Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwawayffffas 756 days ago
> 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.

2 comments

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.

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.

>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.

> 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.

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.

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.
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.
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.