The Politics of Ruling

[avesta]

The topic is short-term ruling vs. long-term ruling.

Leaders like Alexander the Great would be considered short-term rulers because he never really bothered appointing an heir to his throne. As soon as he died, his empire split up and got divided amongst his generals such as Seleucus I, Ptolemy I, etc...his empire basically crumbled faster than it grew once he died. I read somewhere that Alexander said on his deathbed "The throne has go to the strongest." He obviously didn't care much about his bloodline and the future and never planned for it.

This is why Alexander as a King doesn't impress me very much (as a general he was outstanding). He may have conquered the known world by age 23 or whatever it was, but this was because of his father's long term investments in him. Its been said that Alexander was mentored by great minds like Aristotle. His father Philip obviously wanted the prospective heir to his throne to be well-suited for ruling and he provided what was necessary in order to make it happen.

What I'm getting at is if Alexander had invested some time in mentoring and preparing an heir to his throne instead of campaigning for so many years in a row, his empire might not have crumbled so quickly after he died. He might not have conquered the Persian empire and reached the end of the known world so quickly had he invested some time in his sons (either directly through his own influence or appointing mentors to them). However, it could have payed off in the long term by having an heir which would hold his empire together once he became King.

This makes me think he was only after the glory of conquering the world's largest and wealthiest empire of the Persians and didn't care about anything else including the future of the throne nor his bloodline. If you have any sources which prove otherwise, please enlighten me.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

What I'm getting at is if Alexander had invested some time in mentoring and preparing an heir to his throne instead of campaigning for so many years in a row, his empire might not have crumbled so quickly after he died. He might not have conquered the Persian empire and reached the end of the known world so quickly had he invested some time in his sons (either directly through his own influence or appointing mentors to them). However, it could have payed off in the long term by having an heir which would hold his empire together once he became King.

This is all really unfair.

People speak of Alexander as if he just completely neglected the future of his Empire. It simply wasn't the case. It's easy to forget he died in his early 30's. His children were all in infancy at this time.

Was he supposed to expect he would die so young? He reasonably thought he would have more time to keep things in order.

Alexander never had the chance to secure his Empire. You can not judge Alexander as an administrator failry.

This makes me think he was only after the glory of conquering the world's largest and wealthiest empire of the Persians and didn't care about anything else including the future of the throne nor his bloodline. If you have any sources which prove otherwise, please enlighten me.

You'll find nothing supporting this but speculation.

Alexander as a child supposedly because depressed whenever he heard about his father's accomplishments, because it would leave nothing for him to do when he was older. Alexander could have simply been on a personal quest, looking for his own glory. Maybe he didn't want to limit people in the future.

His dying words, which you already mentioned, could sort of point to this, as well. They seem to be a bit cynical. We can't get into Alexander's head, though. He wasn't in position to dictate a plan to his officers while on his deathbed. He could barely speak at the time, let alone take care of something so complicated. He may very well have simply thought that none of his officers could hold his Empire together because they were too weak.

This is all half-baked at best. Little is truly known about Alexander's true feelings or motivation, and there are numerous theories on the subject. He is one of the most controversial figures in all of history.

[Lee1026]

Was he supposed to expect he would die so young? He reasonably thought he would have more time to keep things in order.

while exposing himself to every disease that exist on the planet? it is amazing that he managed to live as long as he did.

it could have payed off in the long term by having an heir which would hold his empire together once he became King.

was there ever an empire that was that big, and had that much ethical tension that could be held together? no. Alexander, if he lived oh.. 12 years longer then he did, would have his empire breaking into pieces across the board. even if he lived for a 100 year, his heir would still have trouble holding things together. Rome had a hard time with this - and they bulit their empire slowly, meaning there is going to be less forces jarring the empire apart. whereas alexander just took over the persian empire, and he would have inheranted the perisan empire's problems in keeping thing from falling apart.

[conon394]

lee1026

I'm not sure you can the empire could not have been stabilized, after all the Achaemenid (Persian) Dynasty had kept it together for 200 + years.

ABH

Was he supposed to expect he would die so young? He reasonably thought he would have more time to keep things in order.
Alexander never had the chance to secure his Empire. You can not judge Alexander as an administrator failry.

Yes you can judge him; he never even bothered to really try. In all honesty If he really gave a damn about his kingdom or his mandate from the League of Corinth, he probably should have taken Darius offer (after Issus, which amounted too a huge cash payment and all the Persian Empire west of the Euphrates). The areas farther east were too remote and culturally different to really be controlled.

Alexander liked to lead from the front, he had in fact every reason to suspect he would be killed (like Epaminondas, or any number of other Greek or Macedonian commanders). Cyrus the Great seems to have been able to but in place a system that smoothly transferred power upon his death…

Avesta

Just a note, Alexander did not conquer the known world (presumable the Greco-Macedonian one). He in fact conquered the Persian Empire, and a few nearby Indian principalities.

Overall I agree with avesta's sentiments whatever Alexander’s merits as a general, men like Augustus, Diocletian and Cleisthenes and Cyrus were certainly greater at establishing stable administrations over their polities.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Yes you can judge him; he never even bothered to really try. In all honesty If he really gave a damn about his kingdom or his mandate from the League of Corinth, he probably should have taken Darius offer (after Issus, which amounted too a huge cash payment and all the Persian Empire west of the Euphrates). The areas farther east were too remote and culturally different to really be controlled.

The cultures of the area he took were never the problem. Neither was their seclusion. The Eastern part of his Empire was very loyal to him. Porus especially.

Alexander liked to lead from the front, he had in fact every reason to suspect he would be killed (like Epaminondas, or any number of other Greek or Macedonian commanders). Cyrus the Great seems to have been able to but in place a system that smoothly transferred power upon his death…

What King has ever died at the age of Alexander had his Kingdom move through without any turmoil? Now factor in the age of Alexander's empire, and the size.

And Cyrus the Great ruled for 30 years. What do you think would have happened had he died right after his conquests? Alexander for about a sixth of that time.

Alexander liked to lead from the front, he had in fact every reason to suspect he would be killed (like Epaminondas, or any number of other Greek or Macedonian commanders). Cyrus the Great seems to have been able to but in place a system that smoothly transferred power upon his death…

All of those men lived full lives. You can not compare them to a man who died right after conqueroring one of the largest empire's ever seen in the shortest spans of time.

while exposing himself to every disease that exist on the planet? it is amazing that he managed to live as long as he did.

Honestly, this is nonsense. People didn't understand the way the human immune system works back in the fourth century BC.

[avesta]

Was he supposed to expect he would die so young? He reasonably thought he would have more time to keep things in order.

yes, he knew he was in a huge war and had been wounded several times in combat according to historians, he should have known the end was coming, especially since he led from the front like Conon said.

Alexander never had the chance to secure his Empire. You can not judge Alexander as an administrator failry.

why not? securing an empire consists of securing it DURING the conquest, not just securing it after the conquest is over, it's all gradual. If you don't gain loyalty and quell rebellions during the conquests, you won't get very far.

He wasn't in position to dictate a plan to his officers while on his deathbed. He could barely speak at the time, let alone take care of something so complicated. He may very well have simply thought that none of his officers could hold his Empire together because they were too weak.

That's the whole point, he should have known he'd be on his deathbed soon, and should have planned for the future accordingly. You are just re-iterating the whole basis of my argument. Something so complicated and so important should be planned for beforehand, not at the last moment.

was there ever an empire that was that big, and had that much ethical tension that could be held together

Like Conon said, the Persian empire. It was passed on from generation to generation and the power was vested in the royal bloodline for numerous years, and it wasn't a rapid hyper-takeover, it was gradually built and each area was secured by the king and loyalty was gained by the king. For example Cyrus the great marched into Babylon (when the Jews got freed) and it's been said that he gained popular support so quickly in that region No wonder they called him King of all Kings. Alexander seemed to have just destroyed the armies of the region he conquered and moved on....this is not called securing, its simply a temporary conquest which is bound to cause problems in the future.

Alexander, if he lived oh.. 12 years longer then he did, would have his empire breaking into pieces across the board. even if he lived for a 100 year, his heir would still have trouble holding things together.

I disagree, I think that if he actually spent some time to gain some loyalty in the foreign lands he conquered by whatever means necessary, he could have secured the regions a lot better. Instead of hyper-expanding his empire, he could stopped for a minute and thought, how do I make these people loyal to me and my future sons?

Just a note, Alexander did not conquer the known world (presumable the Greco-Macedonian one). He in fact conquered the Persian Empire, and a few nearby Indian principalities.

You're right, my mistake. If I remember correctly he didn't get very far past the Hindu Kush.

Alexander liked to lead from the front, he had in fact every reason to suspect he would be killed (like Epaminondas, or any number of other Greek or Macedonian commanders). Cyrus the Great seems to have been able to but in place a system that smoothly transferred power upon his death…

Overall I agree with avesta's sentiments whatever Alexander’s merits as a general, men like Augustus, Diocletian and Cleisthenes and Cyrus were certainly greater at establishing stable administrations over their polities.

Thank you.

The cultures of the area he took were never the problem. Neither was their seclusion. The Eastern part of his Empire was very loyal to him

The soldiers in the Persian army who were foreign nationals (most of the army) were not even loyal to the Persian rulers as their morale in combat was especially weak, as they had little in common with eachother, and didn't really know what they were fighting for. What makes you think the Eastern part of Alexander's empire was loyal to him? They were a bunch of different people of different ethinicities. At least under the Persian rule they had been under one stable rule for many years, and even then they weren't very loyal.

And Cyrus the Great ruled for 30 years. What do you think would have happened had he died right after his conquests? Alexander for about a sixth of that time.

Again that's my whole point. Cyrus lived that much longer because he thought about the long term and knew how to administer an empire. Alexander didn't. He rushed into combat and eventually got killed. If he took a more long term approach he probably wouldn't have gotten as far as he did in those years in his early 20's. However, he could have perhaps lived till he was 60 while adopting a real administration under Greco-Macedonian rule and conqured a lot more in the long run.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

yes, he knew he was in a huge war and had been wounded several times in combat according to historians, he should have known the end was coming, especially since he led from the front like Conon said.

Same for many generals. Pretty much every great general had lead from the front, and came very near to death a number of times. When war is an every day thing, and you're bravery is almost unmatched, it's not going to have much of an impact. Alexander had secured a heir. There was little else he could do besides hope he survived long enough to where his son would be strong enough to take over.

why not? securing an empire consists of securing it DURING the conquest, not just securing it after the conquest is over, it's all gradual. If you don't gain loyalty and quell rebellions during the conquests, you won't get very far.

Alexander seemed to get very far. Farther than just about any other man, in fact. The organization comes after conqueroring. The problem was not with Alexander's current system, but simply that there was no heir old enough.

That's the whole point, he should have known he'd be on his deathbed soon, and should have planned for the future accordingly. You are just re-iterating the whole basis of my argument. Something so complicated and so important should be planned for beforehand, not at the last moment.

What should he have done? No matter the situation after his death, political in-fighting was a given. It had happened in countless other nations before. Alexander himself had to fight for the throne.

Alexander had many highly competent officers with big egoes. What exactly could he do to control their actions after his death?

Like Conon said, the Persian empire. It was passed on from generation to generation and the power was vested in the royal bloodline for numerous years, and it wasn't a rapid hyper-takeover, it was gradually built and each area was secured by the king and loyalty was gained by the king. For example Cyrus the great marched into Babylon (when the Jews got freed) and it's been said that he gained popular support so quickly in that region No wonder they called him King of all Kings. Alexander seemed to have just destroyed the armies of the region he conquered and moved on....this is not called securing, its simply a temporary conquest which is bound to cause problems in the future.

The Persian Empire was plagued with Civil War after the death of their ruler. There were few smooth transitions. It was political in-fighting that put Darius on the throne.

Again that's my whole point. Cyrus lived that much longer because he thought about the long term and knew how to administer an empire. Alexander didn't. He rushed into combat and eventually got killed. If he took a more long term approach he probably wouldn't have gotten as far as he did in those years in his early 20's. However, he could have perhaps lived till he was 60 while adopting a real administration under Greco-Macedonian rule and conqured a lot more in the long run.

We don't even know for sure what he died of. It could have been a complete normal disease that had nothing to do with how he lived. It could have been poison made by Aristotle.

It had nothing to do with Alexander moving too fast.

[Lee1026]

It had nothing to do with Alexander moving too fast.

:blink Kid, you need to learn some biology - the more places you go without the proper vaccatines the higher your chances of getting killed by a disease. Since he felt a need to go and get diseases from all over the world, it is inevitible that he drop dead from it. As far as prisoning go, being someone that have de-throned a good few leaders doesn't really help one's chances much.

[avesta]

Alexander seemed to get very far.

I agree that he got far and accomplished a lot during his reign...but his problem was that his reign was short and unstable - otherwise his empire wouldn't have crumbled so quickly after his death. You can't think only short-term, you must think long-term as well. Quick rapid conquests proved not to be so effective, especially since he could have inherited a disease from travelling so much like lee mentioned.

There was little else he could do besides hope he survived long enough to where his son would be strong enough to take over.

Hoping isn't good enough, ESPECIALLY at that age when your sons aren't old enough to rule a kingdom. You should plan and make sure you survive until your sons are old enough and skilled enough to rule an empire. Alexander didn't. Like I said before, he just rushed into combat and rushed into the eastern part of the world without much care for his own life or his empire.

What should he have done?

He should tried to live longer and build some stability in his empire insteading of campaigning for so many years. That way he could have had a chance to live to see one of his sons become an heir to the throne.
And please don't tell me that if he stopped campaigning, his empire wouldn't be able to defend against outside threats. His army proved to be a mighty force on the battlefield.

The Persian Empire was plagued with Civil War after the death of their ruler. There were few smooth transitions. It was political in-fighting that put Darius on the throne.

I didn't know that. I haven't done much research into that. But what I do know is that they were still able to maintain control of the empire. There were no real threats to their power.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Kid, you need to learn some biology - the more places you go without the proper vaccatines the higher your chances of getting killed by a disease. Since he felt a need to go and get diseases from all over the world, it is inevitible that he drop dead from it. As far as prisoning go, being someone that have de-throned a good few leaders doesn't really help one's chances much.

I believe I already said you can't fairly use knowledge only discovered in modern times to judge an Ancient Greek.

I agree that he got far and accomplished a lot during his reign...but his problem was that his reign was short and unstable - otherwise his empire woulnd't have crumbled so quick after his death. You can't think onlt short-term you must think long-term as well.

There was nothing unstable about Alexander's reign. The truth is he kept much of the old Persian traditions. His policy was little different then that of Cyrus the Great's.

Hoping isn't good enough, ESPECIALLY at that age when your sons aren't old enough to rule a kingdom. You should plan and make sure you survive until your sons are old enough and skilled enough to rule an empire. Alexander didn't. Like I said before, he just rushed into combat and rushed into the eastern part of the world without much care for his own life or his empire.

What exactly should he have done? What do you propose, he sit in a castle afraid to act? Just moving into Persia is too risky according to you. He had no choice to take most of what he did. The only time he acted more out of choice then necessity was with India.

And Alexander didn't die of anything you're talking about. His death was more of a freak accident. It could not be blamed on him or his behavior.

He should tried to live longer and build some stability in his empire insteading of campaigning for so many years. That way he could have had a chance to live to see one of his sons become an heir to the throne.

He didn't die of campaigning. He died back in Babylon of what was most likely a common disease, and one that could have even affected him in Greece. Either that, or he was just poisoned. Had he stayed to secure his Empire, it wouldn't have changed anything.

Securing a heir doesn't accomplish much, anyway. It is almost impossible to avoid fighting after the death of a King. You would be more hardpressed to find peaceful transitions then violent ones. Alexander came from Macedon. Being usurped was a consant threat he and his father faced, and just about every King before him. The same problem existed in Persia, who had fought numerous Civil Wars. Darius got his job because the last few guys were all killed off.

The reason Alexander's Empire was torn into pieces was because it was so large, and had numerous officers who were unable to defeat one another decisively.

Persia itself could have been split in two during any of its Civil Wars.

I didn't know that. I haven't done much research into that. But what I do know is that they were still able to maintain control of the empire. There were no real threats to their power.

They had loose control at that. Many areas had broken off from the Persian Empire. Egypt was in open rebellion when Alexander first invaded.

[Lee1026]

although the knowledge that we know know are unknown to the greeks, but they did know many of the areas that he entered are not amongst the heathiest in the world. They know that traveling does not corrolate well with living for a long time. ALexander had a good teacher, he should know that.

[avesta]

What exactly should he have done? What do you propose, he sit in a castle afraid to act?

Yes, something along these lines, he could outsource his work (future conquests) being an effective commander.

And Alexander didn't die of anything you're talking about. His death was more of a freak accident. It could not be blamed on him or his behavior.

We don't know anything for sure, but like Lee said, traveling the world and campaigning for so many years decreases your chances of living very long that's common sense.

Had he stayed to secure his Empire, it wouldn't have changed anything.

I think it would have. Staying in more familiar territory decreases chances of having an accident, getting a disease or being poisoned or what not.

Securing a heir doesn't accomplish much, anyway. It is almost impossible to avoid fighting after the death of a King.

Why on earth would you say that? Securing an heir accomplishes a lot. Soon as a king dies, the power of the army and the empire gets transferred to the heir. Of course there will be political in-fighting like you said, but in most cases, the high ranking officers of the army will immediately take orders from their new king, and will be ordered to destroy all those who revolt against the king. Of course there are times when the army is more loyal the army generals ...in that case the heir is screwed and will not have power transferred to him. If that happens though, it's the heir's father's who's to blame.

The reason Alexander's Empire was torn into pieces was because it was so large, and had numerous officers who were unable to defeat one another decisively.

That's not a valid argument, the Persian empire was just as large, why were they able to hold it together so much longer then?

Persia itself could have been split in two during any of its Civil Wars.

could have. but it didn't. why? cause the empire was fairly stable and had rulers who knew how to administor it.

They had loose control at that. Many areas had broken off from the Persian Empire. Egypt was in open rebellion when Alexander first invaded.

I believe that there were open rebellions in a lot of places in the empire at that point because they had gotten word that the Persians had been defeated in a couple of significant battles. Im not 100% sure of the timeline on this one though.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Alexander wasn't a good field commander, I would actually argue that he was the best during his time...but he just wasn't one to manage a huge empire and make it grow even 100 years after his death.

[Søren]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Alexander wasn't a good field commander, I would actually argue that he was the best during his time...but he just wasn't one to manage a huge empire and make it grow even 100 years after his death.

Points why this is unfair :

1) Actually Alexander Died before he was 40, historical example shows that usually after this hapening, there is civil war.

2) Alexanders generals were extremly ambitious

3) His son was very young , so incapable of decisive action

4) The Empire was organised very efficiantly , It is a tribute to Alexander that it, being multi-racial and having no common goal,
only stood four major ethnic divisions. (Egyptians, Indians , Graeco Macedonions and Persians)

[Garbarsardar]

In ancient Greece, for example, life expectancy at birth was 20. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, life expectancy was still just 23; the median age was 16. Even as recently as 1900, most Americans died by age 47. In 1870, only 2.5% of all Americans made it to age 65. By 1990, that percentage had increased five-fold to 12.7%. Today, 31 million people are over 65 -- and the figures continue to grow, bolstered by advances in medicine and public health.

read it all here

there are two ongoing arguments in this thread which both lack any scientific support and any tangible evidence.
the first is the "early" death of Alexander, for this you can see more above.
the second is the notion of travelling to "unhealthy places".
Alexander had a very good teacher indeed Aristotles, who never mentions anything about health, travelling and exotic disease. The idea of trvelling being an unhealthy lifestyle in a gross anachronism since it never formed part of the ancient Greek thought. Furthermore apart from Oliver Stone (as reliable that can be :rolleyes) there is absolutely no indication on the psychological predispositions of Alexander on voluntarily risking to "catch disease" and such. This has also been used as a pseudo-argument in this thread.
I understand the need of some people to moralize, but unfortunately history is not always "meaningfull" especially if you have no familiarity with actual facts and primary sources.

[Søren]

I understand the need of some people to moralize, but unfortunately history is not always "meaningfull" especially if you have no familiarity with actual facts and primary sources.

If you are refering to my post at all, I actually am very familiar with the facts of his life, haveing read many ancient texts and biographies of his reign

In ancient Greece, for example, life expectancy at birth was 20.

Perhaps so , but remember that is life expectancy at birth, not at the age of Alaxander when he became king

the second is the notion of travelling to "unhealthy places".

I agree the places he visited were not very different to others at the time, in fact his death was more likely caused by excesses of wine

there is absolutely no indication on the psychological predispositions of Alexander on voluntarily risking to "catch disease" and such. This has also been used as a pseudo-argument in this thread.

Also, I agree to this, one cant belive everything in films like that, which are often extremly romantacised

(My apologies to people who have other sources than this, although I don't know of any foundation for this fact)

[conon394]

Garbarsardar

Life expectancy at birth is not a particularly useful bit of information.
In the pre-very modern period humans faced two real huge mortality events: infancy and (for women) child birth.

Seeing as Alexander survived childhood, and as an aristocrat never faced the prospect of malnutrition (as either an acute issue that might kill him or something that might have long term impacts), he could reasonably expect to live quite a bit longer than 20 years.

But the question is still a legitimate one: did Alexander ever show any particular interest in securing either his kingdom in particular, his broader political inheritance (not just Macedonia, but Thessaly via the elected office of Tagus, the position of leader of the League or Corinth, or even the king of the conquered Persian Empire). My feeling is no. He was only stopped from charging off farther into India by an army mutiny. He never shows any of subtlety or insight that his father showed time and again in his dealings with the Greek states. By every report after his return from the East he was only pausing to arrange campaigns westward. His actions in Persia alienated both his Greek and Macedonian subjects and the Persian Zoroastrians who made up the core of the former Persian Empire. Alexander seems to have gone out of his way to alienate the Macedonian nobles, and for what? He certainly could never get blind drunk like his father and know that no worry Antipater was sober (or die as the case may be, had Antipater not supported Alexander I doubt Alex would have gained the crown after his father assassination).

[Søren]

Life expectancy at birth is not a particularly useful bit of information

Quite what I've just been saying

He never shows any of subtlety or insight that his father showed time and again in his dealings with the Greek states.

Remember that the time when he died was at the time when one might expect him to consolidate his position not, perhaps beforehand.

Also perhaps he thought that the sucession was expendable, to his path to universal glory. One may also note that if he continued on his campaigns for another twenty years we may not have now known him as "Alexander the Great"

[avesta]

1) Actually Alexander Died before he was 40, historical example shows that usually after this hapening, there is civil war.

that's my whole point, he should have know this. He should have appointed an heir properly.

2) Alexanders generals were extremly ambitious

To conquer lands from greece until India, you NEED ambitious generals. Of course his generals were ambitious. Without them he probably wouldn't have gotten as far as he did.

3) His son was very young , so incapable of decisive action

Yes his sons were very young. That's why I think he should have waited till they matured before throwing himself even further into another war into another battle.

4) The Empire was organised very efficiantly

How can you say it was organized very efficiently? It fell apart so fast after Alexander's death. The organization of the empire depended upon the survival of Alexander, and he didn't seem to care to survive for very long...so I would argue it WASN'T organized efficiently. Perhaps if he went back to secure and administor his conquered lands instead of going further eastward, it would have become organized efficiently.

So far, I haven't heard any good arguments against my theory.

[conon394]

The Bavarian Noble

Quite what I've just been saying

I had an old page open, and never saw your post....

[barbarion horde]

Just a note, Alexander did not conquer the known world (presumable the Greco-Macedonian one). He in fact conquered the Persian Empire, and a few nearby Indian principalities

.


I thought at this time, this was the entire world known to the greeks and persians.