Last week one faithful reader asked if Alexander deserved to be called "the Great." It's an interesting question when framed by the context of other b.c.e. conquerors, how he achieved what he did and what else he could have done.
If we start with the question about how he had the success he did it comes down to three things. First, he used the phalanx that was devised by his father. The phalanx was the best tactical formation available and when it was made up of disciplined veterans it was more than a match for any army that relied on overwhelming enemies with numbers and prowess of individual stories. That Alexander took his father's system and improved it and refined it and then used it to conqueror the known world even though everybody knew that's what he was going to do was pretty impressive.
He also relied on his mother. While their relationship was often strained and she was not popular with his Greek subjects, Alexander relied on his mother to deal with political intrigue and helped him keep his base of operations stable and secure. Because of the way armies of the time worked, Alexander had to be with the army. He also had to be in Persia to establish that as the center of his empire. That meant someone trustworthy had to be left in Greece to keep the Greeks and Macedonians from killing each other and helping to sniff out and suppress revolts. There was no one better suited to that task than his mother. Realizing that and keeping his mother there was if not brilliant, at least effective.
In terms of potential rivals for the title "the Great" among western generals, there aren't many rivals. Philip of Macedon and Hannibal would probably be the best. Philip obviously falls short of his son because Alexander succeeded in defeating Persia. Alexander was a better politician and battle field tactician than his father, but his greatest advantage over his father was the same as his greatest advantage over Hannibal. All three could win on one battlefield, only Alexander proved able to finish a campaign. Hannibal's invasion of Rome ended because he couldn't maintain his supply lines and capture major cities because he couldn't lay siege. He couldn't finish the job. Alexander didn't have that problem. He chased down Darius and all the other legitimate claimants to the Persian throne. He conquered every major city of the Persian empire that resisted him. He had the strategic vision to see what had to be done and was able to actually do it unlike Hannibal or Philip.
I would say that Alexander was great, but he could have been greater. If he had actually conquered India, that would have increased his reputation, but that wouldn't be what it would take to increase his historical stature. The biggest thing that could have been done to increase his historical stature would have been to leave an heir or at least instructions for how he wanted the Empire divider and ruled after his death. The other significant action that would have changed Alexander's reputation would have been to stop and the Hindu Kush. He then could have marched his army back across his empire and eventually returning his Greeks and Macedonians to their homes. Then to keep Greece the center of the empire instead of Persia, Alexander should have marched north. Thrace, Dacia, Samartia, and Germania all could have fallen to the Phalanx. This might have had an even longer lasting impact on European history. First, the Golden Age of Greece probably would hav lasted longer. But even if it only lasted a little longer, imagine the impact of the Roman legions encountering not "barbarians," but more strategically and tactically advanced cultures armed with better weapons and equipment. THe Roman Empire might not last until the fifth century in an environment where they lose those advantages.
No comments:
Post a Comment