in Egypt, we can talk about Alexander the <<civilizator>>. He left for the East accompanied by a multitude of scientists: astronomers, botanists, historians, epigraphists and grammarians. He established in Alexandria (Egypt) a university-research institute called <<Museion>>.
The first question one should ask, when considering the career and accomplishments of Alexander, concerns the part of his success that should be attributed to mere chance. Chance or personal valour. Let's see ! Chance first to access the throne so young, with all the rashness and audacity of his twenty years of age. Chance again to have inherited from his father an excellent army. Chance always that Philip left him also an organization imposed to other Greek cities, the League of Corinth, of which he was president and general in chief. The league will renew its allegiance to Alexander, so that the young king will not have to fight anymore to gain hegemony over these same Greek cities.
Other chance to be ready just when the Persian empire exhausts itself without having been able to build a solid unity - a weakness that no Greek city alone could take advantage of. Chance again for the scientific aim of his expedition to have had Aristoteles as his master. And even, chance perhaps to die young, when signs of defection and indications of disloyalty accumulated, and when the huge difficulty to part from small scale models of organization (provided by the Greek cities and the Macedonian kingdom) would become clear to everyone. How to unify this empire when nothing anymore would depend from chance alone ! What would Alexander have done if he wouldn't have had all this luck ? Probably nothing more than his father, and perhaps far less than him !
Alexander opened deep Asia to Greek immigration; the foundation of numerous cities will allow the hellenization of Asia, i.e. the spreading of Greek culture. The Macedonian conqueror understood perfectly that a durable domination over Asia goes through an alliance with the traditional ruling class. His religious policy then consists in appropriating and using for his own profit the ideological basis upon which the social superiority of the nobility and the clergy and the power of the Great King were laid. The system of social classes and the economic system would remain the same.
At his death, Alexander's work remains fragile and uncertain. Discontent growls and rumbling can be heard throughout the empire. Greek cities of Europe are displeased with the recent decision regarding the return of the banished citizens (in 324); in Athens, preparations for a general uprising are under way. In Asia, numerous regions remain unsubdued. Furthermore, his death breaks off permanently the project of an expedition in Arabia.
Tension, discord and disagreement are emerging on the Macedonian side. Its leaders have no intention to carry on the fusion policy of Alexander, especially regarding the army. Finally, Alexander leaves no successor worthy of himself and capable to replace him in the various tasks of the administration of such a vast empire. Therefore, the Macedonian generals are ready to fight among themselves to seize power.
Alexander will not have time to build an empire on a planetary scale. His political work is barely outlined. Even his powers are not unified: he is King of Macedon, Strategist of the Greeks of the League of Corinth, Pharaoh of Egypt, King of Persia, Lord paramount (liege-lord) of Porus, Founder of cities, and his authority in the Greek cities of Asia is the consequence of several different pacts. This division of his powers will correspond to a similar division of his empire after his death.
Internet Address: giskhan@ca.inter.net
J.C.Rochfort (Webmaster) #107, 5970 21st avenue, Montreal, P. Quebec, CANADA H1X 2G4
Donations are welcome, but we don't need them to maintain this site. If you ever consider a donation, just send a cheque to J.C. Rochefort at the address above.
Don't forget to include a LARGE
SASE (Self addressed and stamped envelope).
Note that our best stuff is noton
the Internet.
© October 2002 Jean-Claude Rochefort. All rights reserved.
