Alexander The Great's Success

Alexander The Great’s complex character juxtaposed with his indisputably remarkable military approach to expansionism, poses one of the greatest, historically intricate debates of all time: was alexander the great actually great? or was he an impressive tyrant who due to his opportune background inherited political potential that took minimal effort to pursue and inadvertently led him to success? Alexander the great’s undoubted military success and geographical expansion undertaken during his reign, was unique and powerful. However, Alexanders attainment of the epithet “great” should not only be confined to his successful military achievements, rather an holistic collection and assessment of his personal characteristics. Alexanders Greatness

This text along with that of Rufus’ other works are however, uniquely isolated and were most likely censored or prescribed by the respective senate or emperors in power at this time, adopting a bias nature. There is also reference to Alexander’s greatness by Roman texts, specifically within Titus Maccius Plautus’ play Mostellaraia. It is evident through both of these sources that the establishment and reasoning behind Alexander’s title is continually derived from his known ability to both defeat and succeed in the collection of military and expansionist battles he had fought in. The dismissal of such complex political components and concepts is foreshadowed by the emphasis placed on Alexanders approach to military conquest in which was uniquely unpredictable, and unusually lead the leader to success. The Phalanx approach to battle though, was a concept not even contrived from Alexanders analytical thinking rather an inherited tactic from his father king Phillip II. With reference to his military feats it is also evident that the success should indeed be attributed to alexanders father King Phillip II, in that the phalanx tactic that he had developed, was principally utilised and is a pertinent reason for Alexanders success. In every major battle Alexander’s Macedonian army won, phalanxes marched in an unbreakable mass formation, while alexander led the Cavalry along the enemies weakness. Oftentimes the winning move was a simple suicide charge against the enemy initiating the opposition to flee the field, and in comparison to the other great militant generals of the world it becomes evident that alexanders tactics were not strategic moves of analytical emphasis nor was he a tactical master, he was just an intimidating