By Nick Deiuliis
The moniker, Alexander the Great, is befitting of the man’s historical resume. Macedonian ruler of the known world, from Greece to India. By age 30, creator of one of the largest empires in history. Undefeated in battle and a brilliant military mind. Visionary leader.
Countless pages over centuries have covered seemingly every aspect of Alexander’s life and campaigns. Historians obsess over Alexander’s military tactics and famous battle sequences. Psychologists opine on his ego, temper, and sexual preferences while physicians diagnose his combat injuries, illnesses, and medical treatments. Logisticians marvel at his army’s supply chain prowess.
Yet there are five critical and intriguing components to Alexander the Great’s epic story that are not properly appreciated. Factors that don’t have much to do with military battles or tactics. Five vital, yet secret, ingredients that were necessary to build the legend.
Most Elite of Upbringings
Aristotle (born 384 BC) is one of history’s greatest minds. The polymath covered subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. He attended Plato’s Academy until his late 30s and laid the groundwork for the development of modern science.
The historian Robin Lane Fox noted that Aristotle “wrote books on the constitutions of 158 different states, edited a list of the victors in the games at Delphi, discussed music and medicine, astronomy, magnets and optics, made notes on Homer, analyzed rhetoric, outline the forms of poetry, considered the irrational side of men’s nature, set zoology on a proper experimental course, was intrigued by bees and began the study of Embryology.”
Though Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, and none of it was intended for publication.1
Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and ended up pursuing a crucial career opportunity that impacted world history. Philip II ruled Macedonia, to the north of Greece. The King wanted Aristotle, the best instructor in the land, to tutor Philip’s son, Alexander (not yet known as ‘The Great’).
Phillip built a school in Mieza for Aristotle to instruct young Alexander and a group of young noblemen. The future conqueror received three years of instruction from Aristotle at the academy.2
The archeological site of Mieza located in Macedonia is where Aristotle is believed to have tutored Alexander.
Aristotle prepared for Alexander a special text of the Iliad, which was Alexander’s favorite work. Legend has it that Alexander kept Aristotle’s text on the Iliad under his pillow. Aristotle also wrote pamphlets for Alexander on kingship, colonies, and instructed him on geometry, rhetoric, and the ability to debate a case from one side as well as the other. All of which were tools that would serve Alexander well during his life.
Indeed, Alexander enjoyed the most exclusive of upbringings. His father, Philip II, was King of Macedonia. His teacher was Aristotle. And he attended an elite academy built especially for him.
Not exactly the rearing environment of a common peasant. Yet Alexander as a leader earned the respect of the common soldier through his actions.
Alexander would often lead the attack charge, receive treatment for his wounds after his injured soldiers were cared for, and sleep in the same conditions as his soldiers. That style of leadership is rare, particularly for someone with the privileged background of Alexander.
Family Dysfunction
Alexander the Great experienced a volatile set of family dynamics early in life. An ancient version of a soap opera, reality show, and investigative crime documentary rolled into one.
Alexander’s mother, Olympias, was the wife of Philip II. She was Greek, and since the Greek states were historic rivals of Macedonia, it made the royal arrangement somewhat controversial.
When Alexander was a young man, his father repudiated Alexander’s mother and took as a new wife a Macedonian who had a daughter with Philip and was expecting what was rumored to be a son. If that were true, it would put Alexander’s succession as the next potential ruler of Macedonia, after his father, in jeopardy.
Succession concerns and the risk of not being next in line in the ancient world often resulted in royal homicide. Sure enough, within a year Philip II was assassinated by a bodyguard. The murder catalyzed instant speculation as to who may have been involved in the murder and what the motive was. It placed Alexander into a dangerous dynamic at a critical age.
Depiction of Philip’s assassination by Pausanias in The Story of the Greatest Nations (c. 1900)
The role that Alexander potentially played in his father’s death has been of historical debate for centuries.
Many historians conclude Alexander was an active participant planning his father’s murder. Father and son often fought, at times violently and publicly. Much of the conflict centered on the drama of Philip II repudiating Alexander’s mother and marrying another woman.
But Alexander devising his father’s murder is just one possible scenario.
Aristotle believed the bodyguard who murdered Philip II acted alone and was achieving revenge after Phillip II terminated their homosexual affair.3
Alexander offered his own theory as to who was behind the assassination of his father. He speculated the murder was politically motivated and organized by the Persians, rivals of Phillip II and Macedonia.
And one cannot rule out Alexander’s mother, Olympias, as a prime suspect in planning Philip’s demise. His new marriage humiliated her and hamstrung the political prospects of her son. Interestingly, Olympias ordered that the body of the murderer be taken down from its stake and cremated with honor.
Alexander experienced, dealt with, and successfully navigated through traumatic family drama—positioning him to become king and begin his conquests. Proving once again that what doesn’t kill you often makes you stronger. Or alternatively, if Alexander played a role in his father’s death, proving that sometimes crime pays.
Machiavellian…Centuries Before Machiavelli
Alexander’s upbringing and personal crises at a young age prepared him to become a master at Machiavellian tactics long before the birth of Machiavelli. He had a talent to manipulate politics and shape perception to his liking.
After Alexander would win a major battle, he would often send trophies taken from the enemy (armor, shields, etc.) back to Greece and Athens to be displayed in temples. He would inscribe on the trophies: “Alexander son of Philip and the Greeks”. In parentheses he would write: “Except the Spartans”, and then would continue with “[sends] these spoils from the Persians in Asia”.
Two details of the practice and inscriptions highlight Alexander’s political savvy and group psychology mastery.
The sending of trophies back to Athens adorned with his inscription of being ‘the son of the Greeks’ was public relations genius. Athens and much of Greece were the least reliable allies of Macedonia and Alexander. Alexander’s practice transformed himself into a Greek, whereby it would be more difficult for Greeks or Athenians to not stick with the alliance.
His parenthetical portion of the trophy inscriptions, ‘except the Spartans’, accomplished an even larger public relations feat. Specifically excluding the Spartans conveniently allowed Alexander to rewrite history into a version that was more suited to his goals. Before Alexander, the Spartans were the undisputed regional leaders and champions of Greek liberty against the Persians.4 Excluding Sparta in the trophies’ dedications was Alexander’s way to modify history, whereby he displaced the Spartan legacy of being the exemplar of Greek resistance against the recognized enemy, Persia. And inserted himself as the new exemplar.
Welcoming Input, Only to Decide the Opposite
Alexander encouraged debate and input from his senior advisors throughout campaigns. Yet he also had a penchant for deciding a course counter to what those closest to him advised. As far as Alexander was concerned, the consensus be damned.
Four examples show the dynamic at play.
The earliest decision point involved what to do about Persia’s formidable naval fleet in the Mediterranean. Alexander’s advisers urged seeking a direct naval battle with the Persians and then pivoting to the next step based upon the outcome of the naval encounter.
Alexander disagreed. His strategic vision was beyond what his advisers could see. While the advisers were thinking short-term and tactical victory or setback, Alexander was thinking long-term and aiming for total global domination. He chose to forgo a direct naval battle and instead to take out Persian naval bases along the coast to, as he put it, ‘defeat the Persian fleet from the land.’ It was unconventional thinking and it worked.
A second decision point that illustrated Alexander’s penchant for bucking the consensus and choosing a separate path came after Alexander won his first battle against Darius of Persia. Darius offered Alexander an enticing bribe to cease his campaign: all of Asia Minor. Alexander pushed on and after he won another battle against Darius, the Persian leader upped his offer to include all territory up to the Euphrates River, treasure, and Darius’ daughter’s hand in marriage.
Alexander’s advisors strongly urged him to accept the deal. Darius’ offer was far beyond what the advisors hoped to achieve tactically in the campaign. But Alexander flatly refused, using the justification that he already informed Darius that he, Alexander, was Lord of Asia. Therefore, all Darius’ wealth and lands were already Alexander’s, including Darius’ daughter’s hand in marriage (but only if Alexander wanted to take it).
Alexander’s decision to not accept the offer and continue with the campaign proved a good one. Alexander’s advisors played tactical checkers while Alexander was playing strategic chess.
Two other examples of Alexander astutely dissenting from his advisors’ opinions at crucial decision points pertain to battle tactics.
At the Granicus, advisors thought attempting to cross the river with the Persian army already sitting at the other bank would be disastrous. Alexander was convinced attacking directly across the river would create a psychological advantage for his army and result in victory and proclaimed, “I should feel ashamed after crossing the sea from Europe to Asia if this little stream should hinder us.” He led the charge into the river, which led to victory.
At Guagamela, Alexander’s inner circle debated whether the army should attack at night or daylight. Advisors thought a night attack better, but Alexander felt it could confuse the troops and would not be befitting of the reputation of the army. He said darkness belonged to “robbers and way layers” and “…my glory shall not be diminished by stealing a victory. I am determined on an open attack.” Once again, his decision led to victory.
Oratory to Manipulate, Inspire, and Persuade
Alexander was an extremely talented orator. He was able to connect with and inspire his troops at crucial junctures.
Looking to conquer the known world over the course of years will create times when the army grows weary and frustrated. Alexander’s army, thousands of miles from home and away for years, was not immune to that phenomenon. One of Alexander’s most effective tools for countering poor morale and recharging it was his gift for public speaking.
Alexander and Porus by Charles Le Brun, painted 1673, depicting the Battle of the Hydaspes.5
A crucial test of energizing poor morale via oratory for Alexander was presented by his army in India. To manipulate his troops’ feelings and to motivate them to stay, he gave a passionate speech. He focused on his leading from the front, subjecting himself to the hardships of the common soldier, and of the loyalty owed to him.
Alexander said:
“I have no part of my body, in front at least, that is left without scars; there is no weapon, used at close quarters, or hurled from afar, of which I do not carry the mark. I have been wounded by the sword, shot with arrows, struck from a catapult, smitten many times with stones and clubs for you, for your glory, for your wealth.”
He continued with:
“Depart all of you and when you reach home, tell them there that your king, Alexander, victor over the Persians… Tell them, I say that you deserted him, that you took yourselves off, leaving him to the care of the wild tribes you conquered. This, when you declare it, will be no doubt glorious among men and pious in the sight of heaven. Be gone!”
Alexander certainly had a sense for the dramatic and could adeptly use words to sway.
He coupled the speech with elaborate sulking theatrics over the following few days, and by the end of the performance, his army was ready to follow him anywhere and for as long as he liked.
Five Secret Ingredients Helped Transform Alexander into ‘The Great’
Five crucial and underappreciated attributes helped transform Alexander into the legend. The development of his story required much more than military prowess, bravery, and good timing.
It also required:
- An elite upbringing at the foot of his king-father and Aristotle;
- Volatile family dynamics, which tested and introduced him at an early age to the harsh realities of leadership;
- Ability to define vision and manipulate perception through astute public relations and optics;
- Confidence to gather views of trusted advisors but to decide on a different course; and,
- Gifted oratory to sway and inspire during challenging times.
To learn more about the man beyond the military campaigns, check out John Keegan’s The Mask of Command.
A great unconventional work on Alexander is Lance Kurke’s The Wisdom of Alexander the Great: Enduring Leadership Lessons from the Man Who Created an Empire.
The trove of thoughts and views on Alexander the Great seems endless. Indeed, there is still much to learn from the legend, twenty-three centuries later.
•