Is it possible to discern the aims of Alexander the Great?
King Alexander of Macedon is famously known for his undoubted military success which saw him expand his empire from the eastern Mediterranean into the relatively unknown area which is now modern day India. As a result of this legendary campaign, a new era was born as the previous differences of East and West were set aside in what became known as the hellenisation of the East. However, schools of history have since debated whether the greatness of Alexander is reserved just for his military success, or if it extends to his vision of a pan Hellenic world. According to Plutarch, a second century biographer who based his account on Cleitarchus’ report, Alexander had sought to be “a governor from God and a reconciler of the world; using force of arms against those whom he failed to bring together… and by reason, he united peoples of the most varied origin”. Claims such as these suggest that Alexander had clear aims of hellenising the East when he set out for his campaign. These are supported by the manner in which he incorporated other cultures into his own persona as a means of uniting an empire. By these views it is fair to argue that Alexander’s objectives were clearly intent on Hellenising the East. However, while there is no doubt that to some extent Asia was Hellenised, historians such as J.R Hamilton dismiss that Alexander “consciously aimed at promoting this”. This is supported by Hammond who declares that “He (Alexander) saw the destiny of Macedonia as victory in war, and he made military glory the object of his ambitions”. Therefore it is also fair to assess the view that the hellenisation process was an indirect result of Alexander’s initial intention; glory.
For the “personal glory” theory to be considered as Alexander’s true aim there must firstly be plausible reasoning behind such analysis. Most historians of this school of thought underpin Alexander’s competitive nature as his main driving force to conquering Asia. Hammond states that “Alexander himself believed that he must compete with Phillip, Cyrus the Great and Heracles and surpass them all”. Indeed the affiliation with his father in particular is what Hamilton decrees as the main instigator behind Alexander’s search for distinction as “he complained Phillip’s successes would leave nothing for him to accomplish”. This spirited but aggressive trait is shown clearly throughout Alexander’s life, in such examples as his reckless cavalier charge at the battle of Granikos (334BC) and the fact that he was only stopped from continuing his campaign by the mutiny of his own soldiers. Alexander’s competitive feature is briefly evaluated by Arrian who remarked “if he had added Europe to Asia, he would have competed with himself in default of any rival”. The historian Paul Cartledge expands this argument when studying further Alexander’s fixation with the Homeric novels “For Alexander personally embodied to the utmost degree the Homeric injunction ‘always to be the best and excel all others’”. It is clear from this that Alexander saw himself as a man of destiny who wanted to eclipse the achievements, set by his childhood heroes from the Iliad. His obsession with his dynasty (“his wish to consult the oracle here (Temple of Ammon), as it had a reputation of infallibility…Heracles was supposed to have consulted it!”), and his determination to do symbolic actions such as the “untying” of the Girondian knot and the founding of over seventy cities (as recorded by Plutarch) clearly portrays a man who is obsessed with achieving an almost transcendent legacy. At this point it is becoming more apparent that Alexander’s aims were motivated by this search to fulfil his destiny and become revered as a god rather than seeking to build this new Hellenised world. However such reasoning is diluted when considering as Hamilton states that Alexander’s campaign was an outcome of the continuation of Phillip’s policy. Alexander’s initial actions were simply an attempt to reaffirm his position as the death of Phillip had caused much unrest. He then followed his father’s policy (constructed by Isocrates) as Hegemon to free the Ionian Greeks from their Persian tyranny. Indeed Ian Worthington asserts that “Alexander probably did not aim to march as far East as he did… and it was presumed that once Alexander achieved it (Isocrates’ plan) he would return home”. This shows that Alexander’s original aim was to consolidate the empire he had inherited. In reality it was only after he had done this that he realised his competitive dreams could be satisfied as the success of his military campaign had given him inspiration and the need to raise revenue to maintain his army decided for him that he must continue his campaign. Evidently therefore it is assessable to view Alexander and his aims as expedient and pragmatic as essentially he did what he felt he needed to do as opposed to following his own ambitions.
