Alexander the Great has been cemented as a legendary hero of the classical era due to his impressive victories in battles that expanded his empire. Out of his illustrious career, a salient accomplishment was his triumph over the Achaemenid empire, a titan of the classical world. Many attribute his successes to his innate talent for leadership and combat, placing a premium on Alexander’s military acumen rather than the failures of Persian leadership and the impact of his father, Philip II of Macedon. This essay will argue that while Alexander’s talent had a role in his accomplishments, there were salient factors outside of his control such as receiving Philip’s stalwart army and the failures within Persian leadership that played a greater part …show more content…
This idea was articulated in a theory by historian Thomas Carlyle that proposed it was primarily great men and their courage, genius, and ability that directed the shape of history rather than economic or social factors or the common people.1 This lens of looking at history has been quite common when looking at the history of Alexander the Great, crediting his boldness, expertise in combat, and tactical genius for his overwhelming success. While it is certainly true that these factors did aid his victory over the Achaemenid empire, a closer examination reveals a multitude of other factors that had nothing to do with Alexander that set up the prime situation for Alexander to capitalize on. This essay’s purpose is not to deny Alexander’s ability, but to stress that there were plenty of other significant actors and factors that were more important than just one great …show more content…
Having an effective fighting force allowed Alexander to win battles against a larger force, especially because of the superior quality of his forces, something that was not due to Alexander but rather his father. Moreover, Alexander had access to brilliant military generals such as Seleucus, Antipater, Ptolemy, and Antigonus. These generals were stalwart followers of Philip the II and were veterans in combat. Having reliable and competent generals allowed Alexander to have an army that was effective because of the general absence of incompetence. Additionally, the plethora of Philip’s “unnamed and unremembered battalion commanders, squadron commanders, file leaders” that populated Alexander’s army had a cumulative effect in adding additional discipline, order, and lethality to his forces.6 These men undermine the perspective that places a premium on a single man deciding the course of history, as in this case it was the thousands of unnamed men previously under Philip that were the engine to Alexander’s success. Without these men, it seems that the quality of Alexander’s army would significantly