Alexander the Great's military leadership and influence on Hellenism

Alexander III the Great

Alexander remains one of the most charismatic military leaders the world has ever known. He was brave, intelligent, and superior in combat. Alexander set clear objectives and worked tirelessly to ensure that he achieved each one of them. He respected his enemies, but did not fear them. He displayed willingness to make sacrifice on behalf of the soldiers. This is how he motivated them. Alexander was an inspirational and charismatic leader who won several wars, a thing that suggested that indeed he was favored by gods. Other than the huge legacy he left on the military arena, he was respected for laying the foundation for Hellenism. This culture and philosophy was the only one to spread across the world before the emergence of Christianity a few centuries later.

The conquest and the success of Alexander III the Great on the war front spread Hellenism a few centuries later. However, the effect was confined to just a number of cities, a few of which have survived to date.

Introduction

Alexander the Great, also referred to as Alexander III from Macedonia, was charismatic, fearless, and an ambitious warrior and leader, revered even today for his seemingly impossible conquests in far-off lands, where no Greek had ventured. He was born in Pella in July 356 BC. This was the capital of Macedonia during that time. His father was Philip II of Macedonia and his mother was called Olympias. Alexander learned under Aristotle, the philosopher. When Philip II was killed in 336 BC, Alexander inherited his father\'s volatile but powerful kingdom. He started by ruthlessly dealing with his enemies in his home turf and reasserted his power of Macedonia in Greece.

Alexander led his army to many victories in Syria, Egypt and across Persian territories including Asia Minor without suffering any defeat. The Battle at Gaugamela is considered his greatest victory; it took place around 331 BC. Gaugamela is currently referred to as Northern Iraq.

Thesis Statement

Alexander was the first to have attempted to introduce \"universal state\'\'. His pictures are found in many cultures and have greatly influenced the contemporary discourse on globalization. Alexander is regarded as the only man who owned a powerful army and he was considered the fiercest among the emperors of his time. What motivated Alexander and how was he successful in moving forward his vision?

This paper answers the following set of questions:

i. Who was Alexander? What made him a great man- victorious, fearless, aggressive and ambitious?

ii. What were the main qualities that enabled him conquer almost half of the world, which existed at that time when he was still young? What made him to be feared and respected and considered as a god at other times?

iii. How can you describe Alexander the great? Was he cosmopolitan visionary, a war-monger or an imperialist?

Alexander\'s journey from a king to an emperor

When his father Philip II was killed in 336 BC, he was preparing to lead a combined army of Macedonians and Greeks to free the states of Asia Minor from Persians. The Greeks had become allies of Macedonia and hoped that this could help repudiate the unpopular agreements made with Philip II. In 335 BC, there was a revolt in Thebes. When Alexander heard about the revolt, he moved his soldiers to Thebes. The Thebans resisted but were overpowered by Alexander\'s army.

This was a strong warning to the rest of Greece since Alexander destroyed the entire city of Thebes, save for the temples. The remaining states offered men and ships to help Alexander in his subsequent ventures including an attack on Asia Minor.

In 334 BC, Alexander\'s force defeated the well prepared Persian force after crossing Hellespont near the Guanacos River. He then moved to the coast where he freed a series of Greek cities including Ionia and Aeolis (Marx 2000).

Alexander then moved his force eastward in the following year; he moved to the Phrygia before he moved to Gordius. The Phrygi\'s founder tied a knot on the thong of the chariot and connected it to the yoke. The oracle had prophesied that anyone who would untie this knot would rule Asia. When Alexander tried to untie the knot, he was not successful, and so he thought it wise to cut the knot with a sword to escape the bad omen. The Persians failed to defend Cilicia Gates which Alexander passed through on his way to northern Syria. In Syria, he encountered a large force which under the command of King Darius. Alexander won the Issus battle, which broke out in 333 BC and forced King Darius to flee even before the end of the battle (Marx 2000).

Between 332 & 331 BC, the Nile City of Alexandria was founded by Alexander and forced Darius to settle for a truce, and in return offered Alexander his daughter and the entire territory, which he had won. Alexander advanced through Syria, via the Tigris and Euphrates where he engaged Darius once more and defeated him. He routed the Persians once more forcing Darius to flee. This allowed Alexander to enter Babylonia with little resistance. Alexander found his way through Persia around 330 BC, and occupied Persepolis; Persians\' capital city. Later that year during the spring, he marched north to Ecbatatane against Darius. Darius was subsequently assassinated by his own army when fleeing to Persian Province of Bacteria located in the north of Hindu Kush hills. Alexander became the new Persia king but he knew that he had to protect his title by conquering the remaining provinces in Persia, which lay to the East of the Indus River. Between 325 &330 BC, Alexander moved across Turkestan, through Afghanistan to India.

Unfortunately, his men refused to proceed to further East and this forced Alexander to return to Babylon. This happened in 325 BC after Alexander had nearly fulfilled the Gordian knot prophecy (Marx 2000).

How he Invaded Persia

Alexander invaded the Persian dominions interrupting the campaign of his father. Most of his army was intact even though some forces had been sent to occupy Hellespont. He badly needed the wealth owned by the Persians to help him maintain an army that had been built by his late father and also pay off 500 talents which he owed the 10,000 Greek professional soldiers and the Agesilaus of Sparta.

After Alexander\'s army demonstrated weaknesses in the Persian Empire, it was clear that he could take over any Persian army. One of the reasons why he invaded Asia was to set free Greek cities from the Persians. The Persians had taken over the cities a few years before.

Alexander crossed (Hellespont) the Dardanelles in the springs of 334 with an army of about 30, 000 men. He moved Thracians, Illyrians, and Macedonia into Asia. He focused more on Arisbe on the Hellespont and allowed General Antipater a friend of his father to serve as a deputy in Europe with about 13,000 soldiers (Popovic 1997).

King Alexander commanded 30,000 soldiers and had about 5,000 Cavalry. Out of the 30,000 soldiers about 14,000 came from Macedonians while 7000 allies came from Greek league. The soldiers were well equipped; they had Macedonian and Cretan arches. Present also were Thracians and Agrarian Javelin men. The Cavalry was the striking force while infantry phalanx formed the 9000 strong men who were armed with powerful shields and had long spears that were 51/2-meter long. He also had 3000 soldiers of royal troops and sarnies and hypapists. Parmenio served as Alexander\'s second-in-command and had secured some sections of Asia Minor during Philip\'s lifetime. Many of his supporters included family members who had been given positions of responsibility. Alexander\'s army also consisted of scientists, historians and explorers. (Popovic, 1997).

Quest to cross the Indus

Bessus declared himself the king after the murder of Darious. He attempted to reconstruct an army and headed towards the east. Alexander reinforced his fighters and pursued him even further. Fighters from Greece and Macedonia joined Alexander as they pursued Bessus. They moved to Bacteria (Afghanistan). In Macedonia, they crushed the vassal rulers that controlled the region. Alexander managed to establish several cities on his way. He named them after his first surname followed by regional name and moved on. He moved the tribes and the native residents into nearby settlements to end their marauding lifestyles so as to bring the lifestyle to an end. As this was happening, the army pursued Bessus as he moved eastwards towards Hindu Kush. (Bishop 2015).

Alexander trekked 400 miles into the subcontinent of Indian. His force entered and occupied present Pakistan and the Present-day Afghanistan. Alexander the Great invited the regions\' chieftains to a public parlay and asked them to recognize his supremacy, submit and recognize him as the \"King of Kings.\" Most of the people in attendance took the opportunity to claim that he was a king because Alexander was a legend whose stories of valor and strength had spread far & wide. The tribes that lived in the mountain region in areas surrounding Himalaya did not accept this. They were proud of themselves and could not submit to Alexander\'s ideas. To this day, people who live in that area are still proud; no wonder that the national authority is finding it difficult to maintain national authority in that part of the world.

Alexander the Great opted to relocate his troops to the northern part of the mountain as they were directed by the locals. His attempt to move the catapults in strategic places was hindered by the steep ravine. To fill the gap, an earthen was constructed so as to allow easy movement of the machines within the area. This was countered by the defenders who instead rolled large stones down the mountain so as to slow down the construction work that was taking place. However, sufficient progress to cross the impasse was made by the end of the third day. This allowed Alexander and his men to move to the summit, which allowed him to easily defeat the renegades (Bishop 2015).

India and Punjab

A formidable army from Europe invaded India. It was led by Alexander the Great. The army comprised of soldiers from Macedonia who were battle hardened. It also included Balkan fighters, the Greek Calvary and Persian allies. In total, there were about 41,000 men fighting for Alexander. One of the most memorable battles that Alexander\'s men fought was the Battle of (Jhelum) Hydaspes which the army battled out against Porus\' army. Porus was the king of Paurava kingdom in the western part of Punjab.

There was a belief that Alexander\'s soldiers defeated the Indians. This belief lasted for over 25 centuries until when the Romans believed that the Indians enjoyed a courage stature that was superior to the Macedonians. A British Historian described Alexander as a hero who led the organized west against the ill prepared and disorganized East. However, it was revealed that Alexander defeated just a few minor tribes in the Indian northwest. Many people thought that India was completely conquered but the truth was that the Greeks did not even know that the subcontinent existed. As a result, it was discovered that declaring Alexander the winner would be synonymous to describing Hitler as Russia\'s conqueror irrespective of the fact that the Germans were able to move only to Stalingrad area (Simha 2013).

According to the Greek historian, the reason why Alexander returned to his ancestral country was that his soldiers suffered from homesickness. Conexus pleaded with him because his men were longing to go home and see their parents, their homeland, their children and wives. The soldiers were all frightened and weary, and really wanted to go home. Once they were back in the Macedonian empire the soldiers who had earlier on complained, joined the rebellion at Opis. The soldiers who had been released by Alexander so that they go back to Macedonia revolted a thing that showed they were not actually suffering from homesickness (Sanghi 2009). After the battle with Porus, the soldier learned that further from Punjab there was a land with men who were more courageous and who had a superior stature. The same land was a home of elephants because the inhabitants were people with skills in agriculture and food was in abundance. According to Plutarch, Alexander\'s army was informed that the kings of Paresis and Ganderites were waiting for them with over six thousand fighting elephants, eight thousand chariot, 200,000 footmen and 80,000 horsemen. (Plutarch 1919)

Sexual Orientations

The relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion was used to depict Alexander\'s sexual orientation. Most people used that relationship to project Alexander as a bisexual or a homosexual. As they did this, they ignored Alexander\'s heterosexual relations. In my view, it is wrong to transfer our sexual groupings such as bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual upon the ancient Greeks. The reason for this is that these modern groupings are alien to the world in which Alexander existed. Sexuality in the ancient Greeks had a different meaning. According to them, the fact that a human male or woman was attracted to another person did not in any way place him in any of the aforementioned sexual categorization (Polychroniou 2014).

A Close examination of Alexander\'s romantic inclinations reveals that he loved beauty. He is noted to have gone to bed with both pretty Asians and Greeks. Alexander had specific relation with Hephaestion. It seems there was an erotic aspect to the relationship. However, eroticism was not the central issue in my view. Alexander had known his friend Hephaestion since boyhood. They had grown to become close friends with trusted ties between them. Fighting in combat together must have cemented the bond. If it\'s true that Alexander and Hephaestion were lovers, it must then be an expression of Greek culture that few cared to pay attention to. There are hardly comments about the romantic element in the sources available. If the two were lovers, it didn\'t seem to attract much attention (Polychroniou 2014).

Alexander avoided marrying in the first 10 years of his rein, and he did it successfully, Most of the Royal beautiful women in the Persian territory were within his control after Issus. Alexander is said to have revered his queen mother Sisygambis as if she was his own mother. He pledged to pay dowry for Darius\' daughters. He considered his relation with Darius as father and a son and proceeded to lay his strong claim to be the genuine Asian King. He only stopped short of marrying. He was content with Barsine, th next falling in line with Artaxerxes II genealogy and daughter to Artabazus. He bore a son with Barsin after a protracted relationship. Heracles was the product of the relationship but the issue of marriage never came to the fore until the latter days of Alexander\'s conquests in Sogdiana. He later met Rhoxane who he almost married immediately (Worthington, 2002).

In what way did the people view Alexander the Great as King?

Although Alexander is credited with major victories in combat and conquests of territories, he had little impact on the lives of the people he ruled. Alexander is noted to have had intentions of unifying the Greeks and the Barbarians but he failed to translate such a vision into governance strategy that would help him achieve such a feat. Asia was largely governed by Alexander\'s generals who he had appointed as regional governors. This was tailored in the same fashion as the Persian system that he had earlier destroyed. The problem with the generals is that, with their inherent belief in the use of force and military defiance, they had little patience with the eastern cultural inclinations. They largely worked to keep Alexander\'s supply lines open. It should not be lost on analyst\'s mind that the Persian locals also had a sophisticated culture that could have been older than the one for Greeks. They had no reason to convince them to surrender. Despite the great ideas that Alexander the Great had, he had little impact on peoples of the east. Alexander\'s leadership style must have contributed to his lack of influence on the lives and culture of the people. Although the Persian territory was under Macedonian rule in terms of the ruler and the regional governors, in civilian terms, the Persian system continued to be the norm. Thus, it can be argued that the Persian way of doing things was left intact. The locals continued to pay taxes as they had under Persian rulers. They were also inducted to the army in times of war; the Persian leadership had done the same. The only difference was that the orders came from people with non-Persian origin and with non-Persian names (James 2011).

The spread of Greek culture and Hellenism

The victories by Alexander in conquests had far-reaching effects on the peoples of the east and west in terms of culture. Hellenism (Greek-influenced culture) took root all the way from the Mediterranean Sea to Asia. His armies passed through the mountains of modern day Afghanistan and the Tibetan territories helped to establish formidable trade routes between Asia and Europe. The routes facilitated trade; and with it plenty of religious and cultural interactions between the west and the east. It is observed that Hellenistic and related Roman art may even have influenced the portrayal of Buddha. At the onset, the Buddha is reported to only have been a symbolic mental image. It had not been captured in practical human image. The anthropomorphic representation of the Buddha that came to the fore could have been crafted to aspects of his teachings and life in general (Clark 2012).

The expansion and spread of the Greek language is a hallmark of the culture of the Hellenists. Greek acquired a prestigious status because it became the preferred language of trade. It benefited people from across the region because it was commonly used. People could interact and easily comprehend what the other was saying despite the differences in culture and ethnic languages. Art is reported to have benefited from the use of a unifying language. It was now more appreciated by people. Drama and philosophy were equally appreciated. The world view was fast changing. New schools of thought that focused more on the individual emerged. Epicureanism and stoicism are examples of such developments. The cosmopolitan culture that emerged as a result of the rule by Alexander the great obliterated the earlier competition between Greek city states. The developments fostered a tendency to concentrate on the individual as opposed to identifying with city states. Identifying with city states had been the culture of the Greeks. Although Alexander rules for a short period, he evidently had a tremendous impact on the eastern and Greek cultures. The influence lasted many centuries after the end of his rule and death. Later, new empires emerged. There was a fusion of culture that resulted in some of the most revered civilizations in the world of antiquity (Clark, 2012).

Consolidating the Empire

Alexander\'s empire was made weak by the rumor of his demise. His absence was also felt for several years. His reappearance had not even helped matters much because there were many inefficient representatives in office. He continued to receive many complaints from such places as Carmania regarding the incompetence of his staffs. He was also told of the disorderly state of affairs in Greece and Marcedonia. Six of his governors were executed between 326 and 324 BC while others were replaced. The exercise saw over one third of the earlier governors replaced. Executions involved the Persian Satraps of Persis, Paraetacene and Carmania. The media generals were arrested because of extortion accusations. They were convoked to Carmania and arrested and subsequently executed. Diodorus mentioned plans to conquer western Mediterranean and subsequent creation of a monarchy that cut across the regions. Alexander directed his focus and energies towards exploring the Arabian and the Caspian regions. Alexander was immediately concerned with exploring the waterways that surrounded his empire. He sought to discover the connection that was presumed to link the Caspian region with The Northern Ocean and opening a marine route that ran from Babylon all the way to Egypt and criss-crossed Arabia. Alexander sought to design the latter enterprise personally. He supervised the preparation of a massive fleet. A huge basin was dug out to accommodate over 1000 ships. The water-based communications of Babylonia were seized. There were several implementations that were put to effect strategic aspects of his army. The approaches for future battles were to be significantly modified (Popovic, 1997).

Probable Causes of Alexander the Great\'s Death

There is little possibility that Alexander the great was killed with poison because few poisons induce fever and indeed, few existed at the time. Only plant salicylates existed at the time. These destabilize thermoregulation in the body. There were also ergot mycotoxins which generate a fake heat sensation and alkaloids which hinder perspiration. According to Plutarch, Aristotle who tutored Alexander procured arsenic poison to kill Alexander. However, mycotoxins, including arsenic are unlikely to have caused Alexander\'s death because none of them could have possibly caused the reported high fever that lasted for a significant period. Alexander passed on in the ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia on the 10th of June 323 BC. Scholars of ancient history have been fascinated by Alexander\'s death because the illness that killed him caused sustained fever for two weeks. Several clinical diagnoses based on meager information have been posited. These diagnoses have ranged from infections to non-infectious diseases to poisoning. After having considered the circumstances of Alexander\'s death and the various theories from ancient to modern ones, we have settled on the conclusion that Alexander could have died as a result of encephalitis of the West Nile (Marr and Calisher 2003). According to the data provided by GIDE network influenza was ranked as one of the most probable killers of Alexander the great. It carries a 41.2% probability. While it is possible that influenza killed Alexander the Great, few people are reported to have died of the same at the time. Lymphocytic choreomeningitis, an ailment that manifests in ways similar to influenza, and succeeded by meningoencephalitis, is a rare condition. Poliomyelitis could occur in isolation or as an epidemic. It is characterized by severe myalgia, vomiting, and prostration. Early complications of flaccid paralysis reported to be one of the signs in Alexander\'s late stages of illness is also a possible symptom. The interpretation limits the differential diagnostic findings to incorporate poliomyelitis, encephalitides and Guillain-Barre syndrome. The authors have presented several infectious ailments; some of which have been considered less likely causes of Alexander\'s death (Marr and Calisher 2003).