Civilization #12: The Tyranny of Alexander the Great
We can understand the dynamic between Philip II and his son Alexander through the lens of a father-son model. The father is the founder and the builder of a great organization. As such, he will have three particular characteristics unique to him:
- First, he will exercise really good judgment because he's starting with nothing and has to build up his nation or organization slowly.
- Second, he will promote talent. He will be a very generous and fair-minded individual who will actively spot talent and create a meritocracy.
- Third, this person will be selfless and extremely disciplined, putting the greater good before his or her own interests. This will inspire loyalty from his workers or soldiers.
The son will be very different. Because the son is inheriting this enterprise, he will focus on expansion and be a very aggressive risk-taker. Because he is under the father's shadow, he will promote obedience and loyalty. Finally, the son will be very selfish because he is focused on personal glory. The reason is that the son is insecure. He will hear people in the background whispering, "Oh, everything you've achieved is because of your father." The son is desperate and very anxious to prove his own self-worth.
We see this dynamic in literature, in history, and in our own lives. This is a very common dynamic. This is a thought experiment, but if you think about it, this is also an analytical model—a way to understand the world around us. In an analytical model, we have to test if it's true or not. If it's true, it does two things: first, it explains. It helps us better understand the motivations and behavior of people. We focused on Philip II, and that really helped us to understand his motivations and behavior. But the second thing it must do is predict. If this analytical model is correct, then it will allow us to predict future events and behavior.
I propose to use this model to predict the life of Alexander the Great. From this model, we can extrapolate three characteristics of Alexander's reign when he takes over as king.
- He will focus on expansion. He'll be a very aggressive risk-taker. He will take risks that are not strategically wise.
- He will become a tyrant. A tyrant is someone who demands obedience from everyone. He is going to get rid of all the talented people that his father promoted because he needs to promote his own people and because those people will counter his tyranny. He will demand complete and total obedience from his followers.
- His ambition will be boundless. When will he stop his ambition? Never. He will never stop expanding; he will never stop going to war.
These are the three predictions we can make about Alexander if he were to become king, just based on our understanding of the father-son dynamic. He will focus on aggressive expansion, taking risks his father would not. He's going to become a tyrant who will demand total loyalty, and if you speak up and try to reason with him, he will see you as a threat who must be eliminated. His ambition is boundless.
It turns out, these three predictions basically capture the essence of Alexander's life.
The Death of a Father, The Rise of a Son
Let's start with the first major event in Alexander the Great's life, which is the death of his father in 336 BCE. Alexander is only 20, and when his father dies, he is automatically coronated as king of Macedon.
I want to explain the circumstances of Philip's death because it's very important for us to understand the psychology of his son. Two years before his death, Philip remarried. Remember that Macedon is a society that promotes polygamy, so Philip at this point already has six or seven wives. The problem is that only one of his wives, named Olympias, has given birth to a son and therefore an heir: Alexander. The other wives have failed to give birth to an heir, and it seems Alexander will be anointed king after the death of his father.
So when Philip marries a woman named Cleopatra Eurydice, it's extremely controversial. It disrupts the political order of Macedonia. The first reason is that Cleopatra Eurydice is actually Macedonian. Before, Philip married foreign wives for diplomacy. This means if Cleopatra Eurydice gives birth to a son, this son will be a more legitimate heir than Alexander, pushing Alexander out of the line of succession. This is extremely controversial, like dynamite.
The second problem is that Eurydice is the niece of one of Philip's great generals, Attalus. After the wedding ceremony, Attalus gave a toast and said, "Here's a toast, and I pray that Macedon will soon have a legitimate heir." This was a direct insult to Alexander. The other problem is that Attalus's father-in-law is Parmenion, who is really Philip's partner—the greatest general that Macedon has, the person in control of the army. So it seems like Alexander is being pushed out of the line of succession, and Alexander and his mother, Olympias, are both freaking out.
In 336 BCE, Philip is assassinated by his bodyguard, and no one knows why. But we know what happened afterwards. First of all, Olympias killed Eurydice and her daughter and son. The son was going to be the legitimate heir to the throne; now they're all dead. Second, Attalus becomes afraid and is about to rebel. At this point, Parmenion is now the kingmaker. Because he is head of the army, he can choose to support Attalus, his son-in-law, and rebel—and maybe become king himself—or he can support Alexander.
At this point, the fateful decision that Parmenion makes is he supports Alexander and he kills Attalus, his own son-in-law. This makes Alexander the legitimate heir to Philip. He's now king of Macedon.
From this event, we can surmise some things. First, Olympias and Alexander are extremely ambitious. They will not be pushed aside. If they see any risk to their power, they will act viciously. They're not afraid to kill; they will even kill the king to assure their power. The second thing that's more important for us is that Parmenion is absolutely loyal to the memory of Philip. Philip promoted Parmenion to be his partner, and in a show of loyalty and gratitude, Parmenion is now being loyal to the son, Alexander.
Consolidating a Kingdom with Fear
Remember, Philip is now in charge of this wide kingdom across Greece, and when people hear about his death, they start to rebel. The Athenians, Thebans, and Spartans want to rebel, and to the north, the Illyrians rebel. The first thing Alexander does is he mounts an extremely fast and decisive campaign to quell all internal dissent because ultimately, his ambition is to complete the dream of his father: the conquest of Persia.
He goes to Illyria, which is north of Macedonia, and destroys all opposition. Next, he marches against Greece itself, against Thebes, which is the main source of opposition. Sparta and Athens both promised to send troops to support Thebes. The problem is, Alexander gets there really fast, lays siege to Thebes, and destroys it completely. The next thing he does is he decides to massacre all the males and enslave all the women. Now, this was common practice back then in warfare, but it was not done to Greek cities. The Greeks considered themselves special. In 404 BCE, when Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta did not do anything. Sparta basically said, "Guys, will you promise not to bother us again?" and Athens said, "We promise." That was it.
So what Alexander the Great did—destroying Thebes, one of the great cultural centers of the Greek world—was like setting off a nuclear bomb. From then on, the Greeks were committed to overthrowing Alexander when the opportunity arose. At the same time, by showing his ruthlessness, Alexander was able to pacify all discontent for now. People were now afraid of him, and that's what Alexander wanted: fear.
The Invasion of Persia
Now that internal dissent has been pacified and his leadership has been legitimized, he will embark on the massive invasion of Persia. Originally, his father Philip II's dream was a unified Greek world, what we call the Hellenic world. Remember, at this point, you have these Greek poleis spread all across the Aegean and the Mediterranean: in North Africa, in Italy, in Asia Minor. Philip's vision was to unify all these places. But Alexander the Great's vision was actually to conquer Persia. He's expanding his father's vision.
He lands in Anatolia, which is modern Turkey, with a massive invasion force. He's going against the Persian Empire. The way the Persian Empire is designed, it's not really an empire; it's more like a confederation or alliance. The provincial governors, who we call the satraps, are the ones responsible for defending their own territory. At this point, the King of Persia, Darius III, is not really bothered by Alexander. He doesn't realize that Alexander will pose a threat to his rule. He thinks, "This guy, he's 20 years old, he's an upstart, doesn't really matter." So Darius doesn't really bother himself.
But he sends an advisor, a Greek named Memnon of Rhodes. He's Greek, and he understands Greek warfare. They have a war council between the satraps and Memnon of Rhodes. What Memnon proposes is the safest strategy to defeat Alexander, which is what we call a war of attrition. The idea is they will not fight Alexander on the battlefield because Alexander possesses the greatest army in the world. "Let's not fight him. We will burn all the crops and starve his troops. At the same time, we will bribe Athens and Sparta to rebel against Alexander. Once he's overextended, he has no choice but to go home." The war is over, and it doesn't cost them anything.
The satraps refuse this plan because it would mean destroying their own property. They're like, "No, we can overwhelm him." So at the Battle of the Granicus in 334 BCE, Alexander's forces destroy the Persians. This is the first major battle of this war.
What's important for us is that during this battle, Alexander displayed tremendous recklessness. He rushed to the front of the battle, led his cavalry in, and was almost overwhelmed. One of the satraps knocked him down and was about to kill him, but then at the last minute, a man named Cleitus the Black comes running in and cuts off the satrap's arm, thus saving Alexander's life.
At this point, there are two individuals that Alexander should be most grateful for: Parmenion, who was the kingmaker and announced that the army would be loyal to Alexander, and Cleitus the Black, who saved Alexander's life in battle. Both of these men were individuals promoted heavily by his father for their talent. They were his father's men who saved Alexander. You would think Alexander would be very grateful to these men. Unfortunately, he would end up killing both of them, and this would forever change the course of his life.
After the Battle of the Granicus, Memnon of Rhodes was given complete freedom to do what he wanted. He tried to stop Alexander, and when he realized he couldn't because Alexander's army was too powerful, Memnon set sail for Greece. He was hoping to bribe Athens and Sparta to join the war and rebel. And here, something happens, and Alexander gets really lucky. He gets very lucky a lot of times. What happens? Memnon gets sick and he dies. When Memnon dies, there's no more contact with the Greek world, and now Persia is left to defend itself. The Greeks cannot be counted on. There will be Greek rebellions against Alexander, but they will be sporadic, not coordinated.
Darius has no choice but to confront Alexander in two massive battles: the Battle of Issus in 333 BCE in southern Anatolia, and two years later at Gaugamela in Mesopotamia. Both of these battles are about the same, so I'll explain what happened in both so you can understand Alexander's strategy.
How Great a Commander Was Alexander?
Usually in battles, there are three major forces: the left flank, the center, and the right flank. In both battles, the Persians heavily outnumbered the Greeks, two to one. The cavalry is usually on the sides. The Persians have one leader, Darius, in the center, protected by his bodyguard called The Immortals. The Macedonians have two leaders: Parmenion and Alexander. Alexander is in charge of the cavalry; Parmenion is in charge of the infantry, the phalanx.
In both battles, the same thing happens. On the left side, Darius commits most of his forces against Parmenion. Parmenion is being overwhelmed by superior numbers, but here, the discipline of Parmenion's troops is just incredible. Even though they're being outnumbered and are about to be overrun, they hold their ground. In the center, there's so much conflict that eventually a small gap opens that allows Alexander to rush toward Darius. At this point, Alexander and his forces are overwhelming the cavalry of Darius and getting close to him.
And at this point, what does Darius do? This is something you can never do in a battle. He sees Alexander closing in, but his left flank is about to overwhelm Parmenion. What does Darius do? In both battles, he runs away. When he does that, Alexander is now free to go back and rescue Parmenion, and then the Persians flee.
Now that you have the basic overview, let's analyze this to ask ourselves how great a commander Alexander is. I want to make the argument that he's actually not a great strategist. He's a great soldier, he's very brave, but he's not a great strategist like his father.
When military historians look at battles, they look at the wrong things. They're usually looking at manpower, technology, and resources (wealth). If we look at battles from this lens, we can argue that the Persians were heavily favored. But I think this is the wrong way to look at military strategy. If you really want to understand who's the favorite and who's the underdog, you have to look at three different things:
- Cohesion: The idea of unity. Are these soldiers loyal to each other? Are they friends with each other?
- Discipline: How well-trained are these troops?
- Devotion: How loyal are they to their leaders? How much purpose do they have in the battle?
Looking at these three things gives you a much better analysis of who the better military is. If you just look at manpower, technology, and resources, then clearly the Persians are the heavy favorites. If you change your frame of reference and look at cohesion, discipline, and devotion, then the Macedonians are far superior.
The Macedonians have a similar culture; they're all Greeks. The Persians are a multicultural empire; they don't speak the same language, which means all these different units that Darius has are basically fighting by themselves and are not coordinated. In terms of discipline, if you're an empire, your soldiers don't fight that many battles because no one's going to challenge you. These soldiers, even though they have very expensive armor and horses, weren't disciplined. They didn't have experience. Alexander's army is Philip's army, and for the past 30 years, all they did was fight battle after battle against the Greeks. In terms of devotion, Darius is king. Why are people loyal to him? Because he pays them. It's profit, it's interest. The soldiers under Parmenion and Alexander love their leaders. Their leaders have taken them to lots of victories, so they're very loyal.
Just by looking at cohesion, discipline, and devotion, we can predict that Alexander's army would win regardless of the strategy. You can also make the argument that the strategy Alexander employed—confronting the Persians head-on—Philip would have thought was a stupid idea. First of all, you're outnumbered. Second, you're in enemy terrain, so they are able to deploy their resources much better than you are. Third, you cannot afford to retreat. There's no place to retreat. If your army ever breaks, if Parmenion gets overwhelmed, then you're all dead. Why take that risk?
Also, before both battles, Darius wanted to negotiate. He basically said, "I will give you half my empire." That's pretty generous. Alexander said, "No, I need all of it." Historians will tell you that Gaugamela shows the military prowess of Alexander, but if you analyze it properly, I think you will see there are lots of problems with his strategy. He was taking risks that he shouldn't have, and he sacrificed a lot of men that he didn't need to. It was all about winning personal glory, whereas Philip was concerned about the safety and well-being of his soldiers. Philip would not have engaged in such a battle; he would have preferred negotiation and then, over time, slowly overwhelming Persia.
How could Alexander trust the Greeks in his army?
Actually, he didn't really trust the Greeks. The Greeks didn't consider the Macedonians part of them; they didn't consider Macedonians Greek. So when Alexander developed his invasion force, there weren't that many Greeks in it; it was mostly Macedonians. But you're right, given what he did in Thebes, he could not really trust the Greeks anymore. There were also a lot of Greek mercenaries fighting for Darius in this battle. Memnon of Rhodes was Greek, and he knew the Greeks really didn't like Alexander. It's more like a tribal army. We see this throughout history, where a tribal army, because of cohesion, discipline, and devotion, is able to conquer the world. You look at Muhammad, you look at Genghis Khan, you look at Tamerlane—they were all tribal armies, but because they had these qualities, they were able to conquer most of the world before they themselves devolved into civil war.
The Son of a God
While Alexander was campaigning against Persia, he was doing things that annoyed his soldiers. For example, he conquered Egypt without much resistance. The Egyptians hated the Persians and had been trying to rebel for centuries without success. When Alexander came, they saw him as a liberator.
The first thing Alexander does is he takes a trip into the desert. He disappears for weeks. He goes to a place called the Temple of Zeus-Ammon. Ammon is the highest Egyptian god, and Zeus is the highest Greek god, so this is a synthesis. This is the highest god in the world, found in an isolated oasis. He goes to this oasis to seek counsel and see his future. At the temple, he's told that Philip is not really his father. His true father is Zeus-Ammon. Alexander is the first Son of God. He's like Heracles and Dionysus.
When Alexander returns to his soldiers after this revelation, he expects his soldiers to acknowledge this fact. In the Macedonian army, there's a lot of equality between soldiers and officers. A soldier is allowed to speak his mind. But now, Alexander demands that if you come into his presence, you must first kiss his feet, which is a Persian custom. The Macedonians, of course, didn't really like this. Now there's growing concern about the tyranny of Alexander. People like Parmenion and Cleitus the Black, who were promoted heavily by his father, are annoyed. Alexander has renounced his father. "Philip's not really my father. I'm really the son of a god, Zeus-Ammon."
The Tyrant Emerges
In 331 BCE, the Battle of Gaugamela happens, and Alexander wins this incredible victory. Darius runs away but is eventually killed by one of his generals. The Persian Empire is now basically conquered. At this point, Alexander starts being a tyrant.
The first major sign that he's changing is in 330 BCE, when Parmenion is killed. You can argue Parmenion was the man responsible for all of Alexander's victories. He was the one doing all the heavy lifting, being overwhelmed by Persian forces but standing his ground, which allowed Alexander to claim victory. In 330 BCE, Alexander orders Parmenion to be killed.
There's a lot of controversy around what happened. There was a lot of resentment against Alexander in the army, and there were conspiracies to assassinate him. One of these conspiracies is found out. One of the officers who finds out about it goes to Parmenion's son, Philotas, and tells him, "Hey, go tell the king people are trying to assassinate him." Philotas doesn't think this is a big deal and is kind of drunk, so he forgets to tell Alexander. The plot is uncovered, and Philotas is implicated. He's tortured. He had nothing to do with the assassination, but he's implicated because he didn't tell Alexander. While being tortured, he also confesses to his father being part of the plot, even though there's no evidence implicating his father. In fact, you can make the argument that his father was completely loyal.
Based on this forced confession under torture, which is completely unreliable, Alexander and the army decide to have Parmenion killed. An assassin is sent, and Parmenion is killed.
The most generous interpretation is that Alexander didn't want Parmenion killed. He knew Parmenion was innocent, but because Alexander was forced to kill his son, Philotas, he felt he had no choice. Parmenion might want revenge, so to maintain stability, he had to get Parmenion killed. But there's another explanation that makes more sense: Alexander has always been jealous of Parmenion. Parmenion has the most legitimacy in the army. Troops feel more loyal to Parmenion than they do to Alexander. Alexander was jealous. Also, there were new young officers who wanted to climb the ranks, and to do so, they needed to get rid of people like Parmenion. Maybe the conspiracy was fake, organized by these officers to implicate Philotas and get rid of Parmenion.
Regardless of how you interpret this, what we do know is after Parmenion was killed, basically all the restraints on Alexander went away. There's no one in the army who can resist him or urge caution.
The next thing that happens is this: in the year 328 BCE, Cleitus the Black is killed. Remember, Cleitus is the person who saved Alexander's life at the Battle of the Granicus. But Cleitus, again, is a loyal officer promoted by Philip, and now he has the same authority as Parmenion once had. So Cleitus is now a threat. Alexander orders Cleitus to take some soldiers and go off to a faraway place. It's basically exile.
Before Cleitus is meant to go, they have a large banquet. They're all drunk, and Cleitus is angry. He gets into a vicious argument with Alexander and says, "You've betrayed your people, the Macedonians. You came to Persia and you could only conquer Persia with our help, and now you're turning into a Persian. You're adopting Persian customs, like forcing officers to kiss your feet. You're promoting Persian officers in your army. You're turning your back on the culture that made you great."
Then he says something that really pisses Alexander off. What is the one thing you can say to Alexander that would make him want to kill you? "Everything that you've achieved, Alexander, it's because of your father. This is not you. This conquest of Persia, it's not you, it's your father. It's your father who built this amazing army. It's your father who developed this plan to conquer Persia."
Alexander gets so angry that he's about to lunge at Cleitus, but his bodyguards surround him and stop him. They pull away his sword. This makes us think he's been doing this a lot. Alexander the Great gets drunk a lot and kills a lot of people. Cleitus is taken out of the room, but he's so strong he forces himself back in and continues arguing. Alexander then takes a spear and throws it at Cleitus, killing him on the spot.
The two men most responsible for Alexander's victories are now both dead.
Boundless Ambition
Soon afterwards, there's a real conspiracy to kill him. Alexander goes on a boar hunt with his pages. The custom in Persia is the king has the right to the first kill, but his pages are Macedonians, so they don't know this. One of the pages is the first to kill the boar. Alexander is so angry he beats the crap out of this page. The pages get together that night and resolve to kill this tyrant. They organize a schedule so that on one night, they would all be in the bedroom looking after Alexander while he sleeps, and then they would take out their daggers and stab him to death.
What happens is that night, Alexander goes out drinking, gets drunk, and does not come back until the early morning when the pages are gone. At this point, one of the pages gets nervous and tells Alexander about the conspiracy, and Alexander has everyone killed. But during the trial, the pages accused Alexander of being a tyrant.
Then, in 326 BCE, after Alexander has conquered all of Persia, he decides to take his army to India. His army is not happy about this. There are lots of good reasons to invade Persia: it's wealthy, it was a threat to Greece, and many suspected the Persians killed Philip. There's absolutely no reason to invade India. They've never been there; they have no idea what they will find. It's a different geography. But Alexander forces his army to invade India (modern-day Pakistan).
They win victories, but the soldiers are really pissed off. They're far away from home, they have no idea when this war will end, and the weather in India really sucks. They basically mutiny. They refuse to fight. Alexander has no choice but to retreat back to Babylon. But he does two things to show his anger. First, he kills all the leaders of the mutiny. Those who spoke up on behalf of their fellow soldiers were all killed, one by one. Second, rather than take his soldiers back the original way, Alexander made them march through a desert, which killed many of them from dehydration and starvation. It was a brutal march.
Alexander takes his army back to Babylon. He decides he can't invade India, so he'll go invade Arabia. There's a reason why no one invaded Arabia: it's all desert. But Alexander wants to be the first to conquer Arabia because his ambition is boundless. He has to prove he's the greatest conqueror in the world, and the only way he can do that is by conquering the entire world.
He's very suspicious of his own soldiers because they mutinied. He's starting to replace his army with Persians, who are much more obedient. Then something else happens. Back in Macedonia, the general in charge, Antipater, who again is one of Philip's most loyal generals, gets in an argument with Olympias. Antipater and Olympias don't see eye to eye. Olympias tells Alexander, and Alexander invites Antipater to Babylon where they will settle matters. Antipater knows what happened to Parmenion and Cleitus. At this point, most of Alexander's generals are unhappy with the fact that the army is being "Persianized," replaced by Persian officers who are more loyal to Alexander.
In 323 BCE, Alexander dies. No one will ever know what actually happened, but the theory that makes the most sense is this: the top echelon of the Macedonian army—Antipater and the other generals—decided Alexander had to go because he was a tyrant and eventually he was going to kill everyone.
What happened was there was a banquet, and Antipater's son was the cupbearer to Alexander. The son puts poison in the cup. Alexander drinks from it and starts to vomit. He leaves the room, and Antipater's son brings a feather laced with more poison to help Alexander vomit some more. Alexander should have died on the spot, but he's so tough that he lasts for a few more weeks and dies in bed.
Alexander is now dead.
The Legacy of a Tyrant
Even though he's dead, in the 10 years that he's been around, he's been able to conquer most of the known world, which includes Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This creates a problem for the generals who succeed him. Once you conquer most of this world—and remember, the plan was not to conquer the world, it was just Alexander's boundless ambition that made them do so—the question is, how do you govern?
Because of this pressure, they have no choice but to develop something called Greek culture and spread it in order to create legitimacy for themselves. This is the legacy of Alexander. He conquered the world, and now his generals must govern it. To govern it, they must invent Greek culture and then spread it. When they do so, Greek culture will merge with local cultures to create new ideas.
One of these cultures that Greek culture will merge with is Judaism. When these two cultures merge, a new idea will emerge from this mixture called Christianity, which changes the world forever. That's why Christians love Alexander the Great. They feel that without his conquest, Christianity could not have been born. There are many Christians who feel like, "Yeah, he was a tyrant, but he was part of God's plan. He did what he did because he truly is the son of Zeus-Ammon, and Zeus commanded him to conquer the world." But again, that is a Christian perspective.
Let's review. We looked at this analytical model and made three predictions about Alexander: he would focus on expansion, he would become a tyrant, and he would never stop expanding. It turns out he was exactly like this. This model predicts his life and times.