How good was Alexander the Great as a general?

Jul 2017
2,232
Australia
#21
Yet arguably the most successful, Antigonus, was an officer of Philip, as was Antipater, another huge player. Even Lysimachus appears to have attained his rank under Philip, not Alexander. All three of these men were powerful Diadochi, and all were part of the Old Guard.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,584
Sydney
#24
I don't think Alexander was a very good general ,
He was very inspirational , his men loved him but in battle he was a bruiser ,
 
Aug 2009
138
R'lyeh
#25
Actually, Alexander seems to have not been particularly charismatic. This probably contributed to the trouble he had throughout his reign with assassination attempts and mutinies and other conflicts with the soldiers. His successors seem to have been far more popular among the soldiers than Alexander was. I believe it was Justin who said that the soldiers gradually began to view Alexander as a traitor, and were glad to be rid of him. So basically, probably quite uninspirational and uncharismatic, particularly when compared to his supremely talented and charismatic generals.
 
Aug 2014
3,804
Australia
#26
I don't think Alexander was a very good general ,
He was very inspirational , his men loved him but in battle he was a bruiser ,
By the time he entered India (Pakistan) he was a very capable general. His crossing of the Hydapses is still taught in military colleges today as the ideal way to cross a river held by a hostile force.
 
Aug 2009
138
R'lyeh
#27
Alexander was the head of the army but it was Philip's generals who trained the men, maintained discipline, determined battle plans, and executed them. At the start of the campaign Alexander played very little part in determining battle tactics; he simply agreed with what Philip's far more experienced generals suggested. As time went on he took a greater role.
What, in the ancient sources, do you base this view on?
 
Aug 2014
3,804
Australia
#30
I think the question depends on which Alexander you look at. At the start of the Persian campaign he was only 20 years old. He had fought in a few engagements but he was still lacking confidence and trying to crawl out from under his father's shadow. The initial stage of the Persian expedition had been fully planned by Philip and his generals. Alexander simply adopted the same plan and relied on his father's generals to advise him. By the time he had conquered Persia, Alexander was a very experienced, supremely confident, battle-hardened commander in his own right. This is the Alexander that many think of when writing about him.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions