The Most Significant Reason behind Alexander the Great's Success

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I'm obsessed with trying to think of the reasons why this man




was so amazingly successful in conquering such vast territories in only a few years.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I tried to collect + categorize these reasons (although I'm not a trained historian), and make a poll of them. These seem to be the most commonly acknowledged reasons behind Alexander's success story:

1 - The mentorship of Aristotle + the inspiration of Iliad
2 - The legacy of his father, Philip II: a powerful kingdom + an unified Hellas
3 - Charisma and courage
4 - The perfection of the Macedonian phalanx
5 - Superb battle tactics
6 - Superb campaign strategy - AKA blitzkrieg a lá Macedon
7 - The appealing 'liberation' ideology
8 - The adoption of some elements of Persian rule
9 - The inaptitude of Darius III
10 - Other (specify please)

So vote for the one you think is the most significant reason behind his success and tell us why do you think it.

Some useful links:
Alexander the Great of Macedon (f r o m h i s t o r y t o e t e r n i t y - by John J. Popovic)
Wiki article on Alexander the Great
The world's largest site on Alexander the Great

[Каие]

It was his determination. With the same army and plan would phillip have done the same or better?

[Dr. Croccer]

All of them. Alexander himself was an educated, intelligent young man who inherited an already formidable kingdom. He had an iron determination, charisma and and respect for the east. He was a suberb tactician who basically invented Western tactics.

[Mithie]

Well - the biggest factor is probably the competency of his companions and generals.

That, and plenty of fiber in his diet.

[Odovacar]

Philip's heritage and Alexander's talent.

[gaius valerius]

As they say: amen to that.

Yet it remains a fact that Darius III was a real inapt ruler. How would Gaugamela turned out if he hadn't run and faced the impetuous and reckless Alexander?

[rez]

Yet it remains a fact that Darius III was a real inapt ruler. How would Gaugamela turned out if he hadn't run and faced the impetuous and reckless Alexander?

You might want to check some contemporary accounts of Darius III's behavior. A man actually renowned for his bravery.

On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world [Alexander] erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius] he [Alexander] inflicted. The king [Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.

From the astronomical diary.

Moreover the diary goes on to explain how the entire Persian army was in disarray and panic after two catastrophic omens that foretold the doom of Darius. Darius was ready to fight but his troops were resigned to defeat before the battle even started.


My money's on Alexander's incredible charisma and resulting reputation. Later on in the campaigns I put the increasing experience and professionalism of the Macedonian soldiers down to their ability to keep going on and on and in the face of many impressive fortifications to boot.

[AqD]

Moreover the diary goes on to explain how the entire Persian army was in disarray and panic after two catastrophic omens that foretold the doom of Darius. Darius was ready to fight but his troops were resigned to defeat before the battle even started.

But he ran away when many of his troops were still fighting. And why would he think the companion could beat and catch him? Is he not surrounded by some elite guards?
________
Prilosec Attorneys

[Mythos]

From the astronomical diary.

I would not be so hasty to take this at face value. Perhaps it was written by people who did not see Alexander as a legitimate ruler of the Persian empire, a heir to Darius. It would be in the interest of those people to present Darius as high and mighty as possible and to hide the possibility of him fleeing battle. That would perhaps lower Alexander's prestige and so on.

Darius seems to have been prone to fleeing. He did it at Issus to avoid capture. I think he did it again at Gaugamela. Given the speed at which Alexander broke the Persian ranks with his companions and wheeled around to attack Darius along with the limited view of the field because of the dust, Darius probably did not realise that the companions were about to trap him until too late. He probably had to flee one more time to avoid capture and keep fighting.

[rez]

I would not be so hasty to take this at face value. Perhaps it was written by people who did not see Alexander as a legitimate ruler of the Persian empire, a heir to Darius. It would be in the interest of those people to present Darius as high and mighty as possible and to hide the possibility of him fleeing battle. That would perhaps lower Alexander's prestige and so on.

Actually it was written by the very Babylonian's that welcomed Alexander with open arms and showed no sign of discontentment whatsoever...

Darius seems to have been prone to fleeing. He did it at Issus to avoid capture. I think he did it again at Gaugamela. Given the speed at which Alexander broke the Persian ranks with his companions and wheeled around to attack Darius along with the limited view of the field because of the dust, Darius probably did not realise that the companions were about to trap him until too late. He probably had to flee one more time to avoid capture and keep fighting.

There's no doubt that he fled to avoid capture and fight another day. The point is that the battle wasn't lost because Darius fled, he fled because the battle was lost.

The funny thing is that he escaped the field so he could raise another army and keep on fighting for his empire. yet for some reason he is hailed as a coward because he didn't give up on the war and fall or more likely become captured on the field.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

There's no doubt that he fled to avoid capture and fight another day. The point is that the battle wasn't lost because Darius fled, he fled because the battle was lost.

The funny thing is that he escaped the field so he could raise another army and keep on fighting for his empire. yet for some reason he is hailed as a coward because he didn't give up on the war and fall or more likely become captured on the field.

At first, I wanted to write "The inner weakness of the Achaemenid Empire + the inaptitude of Darius III", but was not sure whether we can call this empire "weak" before it laid down to its death bed.

Nonetheless, I think we can claim that it is inapt ruler who can't keep a single cm2 of his once grand empire. It's like losing all of the British Empire in 10 years or so.

[Baron Vlad Felix]

The legacy of his father!

[Hounf of Culan]

His charisma/willpower. If you have read Curtius' history of Alexander you will get a very good sense of his immense charisma and willpower. In a certain way, he almost willed the impossible into reality many times in his campaigns. It did not matter what the odds were, how tired his men were, how difficult the terrain was, he forced his will onto the world around him in an incredible fashion.

[D.B. Cooper]

It was his fanatical zeal/charisma/willpower. Whatever you want to call it, it was the same driving force that kept Hannibal in Italy for 14 years, with almost no desertions from his men.

[Sascha]

The weakness of the Persian Empire. It had long since overstretched, never found a way to adequately become a stable and outwardly strong entity, and was just ripe for taking over. It still is a great achievement on Alexander's part, but IMHO pales to that of Kyros, who actually conquered all the countries that made up the empire, whereas for Alexander large chunks of territory just fell to him, because the locals were fed up with the Persians anyway and just shruggingly wanted to try another form of foreign dominance.

[gaius valerius]

The weakness of the Persian Empire. It had long since overstretched, never found a way to adequately become a stable and outwardly strong entity, and was just ripe for taking over. It still is a great achievement on Alexander's part, but IMHO pales to that of Kyros, who actually conquered all the countries that made up the empire, whereas for Alexander large chunks of territory just fell to him, because the locals were fed up with the Persians anyway and just shruggingly wanted to try another form of foreign dominance.

Wrong. The Persian empire wasn't weak or outlived in anyway. Doesn't it speak for itself that the Macedonians left the Persian empire intact? It was a highly centralised empire, where when you cut of the head you can easily replace it. It had since long been a stable empire, given the occasional riot when a new King was crowned, though that in itself didn't pose a danger to the integrity of the empire. It had little to do with being fed up with the Persians, otherwise they'd have revolted themselves.

[Sascha]

Wrong. The Persian empire wasn't weak or outlived in anyway. Doesn't it speak for itself that the Macedonians left the Persian empire intact? It was a highly centralised empire, where when you cut of the head you can easily replace it. It had since long been a stable empire, given the occasional riot when a new King was crowned, though that in itself didn't pose a danger to the integrity of the empire. It had little to do with being fed up with the Persians, otherwise they'd have revolted themselves.

I don't think we are in disagreement here, that's more or less what I meant. With "weak" I merely meant that it put up comparably little resistance against an outward attack, as you also said: Cut off the head, and its yours. I did not mean the provinces were close to rebellion against the Persians, I would rather say they did not care who they should pay taxes and saw no reason to fight an uphill battle against a strong invader.

That why I think Kryos was the greater conqueror, because he conquered this vast areas when it consisted of independent kingdoms that would fight back against him and he built an empire that outlasted him two centuries.

Alexander just took over an existing empire where most of the provinces were used to the fact that they pay taxes to some faraway capital and were swift to switch allegiance once they realized who the greatest badass on the turf now. And just after his death, it just crumbled.

[motiv-8]

Wrong. The Persian empire wasn't weak or outlived in anyway. Doesn't it speak for itself that the Macedonians left the Persian empire intact? It was a highly centralised empire, where when you cut of the head you can easily replace it. It had since long been a stable empire, given the occasional riot when a new King was crowned, though that in itself didn't pose a danger to the integrity of the empire. It had little to do with being fed up with the Persians, otherwise they'd have revolted themselves.

And the fact that that Persian Empire, so very solid, broke apart with Alexander's empire doesn't key in the fact that it was fragile?

[gaius valerius]

And the fact that that Persian Empire, so very solid, broke apart with Alexander's empire doesn't key in the fact that it was fragile?

But it didn't break. Like I said, cut of the head and replace it, that's what the Macedonians did. This isn't a sign of being fragile. If it in any way was fragile, the Macedonians might have thrown away the whole constellation altogether yet they did not, they simply retained the basics of the Persian empire. That it broke under Alexanders successors has little to do with the intrinsic capabilities of the cities, but rather with the successors waging near continuous war on each other. The 2 are unrelated.

[motiv-8]

But it didn't break. Like I said, cut of the head and replace it, that's what the Macedonians did. This isn't a sign of being fragile. If it in any way was fragile, the Macedonians might have thrown away the whole constellation altogether yet they did not, they simply retained the basics of the Persian empire. That it broke under Alexanders successors has little to do with the intrinsic capabilities of the cities, but rather with the successors waging near continuous war on each other. The 2 are unrelated.

I don't see how you can say the two are unrelated. After Alexander died the Persian Empire he controlled broke apart. That's what happened.