[j9461701]

> Alexander has a lot of failings, and we’re going to get to them. But he was unnaturally composed and at least when it came to doing violence (and getting others to do violence effectively) he was highly competent, almost absurdly so.

I suppose my question is: How do you know this? Alexander was surrounded by hand-picked men his father had groomed for decades in some cases. Offering council on every part of war fighting, from tactics to strategy to logistics. Isn't it entirely possible Alexander simply went with the flow of wiser, more experienced men telling him what to do?

Earlier in the article the author mentions alexander's perfect track record of logistical balancing. Surely that, if nothing else, is far better attributed to his officer corps then him? They'd been doing this successfully for 20 years before he took over, they had lots of practice at it and all Alexander had to do was not upset the apple cart.

Or another example - one man cannot organize a cavalry detachment mid-battle and send it to aid a failing flank. That takes the work of many dozens of officers, and well trained soldiers drilled to follow orders even under intense stress.

Of course this is all speculation on my part, as we simply can't know due to the mythologizing of the man and his life. But it's a question I find interesting to ponder.

[throwawayffffas]

> Isn't it entirely possible Alexander simply went with the flow of wiser, more experienced men telling him what to do?

During battle he led his own element and consistently made the right calls when doing so. The wiser men where hundreds to thousands of meters away leading the rest of his army, with effectively no way to communicate with him.

> Surely that, if nothing else, is far better attributed to his officer corps then him? They'd been doing this successfully for 20 years before he took over, they had lots of practice at it and all Alexander had to do was not upset the apple cart.

The scale of the operations during these 20 years were nothing like the campaign he led. They operated entirely in Greece, the furthest they operated from their homes was in the hundreds of kilometers, in pretty much known terrain. Alexander led them all the way to India.

> Or another example - one man cannot organize a cavalry detachment mid-battle and send it to aid a failing flank.

One man cannot organize and send it but can definitely lead it to do that. He made the decision to aid the failing flank, not his officers. His officers just followed him. If he chose to chase down the fleeing enemy they would just do that.

There are countless examples through out history of leaders chasing down fleeing enemies only to find their flank collapsed and the battle lost. Similarly there are countless examples of leaders overextending in their campaign running out of supplies.

The gist is that you can't really argue with his track record. He won all the battles he fought and took down an empire several times larger than his kingdom with an army of about 50000 men. He was handed with a very effective military system, but he wielded it perfectly, that takes great skill.

[cryptonector]

Even with Alexander inheriting a war machine from his father Phillip, he managed to do something that was unthinkable in Greece: defeat Persia in detail. Even with a machine created by his father, having the gumption to take it that far makes him sui generis.

But he had to do much more than copy his father. He had to deal with logistics in a way that his father never had to. Alexander's war was as much about the logistics of supplying his army as about the battles it fought. He had to deal with large geopolitical aspects of the war, such as the need to win (or defend successfully) at sea, not just land, and he couldn't be both at sea and on land. Founding lots of cities to anchor his authority was a geopolitical technique that his father had not had to employ.

Sure, Alexander was his father's son, but Alexander's accomplishments are his own.

[jklinger410]

History is written by the winners. 100% of that "he led the flank himself and commanded while the other men just watched" is suspect.

Do you think, if it were true, that he was an entitled brat who just did what his commanders told him to do, that they would have written that?

We have a mythical commander who did everything right. And it's likely just that: a myth.

[MerManMaid]

>History is written by the winners. 100% of that "he led the flank himself and commanded while the other men just watched" is suspect.

History is written by the literate. (i.e. the rich for most of human history)

In this case, most information about Alexander the Great comes from four distinct sources, the most famous being Arrian of Nicomedia who famously used Ptolemy I Soter as their primary source.

Ptolemy at the time he wrote his testimony was already a king and only had benefit of grandizing his own contributions not his old King. His account was famed for how straightforward it was and seemed only to confirm Alexander's exceptional leadership in battle.

[throwawayffffas]

> Do you think, if it were true, that he was an entitled brat who just did what his commanders told him to do, that they would have written that?

I think if it were true, he would not have been king for long.

[lolinder]

Actually, while I share your skepticism about the argument, this isn't a very good counter—plenty of commanders in that situation would have been perfectly content to keep the young pliable boy on the throne. Each one of them would have had more power in that situation than they would in a succession crisis.

Indeed, in the event it worked out quite well for them. First conquer the world with the united Macedonian army, then partition the world between them when Alexander dies.

[jklinger410]

Let's not act as if the idea of a bunch of generals and noblemen propping up a myth about a great leader is outside of the realm of imagination.

[cryptonector]

The myth propping could have stopped when he died. It didn't. And that is in spite of his kingdom immediately being partitioned and in spite of squabbles immediately arising. His generals and court fractured when he died, but they didn't turn on him.

[MerManMaid]

I actually agree with the spirit of what you're saying but I feel compelled to point out that Alexander actually wasn't a king for very long. The median reign for hellenistic rulers was 20-30 years whereas Alexander's only reigned for a short 13 years.

Again while I absolutely agree with your point, he was in fact, not a king for very long.

[fch42]

One may rightfully ask whether Alexander just "went with the flow" as you phrase it, or to use a different term, "was lucky to be at/in the right place at the right time". Or even "lucky to have died before his luck ran out".

Let's keep in mind though that having great resources at your disposal, and a large circle of experienced and capable advisors at hand, does not necessarily create a lasting form of "action alignment" between those.

It is interesting in this context that none of his advisors or "immediate staff" ever strongly challenged Alexander in his lifetime.

They deferred to him till the last moment, only to basically be snubbed off by his famous "whoever's strongest" last words. Only then did they go for each others' throats.

It is of course possible, given historical records and "history is written by the victors", that his portrayal as integrative figure is flawed and more incorrect than not. The behaviour of the diadochs, the "infighting of the inner circle" which he apparently had contained in his lifetime, yet broke out immediately after, that make it likely that he brought some forms of "interpersonal skills" to the table which neither his father, nor his "successors" possessed in equal measure.

(my opinion)

[coldtea]

>or to use a different term, "was lucky to be at/in the right place at the right time".

Very little luck is involved in winning battle after battle and expanding a city-state kingdom 1000x, with strategic decisions which are still studied and marvelled upon by millitary experts.

[Iolaum]

Luck was definitely involved. In chaotic situations, such as a battlefield anything can happen. As an example here's a record[0] of Alexander almost dying:

    At Granicus, Alexander was hit in the head by scimitar-wielding cavalry, causing his helmet to fly off his head. The Persians later struck the king with a missile, which went through his shield and lodged in his shoulder.

- The head hit could have given him a serious concussion, even causing him to fall unconcious making his troops think he died and plummeting morale. - The arrow could have pierced his heart instead of his shoulder after going through his shield.

The real point is that such an accomplishment will never be due to pure luck. Skill also had to be there.

[0]: https://www.military.com/history/alexander-great-caught-luck...

[wumbo]

Are there graphical apps for understanding history? Something more than an ebook and less than Total War.

Visualization

[dr_dshiv]

Here's the book that helped me the most (visually) https://www.amazon.com/Great-Battles-Christer-Jorgensen/dp/1...

[eru]

Where do you get the 1000x from?

[coldtea]

From the relative sizes of the original Kingom at the time of Phillip II to the expanses Alexander conquered. More like 100x (1000x would cover the whole globe), but 1000x works for emphasis.

[eru]

You are suggesting that Alexander's empire covered 10% of the globe?

Please check your sense of scale.

The total area of the globe is about 510.1 million km2; the total landmass of earth is about 148 million km2. The Internet tells me that Alexander's empire stretched about 5.2 million km2 at its greatest extent. Which is about 1% of the globe, or 3.5% of the total dry landmass.

For comparison, the Soviet Union had about 22.4 million km2. And the British Empire had about 35.5 million km2 at its largest.

The Internet also tells me that Phillip II controlled about 0.3 million km2 at the end of his reign. Which makes for about 5% of Alexander's territory at the end of his reign. A 20x expansion for Alexander is nothing to sneeze at, but it's a far cry from 1000 or even 100.

[coldtea]

Phillip II controlled roughly half of modern Greece size-wise, so 25K sq.m. At best, if we include his later (unstable) expansion territories, like the Peloponnese, he'd be at something like 35K sq.m. Not sure where 0.3M sq. miles comes from (that would be 8 to 12 times the area).

For Alexander the numbers I find are about "two million square miles".

2M / 25K gives 1/80. Round it up to 1/100 and let's call it a day.

1000x was an off the cuff number, with the point being the huge increase in the size of the kingdom Alexander inherited - not the specific multiplier.

[coldtea]

>Isn't it entirely possible Alexander simply went with the flow of wiser, more experienced men telling him what to do?

Listening to "wiser, more experienced" men is part of being "unnaturally composed".

Especially if you're not just some unsure youngling who suddenly inherited a throne you can't handle, but a decisive king who expanded your father's kingdom 1000x.

In different examples, even the sons of the most wise and temperate emperors could turn into depraved bloodthirsty tyrants.

Not to mention Alexander as a kid studied with one of the most wise and educated men of his time (and the previous/next millenium or so).

[eru]

Where do you get the 1000x from? Have a look at the submitted article to see a map of the kingdom Alexander inherited. It's substantially bigger than 0.001x of Alexander's empire's greatest extent.

[coldtea]

It was around 100 to 1, but close enough to make the point

[eru]

No. Where are you getting the 100 from?

Have a look at the article. See the map with the legend:

> Via Wikipedia, a map of the expansion of Macedonian controlled territory during the reign of Philip II. Philip controlled only the darkest orange area (and not all of it) at the start of his reign; by the end he controlled Macedon, Thrace, Thessaly and the Greek states of the League of Corinth.

Macedon, Thrace, Thessaly and the Greek states of the League of Corinth together are more than 1% of Alexander's empire.

[worldvoyageur]

> I suppose my question is: How do you know this? Alexander was surrounded by hand-picked men his father had groomed for decades in some cases. Offering council on every part of war fighting, from tactics to strategy to logistics. Isn't it entirely possible Alexander simply went with the flow of wiser, more experienced men telling him what to do?

Alexander did inherit a superb army. However, while he was present the army enjoyed spectacular operational and battlefield success. Once Alexander was gone, the successes also stopped.

[lolinder]

> Once Alexander was gone, the successes also stopped.

While true, this doesn't necessarily preclude the hypothesis that Alexander's generals were the real power behind the throne. The successes stopped around the time that the Macedonian armies started fighting each other and trying to actually rule the areas that they conquered. This could easily be explained by the generals being all roughly equally competent at commanding soldiers and also simultaneously being distracted by affairs of state and so drawn away from expansion into non-Macedonian territory.

[elteto]

The fact that he commanded the respect and loyalty of all those officers, who were older and more experienced, tells you a lot. Not a single one of those men, who served under his father and knew Philip's caliber, would have allowed an immature, incapable teenager lead them. He would have been murdered quickly, as it happened many times to the lesser children of great emperors/kings/etc.

At those levels, loyalty and respect are very much something you _must earn_. It is not given.

[chrisco255]

Leadership always plays a huge role in the success of any operation. Part of the job of a leader is to understand which advice is worth listening to. Furthermore, advice is never unanimous, there are always huge trade offs to weigh in any large endeavor.

[seer]

There was an incredibly insightful series of articles at the acoup blog about pre-industrial armies (https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-...)

What I got from that is that moving an army of more than 10000 men was a monumental effort in and off itself. The real genius commanders were the ones who had more than 5% of their attentions and talent to actually do any sort of tactics on the battlefield.

Just showing up in proper order would more often than not lead to winning, since it was so damn hard.

So managing to move such an army across asia was an incredible achievement that warrants praise, regardless if he himself was responsible or just recognizing the talent and keeping it in the right position.

[theskypirate]

> Earlier in the article the author mentions alexander's perfect track record of logistical balancing. Surely that, if nothing else, is far better attributed to his officer corps then him? They'd been doing this successfully for 20 years before he took over, they had lots of practice at it and all Alexander had to do was not upset the apple cart.

Alexander's officers had experience campaigning in Greece. It's logistically incomparable to conquering even Asia Minor, forget the whole of Persia.

[lmaothough12345]

This is the Classic example of the "Bwaaa! Ba! Nooo, no one is exceptional! It was just their rich daddy I swear. I only suck because my daddy sucked"

[thom]

Definitely fun to ponder, speculate away! Parmenion lost to Memnon before Alexander turned up, maybe he wasn't so hot? Alexander's logistics on the journey home certainly seemed a mess, maybe he shouldn't have alienated so many of the old Macedonians? Besides, history doesn't who actually asked Philip "what if we made the spears LONGER?" Maybe we should be giving that guy more credit.

[jncfhnb]

Not upsetting the cart over a long period with significant change is pretty good though.

[davedx]

Perhaps it was even like Shakespeare - how do we really know he even existed as a person at all? Perhaps "Alexander" was actually a collection of Macedonian Generals?! As was stated in the article, all the original sources are gone.

[coldtea]

Because we're not talking about some undiscovered pre-historic Atlantis, it's from a period with tons of historical evidence and records (including written ones) from multiple nations.

We have had records about rulers and events from that wider area (from Greece to India) for centuries before Alexander.

>As was stated in the article, all the original sources are gone.

Just the primary sources from contemporaries who directly worked with him. We still have histiographical sources about him referrencing and quoting those, and from very close chronologically times, epigraphs, whole cities established by him, coins, and so on.

It's not something that would "slip by".

[spaced-out]

We do know Shakespeare was a real person because he did a lot more in his life than just have his name appear on some plays.