Alexander the Great was antiquity\'s greatest commander

[Macedon]

1st post

Alexander had to overcome many more challenges than Hannibal and Pyrrhus put together.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on the qualities of Alexander, but is that above analysis entirely correct? Alexander, at least, had plenty of reinforcements to sustain his campaighns. Imagine: what would Alexander have done if his original force with which he crossed into Asia (Turkey) would never have been resupplied with Macedonian troops? My guess is that he would have been forced to rmain in Syria, unable to challenge darius In Persia. And then what would we have thought about his qualities?

Alexander had a free hand, unlike Hannibal who was very much at the mercy of a state committe. Pyrrhus, if able to get more reinforcements, would perhaps have conquered Italy, as would have been possible for Hannibal.

Alexander had access to reinforcements only because he was able to manage his interior and exterior affairs better than Hannibal and Pyrrhus as well as because he was able to keep his supply lines open. His initial force was smaller than that of H., similar to that of P. H. and P. relied heavily on the local manpower from the first moment, Alexander did not. Hannibal was sent huge reinforcements (many more men than Alexander ever received from home) but they were slaughtered along the way unable to reach him. He also did not have the full support of the Carthaginian Senate, which in itself is also a point where N. proved less than A. As for the locals, he drew heavily from them till the end, but as he progressively lost control over them, he also lost his reinforcement pool. The same applies to Pyrrhus. He started with a mixed Greek mercenary army, just like Alexander, came to Magna Grecia where he was put in charge of a large body of men there. He trained and used them as well as he could, gained some victories but then, for political reasons he lost their "love", he passed on to Sicily, came back to Italy and after a single loss in a great battle he was unable to continue his campaign against Rome. Yet, he was never short of recruits until the end, when he totally lost control of his allies. His main attested problem was losses in his veteran and officer pool, which is a direct consequence of many losses in battle and during campaigning, a problem Alexander seemingly did not encounter until very late in his campaign and after he had formed the administrative basis that would ensure him the draft of new forces.

In conclusion, Alexander only had a steady flow of reinforcements that proved sufficient because he was able to :

A. keep control of his dominions even in his absence
B. keep his supply lines open and secure
C. form and sustain an administrative system and relations that ensured him access to local populations during his Eastern campaigns
D. because he never had to deal with high losses

all of which, again are points we have to judge in a great commander.

A very good point, Robert.....indeed one may well point out that as an absolute ruler, Alexander had a free hand to do as he wished, and almost limitless resources to do it with - Greek re-inforcements and mercenaries to provide garrisons, freeing his Macedonian "field" army, and once he was in Asia, ever-increasing amounts of money until he became the wealthiest ruler in the world, and pretty limitless sources of manpower, so much so that by the time he invaded India his army contained many thousands of Asiatics. By comparison, Hannibal and Pyrrhus (and other Historical Military Commanders) operated on a shoestring, with distinctly limited money and manpower resources.......seen in that light, it makes their accomplishments harder to achieve than Alexander's.......

Alexander did not have limitless resources and even the resources he secured he secured through war. Why should we view upon his eastern campaign as something so distant from his Balkan campaign? It was his ability that ensured him stability in Greece and the Balkans. Apart from that, he had to leave in Greece a Macedonian army, large enough to be able to deal with any problem (as indeed Antipater did when necessary). His pool was not limitless and his gold was even less than enough (do not forget that the Macedonian treasury was empty and that Alexander paid off debts with the income of the sale of the Thebans) What gold and treasures he took he fought for and what you claim is true but not until he was done with the Persians... On the other hand both Pyrrhus and Hannibal never are attested to not have enough gold. Hannibal had access to the lucrative mines of Iberia and Pyrrhus drew what money he needed from his allies. What was the value and contribution of any of Alexander's gold in his campaigns? Was he able to use it before Gaugamela to his advantage? He only used it to pay his and his men's debts. He didn't pay for any new armies, his campaigning force didn't swell from 50 to 100.000. Actually, even if gold is an issue, isn't it a great commander's job to be able to secure resources? Had Hannibal secured Iberia against Scipio or had Pyrrhus conquered Rome, would they have not more resources to put in their war efforts?

Alexander started off as the poorest of the three, not the richest. He ended up the richest after many battles and strategical organization.