Alexander of Macedon - Research Paper Example

? Alexander of Macedon Alexander of Macedon Introduction After assuming the charge as King of Macedon in 336BC, Alexander persisted with his father’s plan on to capture Persia. In this connection, the first battle Alexander came across as head commandant was at the Granicus River. He was met by some 40,000 Persian infantry plus cavalry. In a surprise attack, Alexander commanded his men to cross the river at dawn and attack the Persians which led to their defeat. In this particular battle we see Alexander’s decision as commander result in victory for the Greeks and also the respect of his men as he fought in the battle in which he almost lost his life twice. Alexander as commander ensured excellent use of psychological war and propaganda, as it created a sense of revenge appealing to the Greeks. Despite the sources Alexander did win the battle which led him to continue his invasion of Persia. As for his troops, Alexander visited the wounded and received great respect from his men. Plutarch wrote of the capture of Darius’s family, and on much more on Alexander’s campaign. The action performed showed Alexander’s respect and nobility as a commander ignoring the reality that Darius was his enemy. Continuing on, he defeated Bessus, then moved on to India, and fought King Porus at the Hydaspes River in which once again was another victory. The truth that Alexander overpowered Darius, Bessus and King Porus in their own kingdoms reveals Alexander’s brilliance as an outstanding commander. [1] His mentality as commander was flexible and the concern he showed to his army led to few casualties in battles. When men died, Alexander showed compassion and honored the dead, and this led to Alexander having the great respect from his men. His accomplishments as commander were surprising, but Worthington affirms that one must not observe Alexander as just as commander only, because there is no suspicion that he was exemplary and outstanding, but also to perceive him as a king and the best administrator because being commander was not his whole personality manifestation, but a part of his life. As far as his dealing with his subjects is concerned, he was very kind and beneficent to them. According to Bosworth “He loved them and they loved him as their king and as a man, and they could not bear to let him die without greeting him.” [2] This statement can assist in proving the ‘love’ aspect of his relationship as king with his men, and one must see this side of Alexander’s Kingship. In the determining of the rift at the Hydaspes River, after shedding tears and after listening to his men moaning outside his tent, Alexander assured them in these words which definitely consoled them then and there “but all of you regard as my kinsmen”. [3] In addition to this compassion, Alexander paid off his men’s debts off which totaled to 20,000 talents, a kind deed, and in the thirteen years of Alexander’s rule, he brought Macedon “immense wealth which maintained their strength for generations”. [4] The affiliation of Alexander as King towards his Macedones is wide-ranging. It is obvious that Alexander was an obsessed king whose sufferings and implementations to Persian traditions created enormous annoyance and aggravation between his men towards him. There are more unconstructive perspectives in regard to Alexander’s successes as king, but in certain circumstances, we see the positives and affection Alexander and his men had for each other. As statesman, Alexander established his kingdom by using his skills as statesman. One of his first and most significant achievements as statesman was gaining the submission of Greece after the death of his father Philip. According to Hammond, when Alexander died he had 25 satrapies, which were ran by hundreds of influential senior officials from Asia and Europe. Of the Satrapies, most of the satraps (governor of satrapy) were Persian. Alexander kept these men in these powerful positions because they had the experience under Darius’s rule and felt that Europeans could not do a better job. This was an intellectual and smart move by Alexander as Statesman, as it helped to keep the Persians under control for most of the time. One must also perceive the negative aspects to this decision. The prospect for corruption amongst these men was regular and was a negative aspect to Alexander as statesman. In addition to this Alexander adapted the customs of a particular city to show his authenticity, this can be seen in Babylon where he worshiped the local god Marduk and in Egypt where he was worshiped as Pharaoh. This increased the legitimacy of Alexander’s rule and was an excellent method of liberating Persia under his rule. But it also raised concern between the Macedonians, fearing Alexander was ignoring his Macedonian heritage, which led to arguments as mentioned before. These expeditions of Alexander remained triumphant in the acquiescence of many cities not just Persia and Babylon, and it not only demonstrated his distinction as statesman, but also shaped anxiety amongst his men. Alexander acted in the brother hood of mankind in this decision, though this argument is countered by the fact that Arian tells us of Alexander purposely aligning his generals and influential men to Persian women with nobility questions considering the idea of racial fusion. The ancient sources show the views of the day and the society in which they were written. Alexander in Asia Minor (334 BC) The way had now been made clear for the invading force. Alexander appointed a Macedonian as satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, and the army moved inland in a southwesterly direction. Sardis, the most important city in the satrapy of Lydia, surrendered to the king, who granted its citizenry their freedom. Mithrines, the Persian commander who turned the city and its treasures over to Alexander, was treated with observable honor as an advertisement of the advantages of cooperating with the young king. Alexander's guise of “liberator” was common during this phase of his conquests. [5] At Sardis, he represented himself as a restorer of the ancient customs that had been abolished when Cyrus the Great defeated Croesus of Lydia 200 years before. Alexander's court historian, Callisthenes, reminded his audience that Cyrus was the last man to capture Sardis, [6] an indication that Alexander had no objection to being compared favorably to the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Alexander could also have claimed that his takeover of the region was a resumption of family responsibilities, since like most Greeks he probably believed that the Lydians were at one time ruled by descendants of Heracles. Alexander inspected the citadel of Sardis and was thinking of building a temple to the Macedonian Zeus Olympius somewhere in the vicinity when a sudden thunderstorm and a particularly heavy downpour seemed to center on the area of the ancient Lydian kings' palace. Alexander interpreted this event to be a sign from heaven and determined that the temple and altar be constructed there. [7] Croesus and the other Lydian kings before the Persian conquest took pride in their Hellenization, and this gesture must have pleased the local population. Like his father, Alexander was a master at public relations. An oligarchy protecting Persian interests at Ephesus in Ionia was overthrown as soon as the news of Alexander's victory reached that city. The inhabitants promptly established a democratic faction in power and began to massacre oligarchs until Alexander intervened. He put a stop to the slaughter and pledged to support the newly installed democratic regime. In Greece Alexander, like his father, ordinarily backed oligarchs and other antidemocratic elements because they were more likely to serve Macedonian interests. In Asia Minor, however, oligarchs customarily supported Persian policy, and so the king responded by establishing democracies wherever feasible. [8] Alexander's political policies, like those of his father, were pragmatic rather than ideological. Alexander's interest in Ephesus, however, was not entirely practical. The city's temple to Artemis, one of the wonders of the ancient world, had been put to the torch by a madman around the time Alexander was born. In fact, a rumor had been circulated that the goddess had failed to protect her temple because she was off in Europe assisting at the delivery of Alexander when the disaster occurred. [9] The temple was still under renovation in 334, and Alexander graciously offered to underwrite the remaining costs. The proud Ephesians refused his offer. They did, however, agree to permit Alexander to enlarge the size of the sacred temenos, the area of asylum. [10] Heracles was said to have done this at one time, and Alexander accepted their offer in order to emulate the actions of his ancestor. Alexander besieged Miletus while the Greek fleet prevented the Persian navy from providing any assistance to the defenders of the city. Miletus fell, and the foreigners who failed to escape were either killed or enslaved. Among those who escaped were 300 Greek mercenaries, who managed to flee to a nearby island and were prepared to fight to the last man. [11] Alexander's appreciation of their valor is undoubtedly historical, but he must also have realized that his harsh treatment of Greek mercenaries at the Granicus had only encouraged stiffer resistance. It would clearly be more advantageous to encourage them to fight on his behalf. The Milesians were granted amnesty because their ancestors had played a critical role in the struggle against the Persians a century and a half before. It might have seemed embarrassingly inconsistent to punish a city whose resistance to the Great King helped to spark the Persian Wars. [12] Soon after his success at Miletus, Alexander decided to disband the entire allied fleet. This critical decision was influenced by the fact that the fleet was expensive to maintain, yet too small to be effective against the Persians in open waters. Furthermore, the king seems to have been unsure of the loyalty of many of his Greek allies. He therefore dismissed all but a few transport ships, which included twenty Athenian vessels whose retention guaranteed that city's continued cooperation. Alexander decided to deal with the Persian navy by denying its ships access to any harbor and thus to triumph over the ships from dry land. It was a calculated risk, predicated on Alexander's ability to control each and every port on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. In the final conflict outside the walls Alexander's troops were faced with disaster until they were joined by a hitherto inactive battalion of Philip's veterans, who reversed the outcome of the battle. [13] Memnon, who had been appointed admiral and commander-in-chief of the Anatolian coast, led the defense of the city with imagination and elan, but eventually he was forced to abandon it and leave his garrison in the last of the three citadels. Alexander installed his own garrison in the other two citadels by the harbor, but he was inclined to leave well enough alone rather than put his entire force through another long and demoralizing siege. He left a contingent of troops behind to deal with the remaining enemy. This operation dragged on into 332. [14] Alexander as a Commander An accomplishment of Alexander the Great was to control his own troops in a time of panic; also he stopped a revolution from breaking out. Many soldiers cannot control their troops like Alexander did. They were angry at him for letting the injured and old men leave their army. Alexander gave a huge speech that convinced the solider that it was on honor to be in his army and how his father had made men out of these people. He though he was doing a good thing for the soldiers by letting the old and injured go back home the soldiers obviously took this the wrong way and though he was insulting them by doing this. [15] Another thing that Alexander accomplished was getting a great education in his early years. He had the best teacher at the time named Aristotle. His Father Phillip wanted Alexander to get a good education in war and also in peace. Alexander became so full of himself he actually started believing he was close to comparing to the gods or he might have actually though he himself was a god. He was known as the best of princes to Aristotle. Alexander learnt from Aristotle Physics, Geography, Meteorology, and Theology. Aristotle also taught him that slavery was a customary natural tradition and that people were born slave. [16] Lastly another accomplishment of Alexander was the battle of Chaeronea. He was at a young age at the time of this battle and he fought along side his father. The fight was between the Athenians and the Macedonian armies. In the process before the battle Phillip and Alexander failed to obtain the coalition of the Boeotians so the fought both the Boeotians and the Athenians. Alexander got to fight with many of the best commanders and he stood at the head of the elite corps. After many had fallen from both sides Alexander wanted to show his courage. The inhabitants of Greece took action to move forward before Alexander the Great came into existence. Alexander received help from many people; he did not accomplish his dreams alone. He probably derived the credit from some historians with the fact that he was a great leader. He made an example of himself for people to follow. He was a hand on leader who gained the respect of his followers. The language gave the population a starting point in which to come together as an empire. Alexander also tried to get away from the strict rules pertaining to being a citizen. As Quintus put it, "There was neither Greek nor barbarian." [17] The citizens of each city-state identified with their own state. They did not see Greek culture; they saw Athenian or Spartan culture. Alexander wanted to change this by making an empire for people to identify with. Everyone would be individual none-the-less but they would all have a common ground, one persons culture would also be another ones culture. He wanted to bring down the walls of separation and ruin the idea of Greek supremacy that was created earlier. He stressed the idea of creating a new culture, a blended one. The inhabitant world bound together by a network of both new routes and cities and of common interests. No one can say that Alexander did not do all these great things mentioned above. However, once trade and commerce enter the scene, new thoughts come to rise. In the Hellenic period, before Alexander, an economic link with the Mediterranean emerged. The process of trade had begun. Alexander expanded what had already been put into place. He put the work that had already been done into motion. He expanded the trade that had already started on the Mediterranean, he accelerated the unification process by creating a common language and empire and he gave the people more then just a city state to relate to. Conclusion Alexander was able to integrate the various peoples he conquered into a unified empire by arranging appropriate forms of administration in each region. In Asia he kept the indigenous administrative system intact under joint Persian and Greek rule. Alexander continued the Persian custom of satrap. The satrap was responsible for governing large territories and answered directly to him. Alexander continued many of the Persian King's customs, such as giving money to the women of Persis. The taxes that were once paid to Darius were continued but were to be paid to Alexander. In some cases Alexander lessened or increased the amount the city paid. Alexander changed his standard approach to the organization of his administration in Egypt. Alexander did not follow the Persian system. Rather, he divided the territory into four sections watering down its concentration of power. The division between civil and military was to provide security and prevent any one person from using the mass wealth to challenge his empire.  The Macedonian tradition of founding cities gave extra security for the newly conquered territory. In Asia and India, Alexander founded several cities, populating them with retired soldiers and native peoples. This was to assure loyalty to his empire in the region and to have ready armament if needed. In India, he founded. In Bactria, 327 BC, Alexander increased the population by settling families from surrounding areas and retiring his older soldiers. He carried over the method of marriage for alliances and ensured loyalty by marring his companions to leading native women. The Macedonians were forced to marry the native noble women. The mixed marriages would lessen the potential of revolt among the natives. On occasions he would hold the assemblies to ask his army to continue campaigns. He initially spoke to small council of commanders and if he got the answer he wanted he would hold the assembly. If he did not get the answer he wanted he would modify his decision or their decision. The example case is that of turning back before he had completed his vision for India. In this as in assembly he announced his decision to turn back. Alexander brought the Persians into his administration to promote co-operation among them and the Macedonians. The Persians however, were not placed in charge of the Macedonians. Macedonian Generals were in charge of the Persian privates. When Alexander used a Persian satrap, a Macedonian garrison was near. He had native tax collectors who answered to a Macedonian finance officer that collected from the entire region. The financial administration of Alexander's empire in the east was placed in the hands of Macedonians. He allowed the natives to collect the tribute owed but the money was placed in the hands of the Macedonians. Once Alexander had captured the Persian treasury, Philoxenus' position became obsolete. It cannot be determined if Alexander would have changed the administration or organization of his empire once he settled in Asia or Macedonia after his conquests. He seems to be aware that any change that may suppress or change any of the current establishment would cause unrest.         One more idea that Alexander used in his days of battle was using the left side of the road for travel instead of the middle or right side. Today in Great Britain they still drive on the left side of the road, we think just because Alexander did. Another idea that Alexander thought of that we still use today is the hair standards in the military. Alexander knew that if a young military man in an army had long hair his opponents would have something to grab onto when fighting. So, he devised a standard for his army. All young men in his army had to have shaved heads. This also contributes to today's military. Not only does the military force men and women to have short hair for fighting reasons but it is also in order to keep everyone looking somewhat the same for uniformity.                           Endnotes 1. Badian, E., 'The Administration of the Empire'. G&R12 (1965) 166-82 2. Bosworth, A.B., Alexander and the East. The Tragedy of Triumph (Oxford 1996) 3. De Selincourt, Aubrey. The Campaigns of Alexander, Penguin Classics. 4. Hamilton, J.R., Alexander the Great (London 1973) 5. Higgins, W.E., 'Aspects of Alexander's Imperial Administration: some modern methods and Views reviewed'. Athenaeum 58 (1980) 129-52. 6. Scott-Kilvert, Ian., Plutarch: The Age of Alexander, Penguin Classics, with introduction by G. T. Griffith. 7. Warner, Rex., Xenophon: A History of My Times, Penguin Classics, with introduction, Notes by George Cawkwell. 8. Boardman, John, Jasper Griffin, and Oswyn Murray. The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World. 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. 9. Cook, John Manuel. The Greeks in Ionia and the East. New York, NY: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1962. 10. Dersin, Denise. What Life Was Like at the Dawn of Democracy. Alexandria, VA: Time Life Inc., 1997. 11. Welles, C. Bradford. Alexander and the Hellenistic World. Toronto: A.M. Hakkart Ltd., 1970. 12. Arrian. (1971).The campaigns of Alexander. Penguin: London 13. Bosworth, B. (1995). A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander Vol. 1. Oxford: London 14. Bosworth, B. (1988). Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great: Cambridge: London 15. Badian, E. (1961).Alexander the Great and the Loneliness of Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell 16. Green, P. (1992). Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press 17. Quintus Curtius Rufus (1984).The History of Alexander. Penguin: London Read More