Alexander… the Great?

March 3, 2019 | Blog 3

By 326 BCE, a thirty-year-old man had conquered the largest empire that the world had ever seen. Spanning almost 3,000 miles, this empire stretched from Greece to northwestern India.

Who was he?

His name was Alexander III of Macedon. His father, Philip II, had already taken Greece and begun the invasion of Asia. Alexander, a brilliant military commander, did benefit from Phillip II’s initiative, but Alexander himself was more responsible for his success.

By 336 BCE, the Philip II, the king of Macedon, fulfilled his first goal by securing the majority of Greece under Macedonian sovereignty.

According to the Greek historian Xenophon, “Philip found the Macedonians wandering about without resources […] and made them a match in war for the neighboring barbarians” (Xenophon Anabasis, 7.9).

As the founder of the League of Corinth (337 BCE), Philip II organized an army of 10,000 to free Greeks living under Persian rule. Philip’s dreams of conquering Persia were cut short by his assassination, and Alexander ascended to take his father’s place.

Alexander fulfilled his father’s second goal and accomplished much more: in 13 short years he amassed an enormous empire on foot and spread Greek culture around the world.

There is no accident Alexander is known as the “Great”: it was due to his incomparable success as a military commander. Despite typically being outnumbered, he never lost a single battle.

While Philip created the phalanx tactic, Alexander perfected it. Through rigorous training, the Macedonian phalanx developed in conjunction with cavalry to be deployed at such speed and maneuverability to have a significant effect on larger forces.

Furthermore, Philip had no reason to worry about disloyalty in his army that was made of Macedonians. His military skill and desire for expansion fueled a similar-minded army for success. Philip did not have many enemies. Conversely, Alexander commanded a diverse army of various languages and weapons. To overcome potential disunity, he personally fought in every battle.

Finally, Alexander successfully adapted his forces to his opponents’ style. For example, he faced opponents in Central Asia and India with unfamiliar fighting techniques. Some notable adaptations were shown in Bactria and Sogdiana where Alexander used projectile fire to counter flanking movements.

All of these attributes allowed Alexander to be quite successful. As we study Alexander, a man who lived more than 2,500 years ago, we notice similar patterns of succession in terms of effective regimes due to solid foundations laid by predecessors.

Immediately, we can point to something close in place and time: Truman’s Marshall Plan and America’s resulting ascendence as a global superpower.

The United States in the earlier 1940s witnessed the destruction of Europe, and with knowledge that the Soviet Union had no intention to help, Truman signed the Marshall Plan in 1948, granting $5 billion in aid to 16 European nations.

The U.S. was able to help Europe at such significant measures because of President Franklin Roosevelt’s successful presidency in terms of economic growth. Similar to Alexander’s military success, Truman’s Marshall Plan was built at least partially on the exceptional economic circumstances that FDR cultivated.

However, like Alexander, Truman’s success in bringing America from an isolationist nation to the leader of the free world was his own. Truman, much like Alexander, inherited favorable circumstances, but it was not the mere existence of these favorable circumstances that created Truman’s, or Alexander’s, world-changing success.

— Cameron Guan

Word Count: 549

Sources:

Anabasis by Xenophon (c. 370 BCE)

Give the Man his Due

Alexander certainly owes much to the military reforms of Philip II. Philip’s military revitalization of Macedonia was crucial to the success of Alexander on the campaign trail. Yet, to give Philip credit for the conquests of Alexander would discount the decisions made and actions taken by Alexander that were uniquely his. It is true that Alexander’s conquests would not have occurred without Philip’s foundation, but Alexander nonetheless deserves the most credit for his successes.

Philip changed the organization and equipment of the Macedonian infantry to increase its effectiveness. Rather than utilize the traditional spears used by infantry forces worldwide, Philip introduced the sarissa, measuring 14 to 18 feet in length. This extra reach allowed Macedonian infantry to attack while being out of range of their adversary. The trade-off was that it required both hands to wield, preventing use of the normal heavy hoplite shield. Philip, however, transitioned to a lighter shield that is worn from the neck. Philip also created an elite cavalry unit called the hetairoi, which due to their mobility and height advantage were devastating to hoplites.

Philip’s military reforms were impressive, and enabled him to assert Macedonian dominance in the local area. However, it was Alexander who built a true empire. Alexander’s sweeping conquests in Persia prove he deserves credit for his actions. Specifically, Alexander captured Darius II’s royal train at Issus, and chose to refuse offers of reconciliation. There is no way of knowing if Philip would also have refused such an offer from Darius; the end result of Alexander eventually taking complete control of Persia was a result of only his own actions.

Likewise, the events that transpired at and after Alexander’s visit to the oracle at Siwa can only be attributed to him. After meeting with the oracle, Alexander proclaimed that it confirmed his divinity, and used that to justify and solidify his rule over Asia Minor. This self-deification helped Alexander assert himself as ruler of the Persian people. It was the particular actions of Alexander that enabled his success at war, and though Philip’s reforms were a boon, Alexander was still the driving force of his own victories.

While not a regime but a strategy, the tactics of the United States in the Gulf War reflected lessons learned and foundation laid by the US military following the war in Vietnam. Announcing the American entrance to war against Iraq, President Bush stated he “instructed [American] military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women.” [1] The Gulf War was a resounding success for the American military, swiftly driving Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, lasting only for a few months.

This was only possible because of the setbacks faced in Vietnam. American military reforms following Vietnam ensured that the next conflict the United States engaged in would be quick and decisive. Instead of indiscriminate bombing campaigns over the whole nation, the US undertook airstrikes against specific targets to “knock out Saddam Hussein’s nuclear bomb potential” and “destroy his chemical weapons facilities.” [1] Actions such as these were aimed at swiftly crippling essential enemy functions to end combat as quickly as possible. In all likelihood, without those reforms the United States would have met more of what it encountered during Vietnam in Kuwait.

Like Alexander, the US government and military at the onset of the Gulf War utilized new ideas incorporated by previous people in power in order to achieve military success. These ideas enabled both Alexander and the Bush administration to project power in a fashion that would not have been possible before Philip II and Vietnam, respectively. In each case, however, the impetus was with the leader himself; credit should not be bestowed upon previous leaders, irrespective of how helpful their actions were.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 595

Sources:

[1] Bush, George H.W. “January 16, 1991: Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq.” Miller Center, 4 May 2017, millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-16-1991-address-nation-invasion-iraq.

Inheriting Vision

The development of empires is not an overnight occurrence. It takes the dedication and passion of strong leaders. When leadership changes, it falls upon the successor to carry on the legacy of the predecessor, develop the empire independent of past influences. In the case of the Ancient Macedonians and the current regime in North Korea, the successor’s decision to maintain the leadership practices of their predecessor permitted the growth of a pre-established regime.

When Alexander the Great took over as the ruler of Macedonia, his leadership led to the expansion of the empire to a size of which his father and predecessor, Philip II, could only dream. Even under Alexander, however, Philip’s tactics were what permitted the growth of such a powerful kingdom. The implementation of the hetairoi, Philip’s “companions” and elite Macedonian cavalry gave their men a lethal speed and mobility in battle. According to the historian Diodorous, Philip also “reorganized the military formations and equipped them suitably with weapons, and held continuous military reviews and competitive exercises. He devised also the close order of the… Macedonian Phalanx,” (Diodorous 16.3.1-3). Philip also lightened the load of individual soldiers by equipping them with lighter armor, longer weapons, and implemented state pay for the army. It was with these reforms that Philip was able to spread his empire throughout Greece. After he died, Alexander perpetuated the military reforms that made Philip so successful. While Alexander may have been the general in charge, Philip’s strategy enabled Alexander’s conquests.

Alexander himself would even credit his father with responsibility for the successes of the Macedonians. In his speech to his troops in Opis, he reminded his men, “[Philip] found you vagabonds and destitute… from the mountains he led you into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighboring barbarians… he made you rulers… he rendered the avenue into Greece broad and easy for you,” (Arrian, Anabasis 8.9). While Alexander may have been proud of his own accomplishments, he was successful as a general long before he inherited the kingdom, defeating many of his opponents while still a general under Philip. Alexander was successful both before and after the death of his father, because his leadership techniques did not change. In fact, the expansion of the empire eventually halted under Alexander because of strategies HE implemented. His adoption of the Persian proskynesis and his marrying of an Indian princess were what drove Alexander’s proud Macedonian soldiers to revolt. While Alexander maintained his father’s leadership practices, Macedonia prospered, but the adoption of his own practices was what halted its growth and led to its division.

A similar situation exists in the current regime in North Korea. Kim Jong Il, the previous dictator of North Korea, was wildly popular with his citizens. His policies were harsh and cruel. The vast majority of the country is impoverished, starving, and without basic human rights as a result, yet the people loved him. In fact, after the dictator died, thousands of North Korean citizens flooded the streets to mourn the passing of the “Dear Leader,” and a national holiday was established to commemorate his birthday as “the Day of the Shining Star,” (CNN Library). When his son, Kim Jong Un, took over, he maintained his father’s cruel and harsh policies, making few changes. He maintains a cruel and inhumane national policy that keeps his people impoverished and without rights without any resistance from the nation’s citizens. Just as Alexander inherited his rule of Macedon and used his father’s techniques to maintain and expand it, Kim Jong Un has maintained his father’s domestic policy to convince an impoverished nation he is doing what is in its best interest.

In any successful group, it is difficult to determine whom to credit: the leaders, or the followers. While the followers may excel at execution, the leader is the driving force who develops the group, motivates and holds it accountable. In a similar manner, Alexander was a follower. He executed Philip’s vision, but it was still Philip’s vision, executed in the way Philip desired. Alexander’s success was Macedonia’s success, and Macedonia’s was Philip’s success.

-Nate Forrest

Word Count: 600

Arrian, Anabasis 8.9, trans. Edward J. Chinnock (New York, 1983).

Diodorous 16.3.1-3

CNN Library. “Kim Jong Il Fast Facts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 14 May 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/world/asia/kim-jong-il-fast-facts/index.html. Accessed 2 Mar. 2019.