Alexander the Great was antiquity\'s greatest commander

[Ghostmojo]

I have mentioned that he left a lot to be desired as a human being - which is judging him by modern standards. But judging him in the context of his times as a conqueror (and accepting everything that went with that), I still believe part of his goal was to create a harmonised empire that embraced the diverse peoples and traditions. In some respects he was continuing the policy that the Persians had promoted of strong empire - but pragmatic administration. His adoption of Persian dress and customs didn't exactly go down well with his Greek fellow travellers, nor perhaps the forced inter-marriages, nor the training of eastern troops into Makedonian style phalanxes - but I believe there was an attempt to create some kind of hybrid hellenic civilisation, incorporating the best of what he encountered grafted onto the spread of Greek culture. The building of cities occurs for many reasons - trade, protection of trade, supply bases etc., but does generally indicate a desire to stick around ... at least for a while. I suppose with Alexander, there was not enough time for things to settle down - and lacking the continuity of a successor to hold things together we'll never know how successful his empire might have been. We do know of course that he always planned to conquer all the non-Greek peoples and ultimately this would have led to the western Mediterranean.

It is true that much of this smacks of social engineering writ large. I am no particular fan of Alexander as a man - but it is hard not to be impressed by the scope of his ambition. Had I been an average Greek caught up in these times - I guess if I'd been from the central or southern states I might have been against him, but from the northern states I might well have been for him. I recognise I have strayed from the original premise here (antiquity's greatest commander) but with Alexander the Great, there are so many interconnected facets.

Alexandros III of Makedon is a complex character. On the one hand go the teachings of Aristotle ... on the other the dreams of Achilles. There is some kind of dichotomy there - always apparent in his behaviour; but perhaps to be expected from somebody rooted in such a dysfunctional family. Was he truly Philip's son or Olympias' son (I don't mean biologically)? Did he really believe himself to be the son of Zeus? He was rash and temperamental and hugely impulsive, and of course a drunk. Much of that might equate to his 'tribal' Makedonian side. But he was also keen on philosophy; reading; the arts and sciences; reasoned debate and acquiring knowledge. Unfortunately the business of strong self-belief, which propelled him on his crusade, and undeniable charisma led to paranoid megalomania and delusions of both grandeur and deity. He was manifest destiny personified. It is hard to think of another ancient leader from any society or era who accomplished so much and whose legacy remains even to this day. Hellenisation continued after his death; Alexandria (Egypt) prospered and flourishes over 2000 years later; his influence can still be detected in Indian culture and he is even mentioned in the Koran. That part of the world would be very, very different had he never led his great Greek enterprise out in search of glory and revenge.