[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.