Alexander the Great:
Tactician or Eagle?
By John J. Donnangelo
SMASHWORDS EDITION
* * * * *
PUBLISHED BY:
John J. Donnangelo at Smashwords
Alexander the Great:
Tactician or Eagle?
Copyright 2011 by John J. Donnangelo
Smashwords Edition License Notes
Thank you for downloading this free ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.
* * * * *
To Doris:
For sparking my interest in Alexander the Great
and for supporting me while I recorded the words that follow.
* * * * *
Alexander the Great:
Tactician or Eagle?
INTRODUCTION
“What” – not “who” but “what” - was this young man we know as Alexander the Great? Was he a Tactician or an Eagle? Since his death in 323 BC, a vast amount of commentary has been written about Alexander the Great, the King of Macedonia. The earliest writers were his own Companions, the noble men who had served as the generals in his army. Unfortunately their written words have been lost, but they were followed by notable Greek writers such as Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin, most of who lived within decades of Alexander’s death. Roman era writers such as Arrian, Cicero, and Horace, to name a few, have chronicled his life as well, comparing him to Julius Caesar, who lived some 170 years after Alexander’s death. Later writers have compared Napoleon Bonaparte and General David D. Eisenhower, both of whom lived some 2000 years later, to Alexander the Great.
Also known as Alexander III, King of Macedon, he was one of the most successful Ancient Greek military commanders in history, “… whose conquests did more than we can estimate to spread Greek culture and civilization.”(13) While Alexander’s father, Phillip, had had some extraordinary achievements of his own, within five years of Phillip’s death Alexander had surpassed his father by overthrowing the two hundred year old Persian Empire and becoming the richest man in the world, and for some, being worshipped as a god. By the end of his life he was the ruler of some two million square miles. To this day scholars, historians, biographers, numismatists, poets, playwrights, and fiction writers are among those who have tried to chronicle his life and deeds but since “…historians can read a man’s documents but never read his mind,” there are innumerable perceptions of the man and his life.(1)
There probably is only one country that could be the birthplace of the Alexander story, and that country is Egypt. Hundreds of years before Alexander came to Egypt the influence, civilization, and language of the Egyptians had found their way to Macedon. Upon his arrival in Egypt, Alexander found the people, at least those living in the delta of the Nile River, unwilling to meet him in battle. In fact, they welcomed him as one could help them against their bitter foes, the Persians.
What follows is not intended to be a chronology of his life, for innumerable writers have already done that. In the subsequent pages we will consider two possibilities as to “what” Alexander the Great was, recognizing the fact that it is only this author’s perception. These pages are intended only to suggest whether Alexander was a tactician or an eagle; the analysis will mostly ignore the background of whom, what, when, and where, and focus on why and how.
* * * * *
THE EARLY YEARS
Starting at age fifteen Alexander was tutored by the great philosopher, Aristotle, who remained with him for eight years, first as tutor and later as mentor. “The master was worthy of his pupil and the pupil of his master.”(5) Alexander was a fast learner with an insatiable desire to learn all he could, and with an ambition that could not to be satisfied with finishing second. In the later years of his tutoring Aristotle added moral philosophy, logic, rhetoric, the art of poetry, the theory of political government, and the more evident principles of natural philosophy to the curriculum. Aristotle’s goal was to make his pupil an accomplished statesman, and to qualify him to govern the great empire destined to be his with wisdom, firmness, and justice. It was his plan to fill Alexander’s mind with historical facts, to teach him how to draw useful conclusions from those facts and to explain the best way to improve the empires he would create. In this way Alexander had been well prepared to become king, just as his father had intended, even though as a boy Alexander feared that there would be nothing left for him to conquer. His mind was alert and inquisitive beyond his years, so when Persian ambassadors once visited the Macedonian court, he asked them about the armies and the topography of Asia. He also asked about the resources, wealth, laws, customs, government, and life of the peoples living there. “No wonder Philip was proud of his son and heir.”(4)
In addition to this future king, Aristotle had several other boys in his class, several of whom also were sons of kings. One day he asked them, when they succeeded their father and became king, what favor would they show him as their teacher. One boy replied that Aristotle would dine at his table, and he would make everyone show him honor and respect. Another responded he would make Aristotle his chief treasurer and would consult with him as an adviser when making decisions. Then he turned to Alexander and posed the question. Alexander, perhaps somewhat arrogantly, answered, "What right have you to ask me such questions about that which the future has yet to bring? As I have no assurance of the morrow, I can only say that, when the day and hour is come, then I will give you answer.” “Well said,” exclaimed the master, “well said, Alexander, world monarch, for thou wilt one day be the greatest king of all."(10)
Alexander did not resemble his parents in appearance. “[H]is face was like the face of a lion; his eyes too were dissimilar, for the right was black and looked downwards, and his left eye resembled exactly that of an “eagle,” and it looked upwards. His teeth were long and narrow like the teeth of a dog, and he was strong and bold from his youth.”(15) From his mother, Olympias, Alexander inherited his imagination and superstitious habits. (His mother was the triple essence of superstition.(4)) From his father, Philip, Alexander took his quick and precise common sense. His father had assumed the crown at the age of twenty three, and was in every sense a worthy model for his son. He was a strict disciplinarian who had introduced and perfected a body of soldiers such as the world had ever seen. “Philip brought Greece to his feet, and enabled his son Alexander to reap from the start the fruit of his wonderful military genius.”(4) This then was Alexander’s legacy.
Arguably, Alexander the Great did indeed become the greatest king of all. Initially he ruled Macedon, a kingdom about twice the size of the United States of America’s state of Massachusetts and one third the size of the state of New York.(9) By the time of his death almost thirteen years later, his kingdom extended from Macedonia, which is just northwest of today’s Greece, then southeastward around the Mediterranean Sea to Egypt, and eastward across today’s Iran and Afghanistan to western India. The total distance of Alexander’s march and conquests was some 22,000 miles, which vastly expanded his empire. Some chroniclers of Alexander’s life maintain that in the later years of his life he abandoned and disregarded all he had learned about wisdom, firmness, and justice. Further, there is much speculation as to why he died, such as from his wounds in battle, especially the one that pierced his lung. Other accounts suspect the cause to be a fever and some even allege poisoning, making it an assassination. We shall let history be the final judge, for does it truly matter how or why this unique warrior, the greatest king of all, really did die?
* * * * *
THE TACTICIAN
“Our role is attack. That day on which we put ourselves on the defensive will see us lost.”(4)
First we will consider the tactician aspect. A tactician may be defined as one who is skilled in the planning and coordination of forces in battle, and in the organizing of operations, especially during contact with the enemy. Many writers have characterized Alexander as everything from a genius in tactical maneuvering to an adolescent who was simply very lucky. Both perceptions do describe Alexander, whether he be a genius or a lucky adolescent. The name “Alexander” derives from the Greek words "alexo" meaning refuge, defense, protection and "aner" meaning man, and these meanings for alexo are some of the qualities of a tactician. When his father, Philip II of Macedon, was assassinated by two of his bodyguards, Alexander took the crown by force, slaughtering possible claimants to the throne. This early propensity to brutality may have been a hint of techniques that evolved in his later years.
In 340 BC, when Alexander was a young prince of sixteen, his father went on a campaign of his own, naming his prince a regent, effectively making Alexander a head of state who, as a minor, could not rule. This didn’t slow down Alexander at all. He not only tactfully conducted the kingdom’s business, but also marshaled what troops he had, and raided the Maedi on the eastern Macedonian border. He took their chief town by storm, drove out the barbarous inhabitants, and named the place Alexandropolis, the first of a long series of cities he named after himself. Then in 338 BC, at the age of eighteen, Alexander aided his father by annihilating the Sacred Band of Thebes, an ancient city just south of present-day Cairo. Six thousand of this previously regarded invincible infantry was slaughtered. This early bravery, while portending Alexander’s future tactics with those who opposed him, made Philip very proud of him. Nothing pleased Philip more than to hear his subjects call himself their general and Alexander their king.
After his father was assassinated, Alexander, at the age of twenty, mustered the vast army he now commanded and embarked on a march of about 22,000 miles in which he engaged in many campaigns. The new king’s ultimate goal was to conquer and rule all of Persia, but he chose to delay his Persian campaign in order to first quell the hostility in the Grecian cities, sensing that an overt act there would make reconciliation difficult. Further, he fully expected the peoples to the west, north, and east of Macedonia to resist his attempts at domination. His father had controlled them with an iron hand so Alexander expected them to oppose him actively and aggressively. “Thus in little over one year after his accession to the throne, the young King had twice invaded and quieted revolting Greece; conquered and made a lasting peace with the warlike Thracian tribes, effectively diverted the savage hordes on the north, and overcame the Illyrians in battle thereby regaining possession of the great fortress which guarded his country from barbarian inroads on the west.”(2) This is quite a strategic start for the future tactician.
Many writers have authored chronologies enumerating Alexander’s campaigns, calling them sieges, conquests, battles, victories, surrenders, murders, slaughters, and destructions. At any rate, there are some twenty of these campaigns chronicled and averaging them out over the almost thirteen years of Alexander’s reign, it computes to about one and one half victories per year. Not many tacticians can match that achievement. His marches, battles and outbursts of temper are well known “… but his administrative genius, his political acumen, the greatness of his thoughts and the courage and far-reaching wisdom of his measures and more lovable qualities, were for a period unknown or ignored.”(1) Alexander did have several particularly unique powers: he readily could convert specific facts into a comprehensive plan; he could determine the exact situation from one or two isolated facts; he would never allow the details to override the main purpose. All of Alexander's campaigns exhibit these abilities to an exceptional degree.
In 332 BC, Alexander besieged the city of Tyre, located on an island estimated to be from three to nine miles in circumference, and a half mile off the coast of today’s Lebanon. Originally the city was on the mainland, but to defend itself the old city had been abandoned and a new one built on the island. At that time the city was not only a great maritime power throughout the Mediterranean but also the greatest commercial city in the world. The city was completely encircled by a virtually impenetrable wall of cut stone some 150 feet in height and 100 feet across the top. When the inhabitants of the city refused to surrender, Alexander regrouped and “assailed the walls of the city night and day, until at last, a breach being effected, he personally led the assault, and beating back the enemy mounted the wall from which a descent was made into the city.”(1) On the other hand, some accounts relate that his soldiers stormed Tyre with hatred and rage, bursting into houses, and killing and destroying all that came in their way, tarnishing the character by which he had been distinguished. After he had devastated the city it, was retained as a naval station but in time it again became a flourishing city. The building of the mole has altered the ebb and flow of the tides so much that that the ancient harbors have been filled up with mud, and the island has become a peninsula, making it “… nature's monument to the almost superhuman labors of this greatest of captains.”(4)
In any case, there had been many sieges of the city of Tyre, most notably by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian King, who tried for thirteen years to conquer the city, and Shalmaneser, the Assyrian King, who tried for five years. Both of them failed but Alexander accomplished the city’s demise in only seven months. This escapade demonstrates the persistence and leadership of both the tactician and the eagle that was Alexander the Great. Unfortunately it also could be the start of the deterioration of his character, as we shall eventually see.
Alexander was a true tactician when it came to planning and coordinating the attack and above all for personally leading the attack. He frequently marched on foot with his troops rather than on a horse or a chariot. One writer sums it up quite well: “It should be remembered … that while he fought with inferior numbers, his victories were due not so much to the greater bravery and training of his soldiers, as to his incomparable tactics and genius in determining the vulnerable point in the enemy’s formation. It was this and his skill at arms, and lion-like courage in forcing an opening in the enemy’s lines … that gave him the victory. The Macedonian army … fought as one man, led by their king, who was ever in the forefront guiding the battle and spurring his followers on to prodigies of valor.”(2)
A Grecian battle tactic that had been widely used for many centuries before Alexander’s time was the phalanx, a derivative of the Greek word meaning finger. In practice it is a rectangular mass military formation, usually composed entirely of heavy infantry, but sometimes cavalry, armed with spears, pikes, sarissas, or similar weapons. This mass of soldiers would attack in close formation, protected by their overlapping shields and long, iron pikes which would block their opponents from getting in to attack. The group usually marched forward, but could instantaneously flank left or right as one entity, crushing the enemy. The phalanx could be deployed for battle, on the march or even while camped. The Macedonian phalanx that Alexander commanded carried the sarissa, which was a much longer and heavier spear that required the use of two hands. The sarissa, the invention of which is credited to Philip II, Alexander’s father, was a 13-21 foot long pike weighing more than 12 pounds. It had a short iron head shaped like a leaf and a bronze shoe that would allow it to be anchored to the ground to stop charges by enemy soldiers. The bronze shoe also served to balance out the spear, making it easier for soldiers to wield. Its great length was an asset against heavily armed foot soldiers and other soldiers bearing smaller weapons, because they had to get past the sarissa to engage the sarissa-bearers. The sarissa which Alexander used was constructed in two halves and joined by means of a metal collar before battle. This allowed the weapon to be broken down into much more manageable sections, increasing its mobility as well as that of the army. (The preceding paragraph was adapted from (11) for the sarissa and (12) for the phalanx.)
Alexander’s preference for the attack was first to utilize his cavalry, mixed with infantry, or to use his mounted archers, also known as dart-men or bowmen. He even made special use of his light-armed regular infantry. Once he had confounded his enemy he “brought up the phalanx … and swept them off the field.”(5) One of Alexander's most prominent qualities was the ability to make quick changes in maneuvers that were outside the expected tactical usage. For instance, in a narrow and mountainous region, he might form the phalanx one hundred and twenty men deep, somewhat like a wedge. Then as the terrain would permit he would form a square, with archers and slingers in the center. “No doubt he borrowed the idea; but what Alexander borrowed he bettered.”(4) Improvisation certainly was one of Alexander’s strengths. On his march to attack the Getae, a savage people, Alexander had to cross the Ister River, now known as the Danube River, before he could attack. “He first improvised rafts of inflated tent skins and constructed rude boats out of logs he found along the shore. He then crossed the river in the night with four thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry. On the far shore he marshaled his forces and attacked.”(2)
Alexander’s tactical skills proved their validity in virtually all of his battles. Even when he was outnumbered his victories were not due so much to the greater bravery and training of his soldiers “as to his incomparable tactics and genius in determining the vulnerable point in the enemy’s formation.”(2) In a tough winter campaign along the southern Mediterranean coast of modern Turkey he gave the first hint of his most unique quality of leadership: his refusal to be bound by any adverse weather and topography. “Even though there are routes which are open throughout the winter snows, they can even deceive the local shepherds. But Alexander had no maps, no supply train, [and] no fleet to support his coastal advance …”(1) And yet, through all this adversity, he persevered, probably because he always saw where his enemy's strengths and weaknesses were, and promptly took advantage of them. He utilized his victories to the fullest, pursued his adversaries with an unmatched determination, and was equally great in sieges as well as battles. The only thing he was never called on to show was the capacity to face disaster. Thus, he appeared to have many remarkable military attributes but presented no military weakness. His tactics proved successful against commanders of less skill and technique, or as Arrian relates: “He advanced nevertheless with difficulty ... and in want of all necessities, but still he advanced.”(5)
In 480 BC, a century and a quarter before Alexander’s time, the Persians had invaded and ransacked Greece, destroying Athens in the process. Darius III, also known as Darius Nothus, was the current powerful monarch. He reigned over all of Persia, which extended across present day Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, to the western edge of India. Thus, Alexander embarked on a relentless pursuit of Darius who fled Alexander’s forces rather than submit to defeat, in spite of the fact that Darius’ army consisted of at least one million infantry and two hundred thousand cavalry as opposed to Alexander’s Army of just more than thirty five thousand troops.
In time Darius sent a letter to Alexander offering a “treaty of friendship and alliance” if Alexander would release Daruis’ envoys and let them return with his own representatives who would be authorized to negotiate with Darius for peace. Alexander instead returned a lengthy reply concluding with:
“As I therefore am now master of all Asia, come in person to me. If you have any fears for your personal safety, send some friends to receive my pledged faith. … Henceforth, if you have any communication to make, address me as the King of Asia; and pretend not to treat with me on equal terms, but petition me as the master of your fate; if not I shall regard it as an insult, and take measures accordingly. If, however, you still propose to dispute the sovereignty with me, do not fly, but stand your ground, as I will march and attack you wherever you may be.”(5) In the current military vernacular, we would say Alexander gave no quarter. Further, he gave no clemency or mercy, and refused to spare Darius in return for his unconditional surrender.
On his march to Babylon in 331 BC, Alexander hesitated to undertake a night attack on an open plain near Arbela, where Darius was camped. That evening Parmenio, one of Alexander’s generals, urged a night attack, reasoning that the Persians would be more likely to panic and be confused in the dark because they usually unsaddled their horses and hobbled them, and also took off their armor. Alexander replied that he would prefer to conquer without using deceit than to steal a victory. He was well aware of the dangers facing an attacking party at night and also knew that only if he defeated Darius in open battle could he prevent Darius from being able to rationalize his defeat. Alexander further reasoned that if he were not victorious, retreat would be virtually impossible at night, since his foe was well aware of the terrain while his troops were not. Alexander rejected Parmenio’s proposal, deciding to wait out the night. As a result of Alexander’s delaying, by dawn the next morning the Persian army, after having been on high alert and under arms for twenty-four hours, watched Alexander’s relatively small army gather on the heights west of the open plain. Conversely, Alexander had spent the day in preparation and reconnoitering. Early in the morning the Macedonians attacked and the battles lasted well into darkness that evening. In the end, Alexander was victorious, virtually annihilating Darius’ forces; in fact, to avoid capture, Darius fled to the interior with only nine thousand of the at least two hundred fifty thousand troops he had before the battles. “He [Darius] fled as if his life were the only thing worth saving. His desertion left no head to the state. He seemed intent only on personal safety.”(4)
Prior to Arbela, the Macedonians had always broken camp to the sound of the trumpet. At Arbela Alexander started a new a system of signals, using torches at night and smoke by day. By doing this he avoided giving the enemy advance warning of his intentions. Additionally, he no longer had his troops march into battle chanting songs of triumph. Instead, he ordered that the battle-cry would be given on his command, at a time when it would have all the more effect.
Alexander’s battle at Arbela “… is remarkable for the valor and skill of the commander of the victorious army, to whose constancy and intelligence the success was clearly due, as well as for the vacillation and cowardliness of the defeated monarch, despite some most excellent work by his subordinates. Never were dispositions better taken to resist the attacks of the enemy at all points; never on the field were openings more quickly seized; never threatening disaster more skillfully retrieved than here. However great the advance in battle tactics as the ages roll on, the world will never see more splendid tactics than the day of Arbela affords us. Even had Darius stood his ground, his lines would scarcely have resisted Alexander's able combinations. Mere inert masses would have availed nothing. The Persians still relied on multitudes. Alexander was introducing new tactics. As Frederick taught the modern world how to march, and Napoleon showed that not masses but masses properly directed were of avail, so Alexander first of all men taught that a battle was not to be won by weight of masses, but by striking at the right place and right time.”(4)
Alexander never did have the satisfaction of causing the death of Darius. The prize for that would have been the entire Persian Empire, since the capture of Darius alive would have provided Alexander with every part of Darius’ extended kingdom. By the time he caught up with him, Darius has been assassinated by two of his generals who had fled upon Alexander’s approach. When Alexander arrived, Darius was dead (or dying, as we shall see below.) In any event, Darius’ untimely death cost Alexander “an opportunity of showing how generously he could treat his rival, when fortune had decided the contest.(5)
There is another conflicting version of Darius’ death: When Alexander told the dying Darius that he would do for him whatever he asked, Darius requested him to “not reduce the poor and needy to slavery and to misery”; to treat the nobles of Persia honorably, for they are noble; and to “take vengeance for me upon those who murdered me.” Alexander agreed to honor his requests and had one request to make from Darius; he asked permission to marry his daughter. Darius then placed Alexander’s hand on his mouth, and saying, “You have added my life to your hand,” he died.(15) Of course, this version is much more dramatic than the other version.
Left with the body of his enemy, Alexander’s compassion revealed itself. He took off his own cloak, placed it upon the corpse, and wept, but was it conscience, grief, or shock? Alexander then arranged for a proper burial for his former enemy and released the captured nobles in Darius’ army. Then, in an act of questionable compassion, he immediately had Darius’ body embalmed and sent to his mother in a costly coffin and with a royal procession. Some critics have scoffed at this act, wondering at the appropriateness of the killer of a son sending the dead body, in a splendid coffin, to the mother as a token of respect.
As a soldier, Alexander is considered the first warrior who conducted war in a methodical manner. As a conqueror, he will always stand at the head of his class. He gave the world its first lessons in the art of war and his campaigns are text book material. Consider Persia, which had conquered the world, threatened Greece, asserted her authority over the Greek cities of the coast, and still went down under Alexander's sword. “Alexander's battles are tactically brilliant examples of conception and execution. As superb as Alexander's intellect was, his power of execution exceeded his power of conception. It was his ability to seize openings with a rapidity perhaps never equaled which won him his battles, rather than his mere battle plan.” (As translated from Callisthenes, a Greek philosopher who chronicled Alexander the Great's conquests.(4)) Alexander innately knew the advantage of immediately seizing the offense; as it has been stated: “The best defense is an offense.”
In Alexander's army, civil and military administrations stood side by side. What his army did is astonishing, for it could not have performed its extraordinary work if it had not been organized to be a true fighting machine. Amazingly though, marching with this efficient army, was the King’s Court, with all its ceremonial frills; the directory of the Macedonian and the Persian governments; the treasury officials and other civil functionaries; ordnance gear with their special officers; the engineers, the quartermaster and the commissary departments; and the hospital corps. Also following were tradesmen and merchants who sold goods to the soldiers, as well as speculators, scientists, writers, philosophers, guests of the Court, priests, prophets, and of course a great number of women. It was indeed a moving capital, befitting the realm it represented. All the more amazing is the fact that Alexander could control this vast caravan, and from it choose, at a moment's notice, a fighting force which could win. It is incomprehensible that anyone could control such a huge aggregation of diverse elements and make them useful. ((This paragraph was adapted from (4))
Alexander’s constant founding of cities was a clearly defined political tactic which had three objectives:
Provide an asylum for the wounded or incapacitated Macedonian soldiers who were no longer fit for the field
Form a chain of military posts on the line of communications
Build up in the conquered country a knowledge of Hellenic arts and methods
In 331 BC he founded Alexandria, Egypt, one of several cities he named after himself. He personally laid out the plan, supervised the construction, and invited experts from all fields and nations to reside in it. Since his architects had no clay to use for laying out his plan, Alexander ordered them to use wheat grains instead, but unexpectedly, a large flock of birds appeared and devoured all of the grain. Some said this was an ominous sign, because the city to be founded would be captured. Alexander saw it as a good omen because it clearly indicated that many would be fed by the city. In time the city did became large, wealthy, and powerful, becoming a “… beacon of culture and the center of learning in the ancient world. But ancient Alexandria declined, and when Napoleon landed, he found a sparsely populated fishing village; however the city still thrives today.”(6) Alexander went on to found many more cities (perhaps more than fifty,) naming many of them after himself, and even naming a city in today’s Pakistan after his trusty steed, Bucephalus. He founded a series of new cities, almost all called Alexandria, including modern Kandahar in Afghanistan, Alexandria Eschate ("The Furthest") in modern Tajikistan, Sehil in Algeria, Barkas in India, and in Persia and Babylon. “… [T]he dozens of cities he established from Egypt to the Indus [a river in Pakistan] nevertheless became outposts of Hellenism where none existed before.”(7) Many of the sites he established were never more than military garrisons for his large army. “And yet, as Voltaire said [In the 1700’s!], Alexander founded many more cities than other conquerors have destroyed.”(4)
Alexander's battles are tactically brilliant examples of conception and execution. “He was an avid advocate of the coordinated use of the components of his army; gaining him the greatest advances possible.”(2) He might feign a retreat by his hypaspists (shield carriers) in order to entice those he planned to attack to charge from their battle line in an attempt to take advantage of a perceived opportunity. Usually the Companion Cavalry were waiting for this opening so they could charge through the lines and attack from the rear. Of course Alexander always led the charge. One thing that stands out about Alexander’s tactics is his intuitive thought process. He seems to have had an innate feel for what he must do and always was on the offensive. By thwarting the enemy's plans, they must react to his plan with their only options being to fight on his terms, disengage and retreat, or surrender. Another tactic he employed was to take the roughest and most unexpected route so as to catch his enemy off guard and unprepared.
But then in 326 B.C., at the Hyphasis River in India, Alexander’s soldiers had grown weary and wanted to return to their native land – to go home. “It was time Alexander did turn back; for the term of his absence, and the distance he had come, not only had demoralized his soldiers, but had utterly unstrung the fidelity of many of the satraps [governors of provinces] he had left behind.”(4) Perhaps this was the first real threat Alexander encountered concerning discipline. He singled out and apprehended the individuals he felt were the worst instigators, and ordered their immediate execution. (Sadly his brutal actions could be directed against his comrades as well as his enemies.) His act as a tribunal judge, jury, and executioner in swift succession left his assembled troops in a gloomy silence. Alexander seized the moment and launched into a long discourse about what they had done and had achieved, going back to when his father Phillip was in command up to their time under his own command. The main thrust of Alexander’s reasoning was that his men were now “… satraps, generals, and colonels. What do I retain from the fruits of all my labors, but this purple robe and diadem [crown]? Individually, I have nothing. Nobody can show treasures of mine which are not yours or preserved for your use, for I have no temptation to reserve anything for myself.”(5)
On several occasions during his campaigns, Alexander’s acts of benevolent wisdom demonstrated to his enemies that he came to occupy the land and make it his kingdom, not to devastate it. His only enemies were those who opposed him and treated them severely. Those who yielded were treated with gentleness. Because he humanely conquered, he soon was hailed as a protector and a friend. Arguably, this may be considered the mark of a true tactician.
* * * * *
THE EAGLE
In a letter to his mother Alexander observed that “…we in this world are here today, which passes away and follows yesterday; and tomorrow will follow today.”(15)
An eagle, as we well know, is not a person but a bird of prey, characterized by a powerful hooked bill, keen vision, long broad wings, and strong soaring flight. This large animal is normally active during the day rather than at night and has been used as a symbol of military or political power. Consider the attributes Alexander shared with the eagle as well as those he did not share. Of course Alexander was not a bird of prey (yes, some historians might argue that point) with a hooked bill and he certainly did not have wings nor could he fly – at least not in the literal sense! But he did possess the keen vision of an eagle in being able to “see” what his adversary might be planning and then to plan effective countermeasures. Alexander always had a clear vision of what he needed to do. In this respect he often seized the advantage by attacking at night when his enemy would expect otherwise. He seemed to prefer night crossings and attacks when obstacles such as rivers, valleys, and flatlands were involved. He crossed to the Indus River, probably through the Shang-La pass, which is south of the snow-covered peaks of the Himalaya Mountains in Pakistan. He wanted to capture Aornus, the last stand of the native population in this part of India. He did capture this giant, lofty fortress of a city and the word “Aornus” has now come to mean a hiding place, a spot higher than the flight of birds, which of course includes eagles. (Adapted from (3))
Eagles literally were a part of Alexander’s life as well as a part of the Macedonian culture during his reign. A case in point is his siege of the Persian city of Miletus, located at the mouth of a river. Parmenio, one of his elder generals, proposed a land attack coordinated with an attack on the city’s fleet. Alexander and his royal treasurer were apprehensive about adding the expense of a naval assault to an exhausted treasury; further, Alexander was concerned for the risk to his soldiers in a naval operation against sailors who were superior in skill. Oddly enough, the solution to the question mainly depended on the right interpretation of an omen. By chance, an eagle had perched on the rocks near the Macedonian ships, and since the bird’s face was toward the sea, Parmenio felt the omen foretold a naval victory. Alexander, on the contrary, contended that as the rocks on which the eagle had perched were on land, the reasonable inference was that he would be victorious on land rather than on the sea. Thus, “they were to obtain victory by watching the enemy’s motions from the shore, and preventing them from landing on any spot.”(5) Once again, the tactics of the eagle had prevailed!
When Alexander and his army were attacking the city of Assyria, a kingdom centered on the Upper Tigris River in present day Iraq, coincidentally there was a total eclipse of the moon. This sudden and unexpected event dismayed the soldiers who feared it indicated a disaster. Aristender, Alexander's favorite prophet, consoled the men by explaining that this omen portended evil for the Persians rather than for the Macedonians, because the moon belonged to the Persians and the sun belonged to the Greeks. Thus the waning of the moon portended a Persian defeat and destruction. Aristender further pointed out that he had seen an eagle hovering over Alexander’s head, another sign that the Macedonians would persevere. Alexander acquiesced with these interpretations for he knew it would be futile to oppose ignorance with truth, and to be a successful manager he must offset foolishness with another one.
The eagle also plays an interesting part in Alexander’s life in a somewhat unusual way. “The Gordian Knot” and the challenge of how to untie it have become synonymous with an insolvable problem. (Another source sees the challenge differently: “… any extrication of one's self from a difficulty by violent means has been called cutting the Gordian knot to the present day.”(14) The story starts with Gordius, a poor farmer who had a small plot of land he farmed using a yoke, that is, a wooden frame for harnessing his two oxen. He used it to pull his tiller as well as his cart. As he was plowing his field an eagle perched upon the yoke, and remained there for the rest of the day. Alarmed at this sight, Gordius set out for the nearest city to learn from the prophets the meaning of this unusual omen. The first person he met was a maiden of a so-called gifted race, that is, a race which passes on the power of divination to all descendants. He asked her for advice and she advised him to return home and sacrifice to Jupiter the King. (Other sources state “to Zeus the King.”) Gordius persuaded his “fair advisor” to return home with him to teach him how to perform the ceremony. The maiden consented, the sacrifice was completed, and the grateful farmer married her! They had one son, named Midas. (This is not the same King Midas who was rewarded with the gift of making everything he touched turn into gold, including his food!)
Now at that time, the citizens of a kingdom in the west central part of what is now modern-day Turkey were undergoing severe civil unrest. “In their distress they consulted the gods who answered that a cart should bring them a king to terminate the internal strife.”(5) An oracle had decreed that the next man to enter the city on an ox-cart should become their king. They were pondering the meaning of this promise when Midas drove up carrying his parents in an ox-cart. His father was named King and Midas was named his successor, as promised by the oracle. In memory of the event Midas dedicated the cart to Jupiter the King and placed it in the Citadel, to which he named after his father. (Other sources state the cart was dedicated to Zeus as a thank-offering for sending the eagle.) The yoke of the cart was tied by a band formed of the bark of the cornel tree, a plant related to dogwood, “and the knot on this was the celebrated test on future eminence.”(5) That challenge of what had now become a tradition was that whoever could un-tie the knot would become the king of Asia.
Then along came Alexander the Great! The accounts differ as to how Alexander solved the challenge. The mostly widely related account is that he drew his sword and cut it; but a credible eye witness claims that Alexander took out the pin that went across the pole, revealing the clews, a wound ball of yarn, and he simply untied it. In any event Alexander gets - some say “takes” - credit for solving the problem and having himself now considered the king of Asia. Thus, even though these events happened over a period of time, the eagle also played an interesting part in Alexander’s solution of the Gordian Knot.
An anecdote concerning Alexander and Lysimachus, one of Alexander’s soldiers, illustrates Alexander’s compassion, which appears to be so diametrically opposed to his ruthless drive to conquer and rule. Lysimachus, a naturalized citizen of Macedonia, had been educated in Pella, where Alexander was born. He first served under the reign of Phillip II (Alexander’s father) and was now a member of Alexander's Companion cavalry as a general and as one of his bodyguards. Lysimachus had been his teacher in earlier days, and had accompanied Alexander into Asia, claiming his right to attend his former pupil on all such expeditions. On one occasion, when night overtook the party, the rugged ground forced them to dismount their horses. The strength of the old man began rapidly to sink under the combined effects of age, fatigue, and the cold. Alexander would not abandon him and had to pass a dark and cold night exposed to the elements. Surely the King of Macedonia, with his vast armies, could have appointed someone else to care for Lysimachus, but Alexander chose to not to do so. His compassion toward his soldiers was displayed on other occasions as well. One writer observed: “The king was particular in his attentions to the wounded; he visited every individual, examined his wounds, and by asking how, and in what service he had received them, gave every man an opportunity of recounting and perhaps exaggerating his deeds.”(5) In these situations we see the action of both the eagle and the tactician.
On one trek across a desert south of the Caspian Sea in northern Iran, when potable water was extremely scarce, some troops who had wandered from the main body found some brackish water at the bottom of a ravine. They put some in a helmet and hurried it to the King. Alexander took the helmet, thanked them for their kindness, and then “deliberately, in sight of all, poured the water into the thankless sands of the desert. [This action] marks not only the great man, able to control the cravings of nature, but the great general.”(5) Every soldier who witnessed this gesture of self-denial by their King, perceived it as if Alexander had actually drunk some of the water himself. In another version of this event Alexander returns the water without tasting it. In each version the response of his soldiers was the same: “‘Lead us where thou wilt,’ responded they, with shouts of hearty affection, ‘we are no longer mortal, so long as thou art king.’"(4) Self-denial had always been a principal of his leadership. Such as when his army had been scattered while fording a river, Alexander waited along the route, refusing to take food or water until all of his army was assembled.
His knowledge and use of oracles prepared him well for a meeting with some Hindu Gymnosophists, or what we might today call Monks, who had rebelled against him. His questions were cleverly phrased (eagle-like?) to put them on their guard, and also served a practical purpose of giving him knowledge of their craft. Ten of these men, who were adept at parrying questions, were led before him. He made it worth their while to show the best of their art by promising that the first who answered badly should lose his life. He appointed the eldest of them as the judge.
The questions and answers, according to Plutarch's account, (15) were as follows:
Alexander: Which are the more numerous, the living or the dead?; First Monk: The living, for the dead no longer exist.
Alexander: Which produces the greater monsters, the earth or the sea?; Second Monk: The earth, for the sea is only a part of the earth.
Alexander: What is the most intelligent of living beings?; Third Monk: Man has not yet found out.
Alexander: Why did you stir up the tribe of the Sabbas to revolt?; Fourth Monk: Because I thought it better to live with honor than to die with honor.
Alexander: Which was created first, the night or the day?; Fifth Monk: The day by one day.
Alexander: How can one win the highest affection? (i.e. make himself beloved); Sixth Monk: When he is the mightiest without inspiring fear.
Alexander: How can a man become a god?; Seventh Monk: By doing what it is impossible for a man to do.
Alexander: Which is mightier, life or death?; Eighth Monk: Life, which brings so much disaster in its train.
Alexander: How long should a man to live?; Ninth Monk: So long as he does not believe that dying is better than living.
Turning now to the umpire he called for his decision, and received the response that each had answered worse than the other. “Well, then,” replied the king, “you shall be the first to die, so bad is your answer." “No, my King," answered the judge, “unless you will falsify your promise, for you said you would put to death the first one who answered badly.” Alexander dismissed all of them with presents!
Quite often the passing of time takes the truth and evolves it into legends. Each generation then relates the legend using its own values and interpretation, inadvertently blurring the line between truth and conjecture. This has happened with the story of Alexander the Great as well, including how it relates to the part the eagle had played in his life. For example, accounts of events during the reign of John Hyrcanus I, who ruled in ancient Palestine from 135 to 104 BC, some two hundred years after Alexander’s death, have been assigned to the times of Alexander. Even in that relatively short time the memory of historical incidents had become confused.
The narrative which will soon follow was adapted from (15) and illustrates one example of how the presentation of so-called facts can include inferences of Christianity, or any other beliefs for that matter, while relating events concerning someone who died before Christ was born. First, however, we will digress to discuss the phenomenon of Pseudo-Callisthenes.
Callisthenes, the great nephew of Aristotle, had been appointed as Alexander’s professional historian for the Asiatic expedition, the two having first met while Aristotle was tutoring Alexander. During the first years of Alexander's campaign in Asia, Callisthenes showered praises upon the Macedonian conqueror, but as Alexander and his army penetrated further into Asia, Callisthenes' tone began to change. He began to sharply criticize Alexander's adoption of Persian customs, with special scorn for Alexander's growing desire that those who presented themselves before him perform the servile ceremony of proskynesis, the traditional Persian act of prostrating oneself before a person of higher social rank. Callisthenes wrote a contemporary account of Alexander's expedition up to the time of his execution in 327 BC, when he fell out of favor with the Alexander by leading the opposition to his attempt to introduce proskynesis. Callisthenes was implicated in the plot but there is doubt as to whether he had been involved.
Unfortunately all of Callisthenes’ first hand works have been lost, but his account of Alexander's expedition was preserved long enough to be used as a direct or indirect source for other histories that have survived. Over the millennia the details of the history of Alexander the Great have been modified to suit the country and ideas of the people among whom the writers live, and has become the popular expression of what a hero should be. Much of the more legendary material is reflected in text known as “Pseudo-Callisthenes” in the form of translations by many authors into Roman (Latin,) Greek, Syrian, Armenian and Slavonic versions.
Now we will return to our discussion of how so-called facts can include inferences of Christianity. Before Alexander returned to Babylon for the last time, a tale relates how he and his men boarded ships and sailed to where no ship had ever sailed before; in fact, no one had ever been there before. To help him to find a place to rest before undertaking an underwater exploratory journey in an ark, he took three eagles with him. After many months (years?) he released an eagle which flew towards the sea. Apparently the eagle found a place to rest and did not return. He ordered his crew to sail on for several more days and then released a second eagle. It too found a place to rest and did not return. He once again ordered the crew to sail on and then released a third eagle. After three days this eagle returned to the ship so Alexander decided that “the earth had appeared to it” and there should be a harbor there. The eagles, it seems, are just a prelude to the following allegory.
Alexander then went into a “cage of glass” (an ark) which was covered with asses’ skins, and which had an opening that was secured with chains and rings. He took along some food and two of his friends to accompany him. Before instructing his crew to lower him into the water, he further instructed that if he did not return before the end of one hundred nights then they should continue without him. His ark was then lowered into the water suspended from a chain 200 cubits long (about 325 feet.) Alexander continued his underwater journey under the protection of God, presumably a Christian one, and one of his “guardian angels.” During his time in the ark Alexander saw many “monsters” until one day the angel told Alexander to lift up his head to see something wonderful. Alexander lifted his head and he found himself with his troops who were on the ship. After celebrating his safe return, Alexander and his crew triumphantly departed for Babylon, the great city of Persia. “Then, having conquered all the world he knew of, east of Italy, he returned to Babylon.(13) Alexander the Great left Babylon in a gold coffin.
* * * * *
IN CONCLUSION
Alexander the Great has been characterized as suffering from megalomania, narcissism, and paranoia. Many believe it was his brutalities that lead to his success. His most compelling compassion was the surrender of his enemies. Unfortunately, by the age of 26, “… his character was sadly changed. He lost the simplicity, the temperance, the moderation, and the sense of justice which characterized his early years.”(8)
It took this vain but “tactical eagle” just under thirteen years to conquer western Asia, and to leave an impression that has not been eradicated in the centuries that followed. And yet his work had only just begun. Before his death, Alexander had already made plans to turn west and conquer Europe. He also wanted to continue his march eastwards in order to find the end of the world. Alexander’s plan, through his conquests, was to concentrate the valuable trade of the East in a direction which should bring it west towards the Mediterranean following an easier route, rather than across the mountains of Iran. As a boy, his tutor Aristotle had told him tales about where the land ends and the Great Outer Sea (the Pacific Ocean?) begins. Alexander’s goal was the conquest of the world and he planned to do it in person!
In order to politically bind his new empire, Alexander allied himself more and more with Persian associates, gradually separating himself from his old Macedonian friends. He married several princesses of former Persian (Iranian) territories; Roxana of Bactria; Statira, daughter of Darius; and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. He fathered one child, Alexander IV of Macedon, born by Roxana shortly after his death in 323 BC. He also fathered a son in 327 BC with his concubine Barsine, the daughter of governor Artabazus of Phrygia. While these marriages were a cohesive force for his newly conquered peoples, it was a dividing factor among his Macedonian generals and soldiers. To them, anyone who was not Macedonian was barbaric. “Alexander could never have erected a permanent kingdom on his theory of coalescing races by intermarriages and forced migrations. His Graeco-Persian empire was a mere dream. Alexander was never a Greek. He had but the Greek genius and intelligence grafted on the ruder Macedonian nature; and he became, to a marked extent, Asiaticized by his conquests.”(14)
On his death bed in Babylon, his marshals asked him to whom he bequeathed his kingdom. Since Alexander had only one heir, Alexander IV, it was a question of vital importance. He answered, famously, "the strongest." Before dying, one month shy of his thirty-third birthday, his final words are said to be "I foresee a great funeral contest [games] over me." Alexander's “funeral contest”, where his deputies fought it out for control of his empire, lasted for nearly forty years. “Alexander's great empire was divided among his generals at his death, and was reunited only when it became part of the much greater Roman Empire four hundred years later.”(13) Because Alexander did not anticipate the toll that thirteen years of marches, battles, hardships, and wounds would take on his life, he did not expect to die so young and thus he made no provision for succession. His admirers find this neglect to provide for his succession, difficult to excuse. How ironic for such a talented and gifted tactician!
Alexander's body was placed in a gold “anthropoid sarcophagus,” an above ground stone container for a coffin that often is decorated with art, inscriptions, and carvings, and resembles a human in shape and outward appearance. This container in turn was placed in a second gold casket and covered with a purple robe. Alexander's coffin was placed, together with his armor, in a gold carriage which had a domed roof, supported by columns. A procession then transported his remains some thousand miles “to the eastern frontiers of Egypt.”(14) According to Aelian, a Greek military writer of the 2nd century AD, the body was stolen and brought to Alexandria, Egypt, where it was on display until sometime between 300 and 600 AD. (According to another account, Ptolemy, the officer to whom Egypt fell in the division of Alexander's empire, “… preferred, for some reason or other, that the body should be interred in the city of Alexandria. It was accordingly deposited there, and a great monument was erected over the spot.” (14)) During this period Alexander's sarcophagus was replaced with a glass one, and the original gold one was melted down and used to strike gold coins. Sadly, the body of Alexander the Great was pilfered for the sake of a golden coffin. “The great, if they wish their ashes to repose undisturbed, should leave their wealth on this side of the grave.”(5) Any superfluous decoration of a tomb seems only to tempt the hands of vandals. Thus, the final whereabouts of the remains of this tactician and eagle, remembered as “Alexander the Great,” are unknown.
There remains one unresolved consideration: was Alexander actually attempting to better the world by his conquests, or was his purpose primarily to rule the world? After his ruthless conquest of Tyre he became haughty, arrogant, and cruel, possibly due to the frustration of a four year campaign, including a disappointing seven-month siege of Tyre. When the surrender of Darius, the diminishing Persian monarch, was imminent, Alexander refused to come to peace terms with him. He also boasted that he did not need Darius’ permission to marry his daughter and did not need Darius’ ransom money since he had enough treasures of his own. Still the tactician, Alexander promised he would pursue Darius until he was conquered. It is very possible that, by perusing the writings of all the ancient authorities, it can be proven that Alexander was a monster. It is just as possible to prove him a prodigy. In reality he was neither one. But then, on the other hand, “Alexander had no hard and fast rules. He took men as he found them, and punished and rewarded according to the conditions governing the acts of each. He rarely made mistakes. Those occasions when we find him at fault merely serve to remind us that he was human. … But Alexander, though a perfect captain, was by no means a perfect man.”(4)
In his lifetime Alexander had become the undisputed, wealthy, supreme, ruler of all western Asia. In his mind he ruled all of the then known world. Indeed he had conquered his way to the heart of the Persian Empire, and possessed all the territory between that empire and Macedonia. He had stamped Hellenism upon the Eastern world. “That more of this Western civilization did not last is largely due to Alexander's short life, which ended with his conquests, leaving him no years in which to consolidate his work and impress it with an element of permanency.”(4)
In his final years Alexander had lost the simplicity, the moderation, and the sense of justice which had marked his early years. He had become fond of festivities and excessive wine drinking in the Macedonian tradition of hard drinkers. Further, he had assembled a harem of well over three hundred women, and had descended into a pattern of drunkenness and depraved sexual activity. His decisiveness, energy, prudence, patience, and self-denial all were gone. He had always been naturally excitable, which would overcome his better nature, but more and more this led him into violence. “To insinuate, as has been done, that this monarch was a drunkard, in the usual acceptation of the term, is worse than absurd. It is puerile.”(4) Yes childish indeed, for no longer was Alexander either the tactician or the eagle!
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-21 show above.)