Talking about the
military perspective, I have my doubts whether Alexander or even Napoleon should be regarded as most
genius commanders of all time. Napoleon should already be disregarded because he lost
his empire - sounds harsh, but being a real
military genius involves strategy, and somebody who looses a war obviously
had the wrong strategy; no matter how many battles he won. Alexander could heavily draw upon the
work done by
his father and upon
his generals, above all Parmenion. Surely he himself was a strong and inspiring leader, but he also was careless and stubborn, mistrustful and envious, and the longer
his conquest lasted, the more he lost
his grip on reality. Look at
his march through the southern Persian desert, with not even cities to conquer, and where almost half
his army died. "He did because the army
had revolted against him", many historians say - but is that strategy? And who wonders about
his men, revolting after such a long time and thousands of miles of marching and fighting in unkown lands? They
had been told they would fight the
Persian Empire - now they marched for Alexander's glory, not for their country.
Alexander, beyond doubt, is one of the most fascinating rulers of all time; he started
his conquest almost as a
youth, he conquered the world, he died young. But that is just one
side of the
medal. The other
side shows a restless and aimless young
king, not knowing any limits, expanding
his initial goals to the infinite. The world
had to become Alexander, and Alexander the world. It is obvious that if he
had not died that early, he would have failed at some point, be it on conquest of southern
Arabia, or fighting usurpers and invaders, or by the knive of one of
his "friends". People are often blinded by the vast empire he
had conquered, but they tend to overlook the problems that arose, and those that would have arised in the near future.
A real
military genius does not only win the battles, but he has an accurately defined goal he tries to achieve, and he does so by following a strategy. Alexander expanded
his goal to the infinite, and I can not detect any strategy in
his actions other than conquering everyone and everything. Where is the goal of achieving a better
peace for
his own people? Why did he not stop after Dareios got killed? The initial goal of the war - defeating the
Persian Empire and "revenging" the sacrileges of the Persian invasions of the early 5. Century BC -
had been achieved, he could have returned
home in full glory; or he could even have stayed in
Persia ruling both
Persia and
Makedonia. Instead, he decided to march on, to get everything. That desicion made him immortal, but it does not make him a better ruler.
Nevertheless, of course he "deserves" the title "the Great", but I think looking at him as the most
genius military leader of all time is wrong, and so is the perspective of looking at him as the most
genius ruler of ancient times. For Alexander, he was the best, but he was not for
his people.
Restrain from overestimating your own and your people's strength,
work hard in order to achieve the best for your people, and you become a
good ruler. Achieve something unimaginable, die young before it collapses, and you become immortal.
Lars
PS: I apologize for any language mistakes. Talking about coins in a foreign language is one thing, but explaining historical problems in it is a
bit more difficult.