Alexander's failures

[Aren]

What were alexander's failures? I can't find any website that doesn't look at him as the greatest thing in the world....They all talk about his success, but what did he fail at.

[panos]

Hi Aren!In my opinion the greatest failure of Alexander was that he didn't leave a successor, somebody that all the empire would turn to after his death. Of course it was relatively early for him to start thinking about these things, but all his other actions show a very organised person with a clear vision of the future. Just a thought
Panos

[jorgios]

I think this was Alexander's greatest failure. Talk about being anti-climactic!

[dean]

Hello, Not leaving a successor and his way through the Gedrosian desert- maybe- yet the Gedrosian desert could be seen in part as a victory for he came through it alive.Persepolis is a great slur on his record and as Parmenion pointed out- why would he burn something that belonged to himself?I don't think it did much either to help him be seen by the Persians as their rightful king- it must have caused immense distress to Persians subjects at the time.Just thinking.Best regards,
Dean.

[marcus]

That's a tricky one, isn't it? Because Alexander no doubt assumed he would go on for years (or ever, depending on whether you think he thought he was a god ), there's no reason to expect him to have designated a successor. Having said that, he was a warrior, and in the thick of the fighting always, so it was very silly of him *not* to designate a successor. Perhaps I can offer another string to this failure - not so much "not designating a successor", but not grooming anyone to be a worthy successor. Arrhidaios was the obvious successor, at least before Roxane gave birth, being an Argead (irrespective of whether he was up to the job), but there's no indication that he was groomed for the job (or that any grooming that was done had any effect, as Arrhidaios was so easily manipulated by Perdikkas etc.). Likewise, none of Al's marshals was given an independent enough command (perhaps with some exception for Krateros, but only in the last year or two) to make him outstanding enough of a leader - hence the ability of Krateros, Perdikkas, Antigonos, Eumenes, Ptolemy, Meleager et al to claim the loyalty of so many troops at the expense of the others.Sorry, a bit rambling. I hope you can make sense out of this!All the bestMarcus

[alejandro]

that's actually a good point, marcus: not grooming anyone to be his heir.
however it makes sense if you're a megalomaniac, doesn't it?
i read heckel recently, and was overwhelmed by the string of "dirty tricks" that were in place during and after Alexander's reign. in particular, among the marshals (eg, against philotas, but also between heph and krateros, and heph and eumenes, among others), but also between alex and some of them (eg, krateros was given important commands after parmenion's demise, but later on, when he was clearly alex's second in command, he is suddenly sent to do "logistic" stuff, like going from india to persis with the sick, and then sent to macedon, together with all those who were against alex's persianization "what a coincidence!").
despite my idealization of alex's life and all the people around him, i find heckel's suggestions very credible (he says, for example, that heph's grude-prone nature was very useful for alex: "if no-one likes him, he can like only me", and so alex could use him as someone who would stand by him against everyone no matter what the issue is, and so you find him having frequent problems with the "big guys" -philotas, krateros, eumenes-. certainly not the romantic achilles-patroclos view of the relationship we usually want to believe in, but a much more down-to-earth and -at least to me- credible one (note: it doesn't mean that there wasn't true friendship and/or love between them, at least in the beginning, but rather that it later evolved to something more political and less emotional)).
also, let's not forget that the macedonian king was not an absolute ruler but rather "primus-inter-paris" (spelling?), so he needed to confirm this status at every stage. sometimes he used carrots (like promotions to those who supported him: heph, krateros and ptolemy), sometimes sticks (attalos after philip's murder, philotas and parmenion in persia). so it is not so strange that he didn't groom a heir: as soon as this one were reasonably able to succeed him, there would probably be many aristocrats that would support him (remember alexandros lyncestes), and alex didn't like the prospects (maybe then he realized that philp's jealousy was not so off the mark!).
finally, and given what i said above, i don't think that a movie about alex where there is a plot against him would be completely unhistorical, though maybe it will not be historical either. what i mean is, it is hardly imaginable that such "young lions" as pt

[smittysmitty]

Regarding the grooming of a successor, perhaps we are not seeing things as we ought. The problem was, that there were too many people groomed for the job. Being so used to the line of Argeads, I think we emotionally brainwash ourselves into believing no worthy successor was available after ATG's death.It's a bit like the old analogy of ' is the glass half full or half empty- a case of perspective.Justin, to my mind, sums up beutifully the immediate situation regarding the successors....for they were men of such ability and authority, that each of them might have been taken for a king. Such was the personal gracefulness, the commanding stature, and the eminent powers of body and mind, apparent in all of them, that whoever did not know them, would have thought they were selected,not from one nation, but from the whole earth. Never before,indeed, did Macedonia, or any other country, abound with such a multitude of distinguished men; whom Philip first, and afterwards Alexander, had selected with such skill, that they seemed to have been chosen, not so much to attend them to war, as to succeed them on the throne. Who then can wonder, that the world was conquered by such officers, when the army of the Macedonians appeared to be commanded, not by generals,but by princes.- men who would never have found antagonists to cope with them, if they had not quarrelled with one another, while Macedonia would have had many Alexanders instead of one, had not Fortune inspired them with mutual emulation for their mutual destruction...Some nice words in my opinion! As a result of Philips and Alexanders campaigns, we actually discover that there are too many people qualified for the position! just my thoughts.
cheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,That's an interesting way to look at it.The question is: if they were all so well qualified, why did they make such a hash of it? Was it because there were just too many of them?For example, was Perdikkas killed just because he turned out to be a bit useless, when push came to shove; or was it also to do with the fact that Ptolemy was as able, and legitimate, as Perdikkas was, and so when he got the upper hand it was easy for them to decide to remove Perdikkas?Or was it even more than that? After all, Seleukos was one of the officers with Perdikkas at the time, and he ended up finessing his way to ruling the largest empire (for a time). Had Seleukos also been well enough groomed that he felt able to dispense with Perdikkas in order to gain ascendancy himself?It's an interesting subject. I'm still inclined to go for the fact that no-one was well enough groomed for succession - not least because I think it was more important to have an Argead king than a non-Argead (ref, for instance, Ptolemy's story of being one of Philip's by-blows); but there's certainly some merit in your hypothesis.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Miguel,Yes, that's a good point of yours - anyone who looked able to replace Alexander might have elicited support to do just that.But here's another question: with Arrhidaios around, why didn't this happen earlier? Was it because, as per our hypothesis here, no-one had sufficient experience, or kudos with the army, to mount a challenge to Alexander with Arrhidaios as a figurehead; or perhaps because Alexander was still the tried and tested king who provided them with booty, wine and women? If so many of the Macedonians disapproved of Alexander's Medising, why did they swallow their pride and continue to follow him - because he was still the best thing they had, or because none of them felt able to mount a challenge?All the bestMarcus

[Sam]

It may be helpful not to dwell too much on the individuals themselves. The overall tactical landscape is that had Alexander groomed an obvious successor that person may well have the greatest motive to depose him. Alexander was actually being politically expedient in leaving his empire "to the strongest"- if he never had enough time to groom an heir this may well be the way to keep his capable generals checked, besides what would he care if it is not his heir that should inherit the empire?If this is his failing it would seem likely it was a rather deliberate one perhaps?

[Kit]

Hi Aren,To put a slightly different slant on the discussion-do you mean failures from our perspective, or Alexander's?I would imagine that ATG would have considered the 'mutiny' of his men in India, forcing him to turn back against his will, to be his greatest failure.That would seem to be the one obvious obstacle that he failed to overcome (well obviously dying would have been a bit of a blow- but you know what I mean!)regardsKit

[alejandro]

Hi MarcusCertainly your points are all valid and sound. I would like to add two extra factors that, I think, are also important in addressing the matter:
-+ Which marshals had been against ATG Medising and what happened to them?
-+ What would have been the legitimacy of a revolt with Arrhidaios as a figurehead?
Regarding the first one, they were, mainly: Philotas, Kleitos the Black, Polyperchon, Kleitos the White and Krateros. We know what happened to Philotas and all those who didnGÇÖt repudiate their links with him (as, for example, Koinos did). Same with Black Kleitos (Note: I am not saying these two murders were deliberate purges conceived by Alexander GÇôthough I cannot rule out the possibility either, specially in the Philotas affair-, but certainly were convenient for his plans). The rest were all sent to Macedon after the Gedrosian march (Now this is more likely to have been an organised move directed to eliminate opposition by ATG). The fact is, Alex retained around him only those who accepted his decisions without much complaining: Hephaistion for sure, Ptolemy too, Perdikkas, Leonnatos and Eumenes (who were given important positions as hipparchs and/or somatophilakes), and so these ones would not attempt a revolt against GÇ£the hand that feeds themGÇ¥, as you pointed out. Note that I am only concerned with the marhals, and not with GÇ£the armyGÇ¥ as a whole. It is usually said that the soldiers never saw Alexander dressed as Great King or saw a Persian performing proskynesis (maybe the exception is the Susa weddings?), so the ones who were really concerned about AlexGÇÖs Medising were not the soldiers but the marshals. Soldiers may have been against Alex for not treating Persians as a defeated nation and for incorporating them into the army, but this feeling needs to be channeled through leadership in order to organise a successful revolt, and hence marshals were essentials in this scheme. By displacing those GÇ£un-friendlyGÇ¥ marshals, Alex certainly took a step into preventing riots (at least successful ones).
The second matter is also very interesting: organizing a revolt with Arridaios as a figurehead would most likely generate a civil war, as it was actually the case when Alex died. I think the main reason for this is that Arridaios, despite his legitimacy, was going to be the puppet of whoever gained control of him. The question was then: who should be the one to GÇ£draw the lucky lotGÇ¥? None of the big guys would relinquish their claims, and civil war w

[alejandro]

None of the big guys would relinquish their claims, and civil war would follow (this relates to my previous message, where I said that Alex sometimes played off his marshals one against the other in order to strenghten his own position, keeping the balance among them that would ensure that his own decisions will be imposed and that none of them will ever get in a position to actually challenge him). WhatGÇÖs the difference with the Philotas so-called-conspiracy, where it was supposed that Alexandros Lynkestes would step in as new king did the plot succeed? Well, in my opinion, it is different because Alexandros Lynkestes was a legitimate heir in case of ATGGÇÖs death, but was also psicologically able to rule by himself. WhatGÇÖs my point? If Dimnos and company would have succeeded in killing Alex, I would expect Alexandros Lynkestes would have been elected new king and, with the Old Guard support (Philotas, Parmenion, Black Kleitos), would have kept control of the situation and suffocated riots (if any). If Arrhidaios would have been the candidate, on the other hand, nobody would have stood by him, but for his own benefit. Now each marshal would have realized this, and since all of them would have likely felt equally entitled to rule/be-Arrhidaios-regent (given there was no GÇ£evidentGÇ¥ heir as Alex was when Philip was murdered or A. Lynkestes was in the Philotas affair), they would all have fought against each other for total supremacy, and the final result would have been uncertain (you could have equally ended up getting almost all the empire as Perdikkas did, or killed by your own army, as the same Perdikkas proves).
So, summing up, the two other elements I will add to your points why a revolt with Arrhidaios as figurehead would not have happened/succeded are:
-+ Those marshals that were against AlexGÇÖs Persianization and were able to organise a revolt against him were all conveniently displaced by other who were (or pretended to be) GÇ£happyGÇ¥ with AlexGÇÖs plans.
-+ The uncertainty of how a revolt would affect each marshalGÇÖs standings was too great to attempt one. They were not sure whether their individual bid for supreme power will be successful because all of them were (and knew they were) all roughly equal in pride, prowess and ascendancy over the army (Alexander must be praised for managing it so well!). The stakes were simply too large. They were all happy with keep on being GÇ£provided [GǪ] with booty, wine and womenGÇ¥, and operating in a political way to gain

[alejandro]

-+ The uncertainty of how a revolt would affect each marshalGÇÖs standings was too great to attempt one. They were not sure whether their individual bid for supreme power will be successful because all of them were (and knew they were) all roughly equal in pride, prowess and ascendancy over the army (Alexander must be praised for managing it so well!). The stakes were simply too large. They were all happy with keep on being GÇ£provided [GǪ] with booty, wine and womenGÇ¥, and operating in a political way to gain influence on Alex, waiting for Alex to name one of them as his successor (by the way, isnGÇÖt it interesting that none of these GÇ£happy-with-AlexGÇÖs-plansGÇ¥ marshals are quoted as counceling Alex to sire a heir, as Antipatros did ?).
But, of course, this is just my opinion.
Kind regardsAlejandro

[agesilaos]

firstly the failure to produce asn heir is surely the product of 20/20 hindsight which our sources love.I do believe that Alexander worked in a similar way to Hitler ; keeping power in his own hands by distributing it to more than one with no clear demarcation; encouraging their rivalries.Lyncestis was dead assoon as he had been forgiven; the story of the Persian messenger is apologia, just as the tale of Philip the physician and Parmenion's letter is propaganda. Alexander waits until he is strong enough to eliminate people to act; he is a clever man. Only after eliminating his best advisor,Parmenion, does he turn tyrranical.His greatest failing is to not be able to curb his temper, nor to be imaginative enough to think of a better way of dealing with many people than killing them. Forget the Unity of Mankind , he was a divide and conquer merchant, and one of the best.