Alexander the Great was antiquity\'s greatest commander

[Dan Howard]

Bah. Look at what Philip started with and what he achieved. When you examine the man himself along with his accomplishments, Alexander is just a preppie crybaby in comparison. Philip II should be at the top of any list by a significant margin.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And what about Julius Caesar, taking on Pompey, the greatest general of his time, Pompey Magnus, when Pompey had far more men?

Oh! don't get me started on Caesar! Here's a guy whos every manuever was in service of himself alone. A Roman from a very different mold than Camillus or Fabius Maximus. Pompey should have had him! Pompey said, "let them starve. Why chance a battle?" and his peers said "nah, lets fight! What are you, a coward?" Pompey went against his cautious instincts, and recieved one of the rudest shocks in military history.



I .

Ha ha, and you're saying the likes of Pompey only put the Republic first. You having a laff arn't you??? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Thunder]

As far as I can tell, the single most important quality of these 'great generals' is a whole lot of good fortune. Some guy and his friends go on a criminal rampage, and when he isn't killed immediately we call him 'great'. What exactly did Alexander do to improve civilization? Become the new Xerxes?

Take Hannibal for example. Everything he did was extremely rash. Very often taking his troops to battle in inferior numbers with no supplies. That's not what a great general does. He stumbled into a series of unlikely victories so we assume there was something special about him other than his willingness to take huge risks and hope for devine favor. Well, guess what, his luck ran out and his culture was snuffed out for all eternity. All because of his hubris! Great commander? Not in my mind.

He was fighting the Romans. When fighting Romans, you will never, ever have greater numbers (because the Roman military machine churns out soldiers until the last plebian and slave is dead), nor will you ever have adequate supplies (because they will generally hide away from battle). Thus you have to win by being daring, bold and decisive, something Roman commanders generally are not. There was no way on Earth the Carthaginians could have won a protracted, long-term engagement with the Romans - the Romans were simply too bloody-minded and too good at fighting protracted, long-term battles of attrition.

[barcid]

now dont be knocking Hannibal ,he is the Ancient worlds greatest general .of course im not biased :wink: ,& he did kick roman butt for a long time with a mostly Merc. army & has the biggest Kill numbers against the romans. :twisted:

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Bah. Look at what Philip started with and what he achieved. When you examine the man himself along with his accomplishments, Alexander is just a preppie crybaby in comparison. Philip II should be at the top of any list by a significant margin.

Philip II's accomplishments sorta' fell into line, methinks. Granted, when he took the Macedonian throne, he spent the years between 360-359 doing some cart wheels to secure his position against his internal enemies and the typical border clashes that followed for most new Macedonian rulers... But this was a typical passage of rites for new Macedonian kings, who were heirs to a nation of rebellion, tribal feuding and border warfare. He certainly mustered and reorganized the army of the nation effectively and quickly enough to ward off attacks, and was as shrewd a politician as he was a general. He married seven times, almost wholly for political consolidation, and defeated any of his bordering, non-Greek enemies who did not go for political harmony in open warfare throughout the course of his reign. And very successfully, at that! He was also very cultural, and a successfully city-builder, which was a point of pride among ancient rulers and typical of the later Hellenistic Era. most likely influenced directly by Philip and Alexander's love for founding... But it doesn't go much further without having to really read between the lines.

When we look at what he's typically given credit for beyond his Macedonian reformation, the story is different. Firstly, even his reorganization of the Macedonian army was largely based on the Theban model, which we can thank Epominondas and Pelopidas for. And his "conquest" of Greece was hardly that. One of Philip's first moves against Greeks was when he took advantage of Athens and their War of the Allies in 357 by making a preemptive strike against Amphipolis after some shady diplomatic business, and was able to regain Athens' friendship somewhat in spite of this success - particularly through the Peace of Philocrates in 346. He was able to participate in the Olympics with his horse, which won and showed him off quite well. If he were Greek enough to participate in the Olympics, surely things were lookin' good for his Hellenization! On a more serious note, he was invited to participate in a Sacred War in 346 against Phocis, and didn't even fight a battle before they surrendered to the threat of his army marching into Boeotia, which it did. After this success, he was invited into the Amphictionic League in the Phocian's stead, and in doing so gained influence in Greek affairs he'd otherwise been discounted from, even if the position was highly ceremonial most of the time (they only met a couple times a year, and he only attended when requested, as far as we are aware). He was asked to return for a second Sacred War in the year leading up to Chaeroneia, and when Athens and Thebes didn't show up for the Amphictionic meeting, he was asked to preside over it by the other Greeks! So what'd he do? He sent an embassy to Thebes asking them to fight alongside his army in this renewed Sacred War. At the same time, after Athens had soured to Philip in the wake of Demosthenes' ranting and raving, envoys were sent from Athens to Thebes as well, asking for them to fight against Philip! Thebes chose Athens, probably in spite of Philip's influence in Boeotia, and they marched together against him, and he won. That was Chaeroneia in 338... He took advantage of this handy situation (having just defeated the two major Hellenic powers simultaneously, and very randomly) and garrisoned Thebes and Corinth, let Athens off easy and declared at a general assembly of the states that he would conceive the League of Corinth. This, of course, virtually made him the hegemon of Greece after only a single battle, which the sources tell us was hard-fought and won only due to Alexander's courageous actions whilst commanding the Companions. Huh!

So when it comes to the big picture of Greek affairs (arguably the most impressive stuff), there wasn't much that Philip II did that was very amazing, particularly in light of the events preceding his reign. Agesilaus of Sparta had already established the ideal of hegemony earlier in the 4th century, Theban military genius had already reconstructed the phalanx that Philip successfully wielded against Greek adversaries on few occasions, and many of the city-states invited him into their territories with open arms. No doubt, Philip II did some great things, and on a big scale. But his support tends to exaggerate his role in the activities that led him to the power and prestige he had gained upon his death. This, of course, is debatable from a modern perspective, but viewing the events surrounding his ascension as they are accounted by the ancient authors, it seems that embellishment of his doings is not far removed from his glory.

-Gregory

[Lindsay_Powell]

A galant attempt, Spartan JKM.

I am very glad to see Nero Claudius Drusus and his son Iulius Caesar Germanicus listed under your second tier. However I do feel bound to say that Alexander the Great is generally overrated as a commander. I set out my reasons why when comparing Nero Claudius Drusus to him in the Assessment chapter of my forthcoming book, 'Eager for Glory: The Untold Story of Drusus the Elder, Conqueror of Germania' (pre-order now on Amazon and at other good bookstores - sorry for the undisguised plug).

I'd be happy to engage in detailed debate for raising Nero Claudius Drusus to a higher status after my book is released to the public on 23 March 2011. Meantime, John D. Grainger makes a compelling contra case in 'Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire' (2007) which deserves a wide readership.

[Dan Howard]

Philip II's accomplishments sorta' fell into line, methinks.

[snip]
All of which far exceeds anything Alexander did. Lindsay is correct that Alexander is seriously overrated as a commander. Without his father's army and, more particularly, his father's generals, he would be nothing. Alexander had ambition, charisma, and luck. Some would say that he was also brave but others (me included) would call him reckless and irresponsible. He was an immature, petulant, drunkard.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

All of which far exceeds anything Alexander did.

What makes Philip II a great commander? We hardly know any particulars of any of his military feats. We have no idea how much help he had from his own generals, who were so successful that they outlived him and continued to influence his son. His military accomplishments are shrouded in mystery compared to Alexander's. On the other hand, those of his son are known widely across the world, and it was by his own charismatic leadership and risk-taking (often at the expense of his generals' wishes) that he was able to crush the Persian army at the Granicus, Issus and finally at Gaugamela, that he was able to subdue to Tyrian's after a seven month siege that be the first over their walls, and march over numerous mountain ranges with an army on his heels that would come thundering into the Issus Valley and defeat a grand army of Indian soldiers and elephants at the Hydaspes. He was able to maintain the vigor of his troops by rewarding them handsomely and in true warrior-king fashion, often against the judgment of his generals, and have them trek thousands of miles across unknown, foreign regions. He founded over a dozen cities, a handful of which remained successful into the Hellenistic era and beyond, and was so enthusiastic not only about war and politics but also culture that he had to rival Athens for himself in his first foundation of Alexandria.

Yeah, he was a drunk. So was his father, as well as most Macedonians. The Greeks generally thought the Macedonians were obnoxious drinkers, who didn't mix water with their wine. At a single drinking game that Alexander hosted in either Babylon or Persepolis (I don't remember which) some 37 competitors died due to complications arising from the evening's drinking! Plutarch tells us that Philip couldn't even walk across a room to face Alexander after an insult, and was so deranged that he had his son exiled from the kingdom for months over a single insult before coming to his senses through the pleas of his friends (Plut, Alex. 9). I'd say this same event shows a particular level of immaturity that Alexander likely inherited from his father, who was so obsessed with becoming Greek that he wouldn't even recognize his first-born son in the face of finally having married a Greek woman, probably not just for political reasons - but deeply personal. In any case, why would any of those qualities you brand Alexander with have much to do with his charisma and prospects as a general? That's very straw man of you, Dan. Philip II may have been the greatest man to ever walk to the face of the earth. But what little we know about his person and his politics cannot compare to Alexander's outrageous achievements over the course of his young life, even if we look at the latter in a sour light while trying to uphold the esteem of the father - which would often be contrary to what evidence we do have. Alexander inherited the throne at the age of 20 after his father was assassinated, and had grown up as the heir to the most powerful king in Greece. I doubt that many would be anything but arrogant, headstrong and belligerent in such a case!

-Gregory

[Macedon]

Alexander was one of the most important and successful commanders of antiquity and surely his fame was not a product of Greek propaganda or contemporary groupies. Although to my opinion Hannibal was a better field commander, not because his tactics were more inspired but solely because the tactical difficulties he faced on the battlefield were greater, Alexander was the most competent commander of all. He excelled in all aspects we could rate in a general.

1. Innovation and Adaptability

Alexander displayed tremendous adaptability and innovation during his career. It is true that the Macedonian army was an excellent war machine even in Philip's time, but inheriting a superb army did not stop him from advancing its tactical capabilities even more. We cannot be sure as to how much he changed Macedonian armament, although theories exist that it was in fact he that made the sarrisa really standing out from a very long spear, but it is during his reign that we see the Hetairoi taking their (Alexandrian) role on the battlefield and not during Philip's. One can surely argue that lack of evidence as to how Philip utilized cavalry should not drive us to the conclusion that Alexander developed their tactics, but it is Alexander who is the world's first cavalry general. Philip stayed in a more traditional place among the infantry. This is evidence enough that Alexander relied much more than his father on the effect his cavalry would have upon the enemy. Throughout his career, Alexander is full of ideas. He ponders on his experimental phalanx, he utilizes horse archers, he successfully deals with elephants, chariots, rolling carts, he has to ford wide rivers like Hydaspes, not streams as is the case in most such battles, he has to devise a way to get at Tyre, a task as large-scale as Masada, only some centuries before that, he successfully fights the Scythians, he proves he has soldiers that "fly", he wins battles by exhibition of ability... Alexander's history is full of elements of innovation and he surely is the most adaptable of commanders, if only because of the constant differentiation of circumstances he had to face in his career.

2. Tactical Genius

No one doubts that his battles were marvelously marshaled. Some of us might not hold that much respect for the Persian army, especially under Darius, but truth is that he displayed a unique ability to understand tactical opportunities, even though sometimes even his most experienced and capable of generals failed to do so. His rashness was not youthful arrogance but history proves that Alexander knew how to exploit every factor that could win him a battle. Against the Persians he had to act fast, slow maneuvers and long battles would only tax his army against a much larger opponents (even if not counted in millions), equipped with bows and skirmishing cavalry. On the other hand, he waited for days until he decided to ford Hydaspes, he employed a stratagem to hit at Illyrian morale, he shunned away from the urge to attack the Malli with his cavalry and patiently waited for his infantry to catch up...

His tactics were diverse and complex. He utilized all known forms of phalanx deployment. Oblique, oblong, plinthion... He moved forces from one wing to the other during the battle, like at Issus and Hydaspes, he combined arms, employed stratagems, utilized new troop types all the time.. no other ancient commander is credited with more diversity in his tactics, not even Hannibal, Caesar or Scipio. And of course he fought against a huge variety of enemies,Greek hoplite armies, Illyrians, Gauls, Thracians, Persians, Indians, Scythians... with absolute success.

3. Strategical Genius

In such a short time, Alexander created a vast empire. He was able to fully exploit his victories, he was a superb politician, he was able to keep a relatively stable empire formed by hundreds of peoples. Alexander's route through Asia clearly shows that his course was well planned, he consolidated his advances, he drew his opponents to battle, he knew how and when to avoid battle, he had a full grasp of the importance of naval superiority, logistics and supply lines. His campaign is a lesson of grand strategy that was admired by his contemporaries and the next generations of commanders alike.

4. Human Resources Management Genius

Alexander was of course lucky to have about him some extremely competent and able generals from his father's time but he also displayed a unique ability to use the right men in the right positions. Most of his generals came from his cohort of "Friends", his Companions and they were at least as competent as those appointed by his father. He also had an army that loved him and was willing to give their life for him as fanatically as the samurai for their lords. He spoke in his men's minds and hearts and instilled in them a remarkable obedience and admiration. An army weeping for their commander to stop being angry at them? No matter if such incidents are based on truth or exaggeration the fact remains that Alexander was one of the most beloved and admired commanders and a superb judge of character.

5. Political Genius

Another well known trait of Alexander was his ability to win enemies over through his magnanimity while at the same time inspiring terror to those who would not submit to his good will. Against Greek "Arianism", Alexander chose to cooperate with his non-Greek subjects. He found a way to keep his empire well governed while he himself was for years campaigning both in Europe and in Asia and Africa. Plutarch's "The Virtue and Fortune of Alexander" is a testament to the image of his person. He was a conqueror to those who needed to be conquered, a friend to and admired by those who needed to feel appreciated, a savage murderer to those who needed fear in order to be governed. The complexity of his political decisions and actions clearly show that he had the ability to fully adapt to circumstances. He inaugurated the Hellenistic Age, he made Greek civilization admired and tolerated in the East, so that his successors could rule over a world that would not see Hellenism as an alien threat, he combined his own traditions and dreams with those of his subjects, Alexander formed a state based on efficiency rather than Greek chauvinism.

6. Builder

If Alexander is famous about something it surely is his will to build a new world. He built so many great cities, monuments, no other commander ever made such an impact as a builder.

7. Destroyer

Alexander many times displayed the will to physically eliminate all resistance. From Thebes to India he often treated his enemies with savage cruelty. Yet, he did this efficiently to the point that suited his goals. Humanitarian ethics is not what we should look for in a great commander. He was just as efficient as a humanitarian, again showing his adaptability.

8. Vices

I know of no great commander who had no vices. Alexander was not a drunkard, but he would drink and get drunk during symposia. He quickly disposed of the people he feared but he also showed extraordinary trust in and love to his friends. Alexander never allowed any of his vices to come between him and military success and that is the characteristic of a great general. Among his most serious vices we often regard his love of valor and rashness to be in the front line. Yet, we tend to forget that Alexander lived in an era when such actions from a commander were not strange. The Persian kings fought in the front line (among their Friends, just as Alexander), maybe if Darius posted himself behind his lines, Alexander would not beat them as easily. Porus fought on his elephant, Greek commanders in general fought among the first lines, Leonidas, Pelopidas, Epaminondas, Philopoemen... Alexander is not overrated, we are overcritical.



In conclusion, Alexander may not be the greatest commander in all these and other "assessment criteria" for a general but he had a rare trait. He was superb in all aspects. He is an historical persona lifted to myth and consistently admired for thousands of years. There must be a damn good reason for this.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And this is a damn good post! I aplaud :!:

[nickw]

Alexander was one of the most important and successful commanders of antiquity ... <SNIP>

Good post - I agree. It's a little bit fashionable to suggest that Alexander didn't do so much and it was all due to the army he inherited from Philip. But I think your list is important is making a full assessment of Alexander's phenomenal ability.

[Lindsay_Powell]

The problem in making these kinds of assertions, Macedon, is that "we possess only a very little direct evidence on Alexander" notes Claude Mossé in the introduction to his 'Alexander: Destiny and Myth' (2001). The written accounts by his contemporaries have not come down to us and "the extant accounts of his extraordinary epic were written three or more centuries after his time". Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Q. Curtius and Arrian of Nikomedia constitute our principal sources. "Moreover," writes Mossé, "in the course of the four or five centuries that separate them from their hero, the legend surrounding him had been growing ever richer and the image, or rather images, that they have transmitted to us are clearly marked by that enrichment". Picking the hyperbole and legend away to reveal the true man is, thus, a great challenge. One who has attempted to is John D. Grainger in 'Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire' (2007). He reveals Alexander as a flawed commander and king. As the publisher's summary states:

for all his military prowess and success as a conqueror, John Grainger argues that he was one of history's great failures. Alexander's arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death; and he was personally culpable for the failure of his imperial enterprise. For Alexander was king of a society where the ruler was absolutely central to the well-being of society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded, something which had happened every generation for two centuries before him and happened again when he died. For the good of his people, Alexander needed an adult successor, but he refused to provide one while also killing any man who could be seen as one. The consequence was fifty years of warfare after his death and the destruction of his empire.

This assessment reveals Alexander 'the Great' to have been a man blessed by little in the way of strategic genius or long term vision, much less political genius, and graced with an impulsive even unstable personality that in the end made him the destroyer of the very empire he sought to build.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Regarding the sources, it's absolutely impossible to tell how reliable they are, of course... But it's also impossible to tell how reliable any source from such a long time ago is, even if it is contemporary with the subject! These writers were the most famous historians of their time and had a great many resources available to them that we no longer can imagine possessing. It would be like writing a book about George Washington today relying on primary evidence. It's certainly a reasonable feat - I don't like the idea that in two thousand years people will be questioning our interpretation of the revolutionaries of the 18th century merely because we wrote a handful of generations after their deaths. If anything, our perspective is more realistic, considering that we know the course of history and are outside of the political influence surrounding these men and their priorities, prestige and promotion. It brings Procopius's Buildings and his Secret History to mind to realize just how tainted contemporary history can be. Would a contemporary account of Alexander be any better than those written hundreds of years after his death? I think it would much more likely be fraught with political and cultural propaganda, and possibly skew our vision of the man even more than the sources which are available to us!

-Gregory

[nickw]

for all his military prowess and success as a conqueror, John Grainger argues that he was one of history's great failures. Alexander's arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death; and he was personally culpable for the failure of his imperial enterprise. For Alexander was king of a society where the ruler was absolutely central to the well-being of society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded, something which had happened every generation for two centuries before him and happened again when he died. For the good of his people, Alexander needed an adult successor, but he refused to provide one while also killing any man who could be seen as one. The consequence was fifty years of warfare after his death and the destruction of his empire.

This assessment reveals Alexander 'the Great' to have been a man blessed by little in the way of strategic genius or long term vision, much less political genius, and graced with an impulsive even unstable personality that in the end made him the destroyer of the very empire he sought to build.

True, if you accept Grainger's interpretation, which is of course problematic given the acknowledged problem of the lack of detailed sources. More critically on this though I don't see many monarchs organising adult successors while they are only 33 years old. When Philip was Alexander's final age, Alexander was only seven.
And how was his "arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death"?

[Macedon]

The problem in making these kinds of assertions, Macedon, is that "we possess only a very little direct evidence on Alexander" notes Claude Mossé in the introduction to his 'Alexander: Destiny and Myth' (2001). The written accounts by his contemporaries have not come down to us and "the extant accounts of his extraordinary epic were written three or more centuries after his time". Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Q. Curtius and Arrian of Nikomedia constitute our principal sources. "Moreover," writes Mossé, "in the course of the four or five centuries that separate them from their hero, the legend surrounding him had been growing ever richer and the image, or rather images, that they have transmitted to us are clearly marked by that enrichment". Picking the hyperbole and legend away to reveal the true man is, thus, a great challenge. One who has attempted to is John D. Grainger in 'Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire' (2007). He reveals Alexander as a flawed commander and king. As the publisher's summary states:

for all his military prowess and success as a conqueror, John Grainger argues that he was one of history's great failures. Alexander's arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death; and he was personally culpable for the failure of his imperial enterprise. For Alexander was king of a society where the ruler was absolutely central to the well-being of society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded, something which had happened every generation for two centuries before him and happened again when he died. For the good of his people, Alexander needed an adult successor, but he refused to provide one while also killing any man who could be seen as one. The consequence was fifty years of warfare after his death and the destruction of his empire.

This assessment reveals Alexander 'the Great' to have been a man blessed by little in the way of strategic genius or long term vision, much less political genius, and graced with an impulsive even unstable personality that in the end made him the destroyer of the very empire he sought to build.

When we assess any persona in history we take into account the evidence we have, not the evidence we do not have. According to your arguments, we cannot say that Alexander was not the best commander there ever was because we do not have the accounts of his contemporaries. Of course, in this way we cannot really assess any commander. Caesar wrote about himself, it is almost certain that Gods did not fight alongside the Greeks at Marathon and Polybius is too critical regarding Antiochus III since he is an admirer of Roman might. The evidence we have is more abundant than that regarding any other commander of the era and is given by very reliable authors like Polybius (1 century after Alexander), Arrian and Polyaenus. They have heavily drawn from the original primary accounts (of which we have much direct evidence as to what they wrote, no matter how biased we might regard them to have been) and their goal (Pseudocallisthenes excluded) was not to glorify Alexander. Even Plutarch gives us both sides of Alexander's character as he sees it in his effort to elevate the positive traits of his character. As for archaeological evidence to back up Alexander's exploits we have many. We know he reached Punjab, we have found many of his Alexandrias, so he did reach the "end of the known world" and that cannot happen unless he was very successful in battle and very capable in keeping the reins of his vast empire. We have countless archaeological testaments as to his policies but do we really know what really happened in any battle. We do not even know where the battle of Cannae took place and that does not take away anything from Hannibal's glorious victory. Most sources regarding Alexander are considered "good". They are not mythical, they are particularly critical and do not try to hide his "crimes" and shortcomings. They seem to generally agree with each other, none has him getting beaten in Issus or being chased by Indian elephants. What is more impressive? The polemics against Alexander also rely on the same sources. How else would we know that Alexander razed Thebes, Tyre, Gaza and so many other cities? That he killed his friend while he was drunk? That he "betrayed" Greek chauvinism adopting Persian customs and bringing along his Companions detestable barbarians, a sin more grave than the aforementioned for the Greeks of the time? That he assassinated Parmenio for political reasons, although he had been faithful to the end...? That he may have been assassinated?

As for contemporary historians, for every ten-twenty books that glorify Alexander I would find it really strange if there was none trying to demolish or downplay the "myth". Mosse I did not read yet, Grainger I find particularly bold in his conclusions and dedicated to his effort to criticize Alexander, I cannot say I found him convincing. Yet, truth remains that assessing from the evidence we have, Alexander was all that I wrote of above and more. We may find many problems in the sources but this is what we have and this is what we have to work with. For all the efforts of those who try to criticize Alexander as a commander I have yet to find any acceptable arguments as to his flaws. If we are to judge him as an ethical, pacifist Christian of the 21st century, Alexander was a murderous beast, but I guess we are way over that. If we are to criticize Alexander as a commander of troops and peoples we have to talk with arguments taken from any of the established sources. We can discuss his tactics in all battles we know of that Alexander took part in, his grand strategy which in retrospect cannot be called anything else than at least very successful. His impact on military tactics and thought, anything we could think of as relevant. And then we might want to do that about those one deems better than Alexander in any field. And see how trustworthy and plentiful sources about them are.