What were his goals?

[Maria]

I need to know what were alexander's goals, did he acheive them and what was his legacy? Can some help me!!!

[Celeste]

He had many, but the one that stands out for me was his dream to establish an international cooperative-empire, where there were no Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Scythians, but "Alexandrians" sharing a common brotherhood. You may want to read J.F.C Fuller's "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" to start (so far my favorite modern writer of Alexander). Then go to the empirical resources of Quintus Curtius, Diodorus, Arrian, and Plutarch: these are some I have read so far. Hope this helped.

[marcus]

Just to shove a spoke into the wheel, I personally don't think that this 'brotherhood of man' idea was one of his goals, but one that has been assigned to him by later writers. His goals were, first of all, conquest, and secondly (inspired at a later stage) to extend the boundaries of his empire (which involved, guess what? Conquest <g>). There was surprisingly little integration of Greeks, Macedonians and Persians, but when Alexander began to integrate more, later in the campaigns, it was for the simple reason that, now he had this huge empire, he had to start using its resources, particularly as he had been draining Macedonian manpower for the past few years and couldn't maintain a large enough, and strong enough force without drafting in more men from wherever he could get them. It was for purely practical reasons that he started training the epigonoi, not for altruistic ones.
All the best
Marcus

[Tre]

Sorry Marcus, I have to disagree. This is a modern scholarly theory which does not rest any more soundly on facts than the unfortunately named "Brotherhood of Man" theory. The dynamics of the army and Macedonian culture prevented Alexander from putting the Greeks and Persians more forward than any perceived "Ah ha, I knew he really didn't like the Greeks and Persians," theory. Ditto the Philotas was framed theory, Alexander murdered his father, etc. etc. One has to be careful when assuming a modern scholarly view is necessarily a correct one. So alas, I bow to the sources on this one, rather than Badian, Bosworth, Green et al.

[NickWelman]

I know this might be 'controversial', but from everything I read Alexander had just one goal: to become the Great King of Persia. Peter Green writes that Alexander thought Greece and Macedonia were expendable. The fact that he chose Babylon as his capital (why not Pella?) is also a sign. In the end Macedonia became part of an empire ruled from Babylon - Persia did not become part of an empire ruled from Macedonia. Ha ! He wanted to throw off the robe of Macedonian kingship and chance it for the crown of Persia.
Persian kingship was stabilized by an interwoven network of family relations - established by intermarriage. Important satraps were linked to the king by family ties. The mass weddings at Susa had the same effect: all important marshalls of Alexander became related to Alexander and to eachother by their Persian marriages. Hephaestion became Alexander's brother in law. As I see it, Alexander tried to recreate that same 'glue' that had held Persia together for over two centuries.
Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

Ah, well, we'll have to agree to disagree <g>. But remember that not all the ancient writers ascribe to the Brotherhood of Man theory anyway and, as you say, one view has no sounder basis than the other.
All the best
Marcus

[marcus]

Sorry, to add to this one - I never said that Alexander didn't like the Greeks and Persians, I just said that he was motivated by practical rather than romantic requirements. If he didn't use Greeks and Persians (and any others from the conquered territories - Oxyartes and Porus, for example) then there was no way he was going to hold on to his conquered territories.
All the best
Marcus

[Tre]

I know this might be 'controversial', but from everything I read Alexander had just one goal: to become the Great King of Persia. Peter Green writes that Alexander thought Greece and Macedonia were expendable.
Then why bother sending Craterus back to Pella with troops? And did not his mother and sister live there? I think Green paints with far too broad a stroke.
The fact that he chose Babylon as his capital (why not Pella?) is also a sign.
Pella was too far away from which to rule his empire. That he did not mean for Macedonia to be his center of government is plain enough. But that he foresoke Macedonia is not so plain.
In the end Macedonia became part of an empire ruled from Babylon - Persia did not become part of an empire ruled from Macedonia. Ha !He wanted to throw off the robe of Macedonian kingship and chance it for the crown of Persia.
Persia and Macedon were part of an empire ruled by Alexander would be more correct. He placed himself far above being just "Great King of Persia."
Persian kingship was stabilized by an interwoven network of family relations - established by intermarriage. Important satraps were linked to the king by family ties. The mass weddings at Susa had the same effect: all important marshalls of Alexander became related to Alexander and to eachother by their Persian marriages. Hephaestion became Alexander's brother in law. As I see it, Alexander tried to recreate that same 'glue' that had held Persia together for over two centuries.
This is also Macedonian custom, and certainly the Argead way of doing things. If all Alexander intended to do was hold Persia as part of his empire, there is no reason for the mass marriages, hence the 'romantic' part that Marcus refers too. Alexander never did anything for just one reason The Diadochi would later prove the fact the marriages were not necessary, except to Alexander himself.

Regards -
Nick

[Kit]

As you can see from the preceding postings this is very much an ongoing debate.
To add to what has already been stated it is worth considering whether or not the pursuit of personal 'glory' was the primary driving force in Alexander's motives?
His 'hero' was Achilles (hardly a team player) and it may well be that for Alexander the 'glory' of the conquering outweighed the practicalities of the consolidation of conquest. Anything that enhanced Alexander's personal renown would have been motivation enough.
Regards,
Kit.

[maciek]

I'd like to add a little to this debate. I think that we should remember that Alexander was very young man and above all he could think in romantic way. We can see it in many diferent moments during his conquest as before the Gaugamella wen he refused to attack during the night because it would not be clean and obvious victory. I think that he was romantic man deep in his hart but as a king he had many problems like young age - old soldiers didn't respect him enough sometimes what is vwery hard to accept for a king wich have to rule so great empire.

[marcus]

These are certainly good points. The business of Alexander's refusal to attack at night is worthy of debate: was it from an idealistic notion of fair play etc., or was it because he couldn't afford to have anything that detracted from a clear victory (because, as you point out, he was young with a reputation to build and maintain). These things aren't, of course, mutually exclusive, which makes the whole issue even more interesting!
All the best
Marcus

[maciek]

Of course I don't think he was ideal - he made many mistakes and even mor than mistakes (killing Parmenio and above all killing Kleistos), but I belive that his goals was pure. Look at his place of growing and people near him in those times. I think he posed as a hero from his books (Heracles) and he didn't want to do anything to break this viev. But his expedition was so difficult so he became more realistic but still menaged to rule how he intended from the start.
P.S. There are so many things about it that it is hard to include it in so short form. Do You know some pleace where we can speak more fluently like chat or something.

[marcus]

Absolutely - no-one is perfect, not even Alexander.
However, I don't think that killing Parmenio was a mistake. We might, with our modern morals etc. think it was "not a good thing to do", but from Alexander's viewpoint it was absolutely necessary - he had just had Parmenio's son executed and Parmenio himself was in command of a large force of soldiers, in a position where he could completely cut Alexander off from the west. In short, had Parmenio been allowed to live, there was a very good chance that Alexander could have been destroyed. Whether or not Parmenio was himself actually guilty of treason, his officers clearly accepted the explanation that he was, and the potential situation was diffused. In this case, Alexander knew exactly what he was doing - whether he manipulated events to provide justification is another question entirely.
As for Kleitos, it was not an intentional killing, but one could argue that it was not an ill-advised one - again, an interesting discussion could rest on this.
All the best
Marcus

[maciek]

Of course I agree. He had no other choice I ment that it doesn't fit to romantic hero but of course he was not a fiction and he had to do what was nessesary. It's just sad that he had to kill one of greatest commanders and not only in his army but also in his fathers army. But as I'va told it was such a extrime situation. As about Kleistos - Plutarchus said that Kleistos wanted to defend Macedonians rights as they were basis of his Army and they was most loyal to him. But in other sources I've found little Alexander justification - that Kleistos was very drunk and he just wanted to start the fight because of his new style of rulling (Asiatic). His guiltines is not so clear in bouth cases and that is only few so confusing points in all his life that is why I so admire him.
Best regards and It's funtastic to speak about ATG with someone with so great knowledge.

[marcus]

I think you have a good point when you say that none of the sources is clear about Alexander's guilt in the killing of Kleitos. It is another of those situations that makes discussion difficult because of modern morals - in our eyes, *nothing* (hopefully) justifies killing a man - whether it is perceived as murder or manslaughter. It certainly wasn't a case of "accidental death" or "death by misadventure". As part of this, it is difficult to say that "Kleitos brought it upon himself", although at least one of the sources uses that argument to justify Alexander's action. However, by the ethics of the age, the actual act of killing is not perceived as appalling.
A big can of worms!
All the best
Marcus