Alexander the Great, an Essay

Key Inquiry Question: To what extent did Alexander III of Macedon depict the qualities of a leader
who cared for the harmony and betterment of his empire?

Alexander III of Macedon was king of Macedonia and the following empire from 336 B.C.E through
to 323 B.C.E. His empire, after expanding for a mere 13 years became the largest of the ancient
world, giving him the title of Alexander the Great, however, he had quite obtuse depravities.
Therefore, while Alexander clearly depicted the qualities of a great military strategist and general,
when leading administratively his personal vices caused him to make decisions that worked against
the unity of his empire. His incorporation of Persian culture shifted how the people saw him, while his
improprieties tended to take away from the empire’s potential although, Alexander was still a brilliant
military strategist and was responsible for making the empire what it was.

Alexander III headed various cultures, however, he quickly established adoration for the Persian
lifestyle, which greatly upset the Greeks under him and turned them from his leadership. He, as a
Macedonian leader adopted Persian culture after it was conquered despite the hate Greeks previously
had for Persia. This detest was centred around the Persian invasion of their country and upon seeing
Alexander they felt as if it were irreverent and even a betrayal against their motherland (Alexander
the Great (Article), n.d.). As stated by Arrian, “They were… offended… his adoption of the Persian
dress… contempt for their opinion, caused them grief, as did also… the mixing of the alien horsemen
among the… Companions”, this statement divulges that Alexander showed strong bias against his
own troops, who held the belief that Persians were “alien” and not accepted nor wanted within the
Empire (Arrian, 2 B.C.E./1884). Therefore the king isolated himself from his allies by siding with
their enemy, and demolished their trust in him as a Macedonian leader. This is especially true when
the context of how Alexander began his conquest is revealed, as revenge against Persia (Barksdale,
2018). Arrian’s The Anabasis of Alexander was published in 2 B.C.E., around 320 years after the end
of Alexander’s life, however, it gives a condensed overview of his life and what soldiers under him
might have thought in the face of his actions. In Arrian’s preface, he discusses why primary sources he
based his research on were reliable, ensuring that not only were there personal connections to the
military leader but also no reason to give false information. Furthermore, Arrian’s interpretation is
corroborated by Mercer (2016), who states that, “the Macedonians… wondered too at his actions, for
he had begun to seem more like a Persian than a Macedonian… the Macedonians… talked among
themselves and grumbled… Alexander was aware of the grumbling, but he tried as much as possible
to ignore it.” This idea of the Macedonian king not being a true Macedonian caused uproar, sparking
protests and even revolts, as seen when the soldiers themselves confronted him. However, when
Alexander approached the upset soldiers, he did not find a way to reconcile. Rather, he reversed the
situation, stating that he gained nothing from the conquests, sacrificing his riches for the benefit of his
soldiers which, in general was not his original goal according to Arrian, who believed that he only
sought glory. Alexander manipulated his soldiers after they approached him during the Mutiny at
Opis, saying that “I granted you the privilege of appropriating the wealth… What then have I reserved
to myself after all these labours, except this purple robe and this diadem?” Nonetheless, to ensure this
control would hold while continuing his behaviour he “used to wear sacred clothing… the costume of
Artemis… and on other occasions he took the costume of Hermes. But nearly every day he wore a
purple cloak… and the Macedonian kausia with the [Persian] royal diadem” (Ephippus of Olynthus).
Alexander adopted Persian culture and wear which caused offense to Macedonians, nevertheless,
instead of reconciling with them he manipulated them into begrudgingly allowing him to continue
how he was, which further caused a lack of respect in him as a Macedonian leader and brought unrest
to his soldiers.

Alexander’s immoral tendencies greatly decreased trust subordinates had in him, because they often
caused the strength and potential of his empire to be diminished as well as its unity. Alexander was
known for having alcoholic inclinations, the results of which caused chaos and often took from the
military advantage the Macedonian army could have held. However, this was not enough to sway
Alexander from his behaviours. To prove this, there is an account from one of Alexander’s own
soldiers who witnessed his killing of a trusted adviser. Aristobulus served under the king during the
Persian conquest and stated that:
Alexander… jumped up against him in a great rage... Clitus did not desist from his insulting
remarks, Alexander shouted out a summons… but when no one obeyed him, he said that he…
now possessed the mere name of king… his companions were no longer able to restrain
him… he leaped up and snatched a javelin… to others, a long pike… with which he struck
Clitus and killed him.

While the soldier is a primary source, there are minor inconsistencies he addresses within the
statement, although, when the situation is considered, the murder weapon does not influence the
reason for the killing. This highlights that he prioritised his own pride and was prone to bad decision
making when under alcoholic influences. It also suggested to the soldiers that any small offense
against Alexander was punishable by death, which could have caused fear when he was around. This
source was documented by Arrian; however it can be assumed reliable due to the acknowledgements
he made within his preface. It validates the theory that it was Alexander himself, heavily intoxicated,
that lit the pyre in Persepolis, thoughtlessly sacrificing refuge should a battle turn against them to
impress his men and remedy his reputation (Mercer, 2016). His pride bested him repeatedly and
Mercer gives reasons for why, all being reputation based rather than strategy. He claims that he
became extremely violent and disdained criticisms, and that “usually his violence was followed by
remorse – which did not last very long”, this is due, potentially, to the fact that he did not feel
remorseful for acts that negatively impacted his empire and an inability to admit he was in the wrong
(Mercer, 2016). To build on this, his megalomania prevented the army from working at stages, with
the march across India creating desperation and fear within companies, “when provisions were
lacking, they… slaughtered most of the horses… They ate the flesh of these, and said that they had
died of thirst or had perished from the heat… no one… divulged the truth of their conduct… because
all alike were implicated in the same offence.” With ill soldiers Alexander could not conquer any
lands, yet this did not cross his mind, rather only the idea that he must conquer the Middle East to
become even more glorified (Arrian, 2 B.C.E). Nevertheless, the soldiers refused to march because of
the conditions despite Alexander’s urgings. This symbolised the complete lack of respect for the
king’s leadership and a rebellion against his orders. Similar, prideful, behaviour is supported by the
Siege of Tyre, of which Ian Worthington, who has written many acclaimed books on Alexander III,
describes as something brought forth by wounded pride and personal offence. “The Tyrians politely
suggested that he do so [sacrifice] in the temple in Old Tyre… He felt personally affronted… they
abandoned diplomacy… Alexander immediately ordered the siege of the city.” Not only this but
another ancient account describes the treatment of the Tyrians as something of a disgrace, “they
shrieked supplications like those under torture… with the excruciating agony they fell into madness
and died… The king sold the women and children into slavery and crucified all the men of military
age. These were not less than two thousand”. Now, this source’s reliability is questionable because of
its status as only surviving work of Quintus Curtis, an ancient historian, but it does corroborate with
Worthington. Tyre was not hostile, therefore the reasoning behind this siege was foolish and sacrificed
prospective allies when considering the politeness upon the Macedonian’s approach. Alexander had
no shame for his shortcomings despite his pride and drinking habits causing many strategic losses for
the Macedonian empire and preventing the army from working coherently due to either issues he
caused or fear of his harsh punishments for small crimes.

Alexander showed, to a great extent, the qualities of a great military strategist through his successful
battles when creating his empire, though less so through circumstances brought forth during conquest.
Alexander accomplished incredible military feats, leading to many riches and an incredible reputation
for both him and his empire, including the reputation of an army that had never lost a battle because
of his extremely lucrative strategies. One strategy was used against the Persian king, Darius’ army
which greatly outnumbered Alexander’s own, with the most plausible number being an army of
40,000 against 100,000 to 150,000 (Worthington, 2014).
Alexander knew that he stood little chance against the huge Persian army in actual fighting,
but he was not panicked. Instead, he resorted to overcoming his foe psychologically… he
decided to capture or kill Darius, which he calculated would demoralize the Persian troops
and bring the battle to an abrupt end before many of them even joined in the fighting.

This strategy turned out brilliantly, with the Persian forces doing exactly as Alexander had planned
and retreating after most of his forces stormed the centre of the formation Darius was stationed
(Worthington, 2014). This both minimised the loss of troops on Alexander’s part and let the army be
victorious. Another strategy was in Tyre, which was used to chase the Tyrian men from the city. “They
filled a ship… with… wood which was easy to burn… now engulfed in flames, many men rushed out
of the city” which allowed for the Macedonians to catch them by surprise and overpower the heavily
armed force (Arrian, 2 B.C.E). Not only this, but Alexander himself speaks of the successes he as a
general had whilst forming his empire,
“And forthwith laid open to you the passage of the Hellespont… All the other places I gained
by voluntary surrender… The riches… which I acquired without fighting a battle, have come
to you…are your property… the treasures of the Persians, and the riches of the Indians are
yours; and so is the External Sea”.

Although in this case he is convincing his own soldiers not to move against him in outrage of his
offences against Macedonia, he would not lie about his own successes to people who were apart of the
battles. Therefore his words are trustworthy, and the sheer amount of land he took without bloodshed
reveals to some extent, care for his troop’s wellbeing. Yet, this speech represents the growing
apprehension of his warriors. The Mutiny at Opis, in which his bias towards Persians caused
behaviour unlike a Macedonian leader, offended troops, and when soldiers with injuries were
discharged, the army began to mock and revolt against him. This resulted in Alexander lashing out
and executing those in charge, placing Persians in power and causing an overall disjoint between
general and army (Gale, 2023). This disjoint though later resolved, caused the army to stop its
conquest temporarily, nevertheless, the map of Alexander’s empire highlights the sheer size of it, and
its status as the largest of the ancient world. An understanding of the development of the Greek
reputation at the time is realised (Figure 1) due to Alexander taking control of a substantial amount of
the Middle East. The power of Macedonia would have been rumoured across the continent, stationing
the nation as an extremely powerful force. Therefore, while Alexander exceeded in creating an
exceptionally large empire, his passion for glory and pride meant that the needs of his warriors were
overlooked.

Alexander the Great was a remarkable military strategist however his pride, alcoholism and thirst for
glory often reduced the potential of his empire. His pride pushed him to manipulate those under him
into allowing him to continue his behaviours, such as insulting the Macedonian nation by adopting
Persian culture, sacrificing military advantage to get revenge or to gain more glory. All these factors
led to Alexander’s army losing trust in his leadership, yet this did not dampen the power of their
empire.
Appendix:
Figure 1: Map of Alexander’s empire
Alexander’s Empire. (323 B.C.E.). JSTOR. https://jstor.org/stable/community.13591750

Bibliography:
Alexander’s Empire. (323 B.C.E.). JSTOR. https://jstor.org/stable/community.13591750
Arrian. (1884). The Anabasis of Alexander; Or, The History of the Wars and Conquests of Alexander
the Great. (Original work published 2 B.C.E.)
Alexander the Great (article). (n.d.). Khan Academy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/alexander-the-great/a/
alexander-the-great#:~:text=He%20also%20adopted%20elements%20of
Barksdale, N. (2018, August 29). 8 Surprising Facts about Alexander the Great. HISTORY.
https://www.history.com/news/eight-surprising-facts-about-alexander-the-great
Collins, A. W., & Ephippus of Olynthus. (2012). THE ROYAL COSTUME AND INSIGNIA OF
ALEXANDER THE GREAT. The American Journal of Philology, 133(3), 371–402.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23269873
Gale, A. (2023, March 26). How Alexander the Great Halted Mutiny with a Powerful Speech. Greek
Reporter; Greek Reporter. https://greekreporter.com/2023/03/26/alexander-the-great-mutiny-speech/
Mercer, C. E. (2016). Alexander the Great. Horizon.
Quintus Curtius Rufus, & Diodorus Siculus. (n.d.). Diodorus Siculus, Library, Book XVII.
Www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved July 30, 2023, from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?
doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D17%3Achapter%3D46%3Asection%3D4
Worthington, I. (2014). By the spear : Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the rise and fall of the
Macedonian empire. Oxford University Press, Cop.