Alexanders Leadership qualities?

[Mark Stieger]

Hi Alexander fans

I am reading the life of Alexander from Plutarch at the moment and im taking some notes on Alexanders personality, as its what i am most interessted in. What i have my eye on at the moment are his leadership qualities. I have been hoping that you could help me and post some here!

thanks in advance
Mark

[marcus]

Hi Alexander fans

I am reading the life of Alexander from Plutarch at the moment and im taking some notes on Alexanders personality, as its what i am most interessted in. What i have my eye on at the moment are his leadership qualities. I have been hoping that you could help me and post some here!

thanks in advance
Mark

Hi Mark,

I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, so this won't be a full response.

You'll get much of what you need from your reading of Plutarch. However, it is fair to say (in my opinion) that there are still various things about Alexander's leadership qualities that are unanswered - particularly about how he was able to get his army to follow him for so long. Clearly much of it is down to his personality and personal charisma, but there isn't really much description of how he exerted these. Plutarch does talk about how he knew so many soldiers' names, would visit the wounded after the battles, etc.; but how he managed to get the men to follow him as far as they did is still something of a mystery.

Still, as I say, Plutarch's got everything you need. If you can find a copy of Plutarch's Moralia, that will also help. Within the Moralia are two essays on Alexander - although how far the stories told in them are true, and how far they are developed as exempli, is a whole academic field in itself!

ATB

[Fiona]

Hi Alexander fans

I am reading the life of Alexander from Plutarch at the moment and im taking some notes on Alexanders personality, as its what i am most interessted in. What i have my eye on at the moment are his leadership qualities. I have been hoping that you could help me and post some here!

thanks in advance
Mark

Robin Lane Fox lays great emphasis on his self-denial, and I think he is onto something there. It's not just the pouring away of the water in the desert, but also the way he won't take his rest at the Oxus until all his men are in, and the way he burns his own possessions first, when it was necessary to lighten the baggage load, and the way he gives up his chair by the fire to a freezing soldier. I'm sure there are other examples too, those were just the first ones that came to mind, but if you are looking at leadership in its broader aspects, and not just giving the right calls in battle, then I think this is the kind of thing that wins people's respect and loyalty.

Fiona

[jan]

Well, I am going to be a bit of a dissenter here. The only person in today's history with which to compare the reasons that Alexander is so fully followed and supported has to be the Queen of England. All monarchs have a built in long history of not only publicity, tradition, and acceptance in their kingdom that there is little doubt that they are followed and accepted at birth.

So the same had to be true of Alexander. His followers accepted him as the rightful successor to his father because he had been acknowledged from birth on til the day of his father's death. Charisma had less to do with it than tradition. The only thing that Alexander's personality and training did was to give him the impetus to assert his own will and determination to do as his father had done and better if he could. People are readily conditioned to accept birthrights in nations which are kingdoms. Macedonia was a kingdom and Alexander a true king.

[marcus]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, Jan. I think the situation is very different.

All monarchs have a built in long history of not only publicity, tradition, and acceptance in their kingdom that there is little doubt that they are followed and accepted at birth.

So the same had to be true of Alexander. His followers accepted him as the rightful successor to his father because he had been acknowledged from birth on til the day of his father's death.

Not so. First of all, Alexander was not "acknowledged from birth on til the day of his father's death" as the next king. For much of the time, yes; but Philip was well within his rights to pass over Alexander - and on a couple of occasions is appears that he might well have done. Whether he ever really intended to pass over Alexander is another matter; but he made it clear that he could, if he wished to.

Secondly, once Philip was dead, Alexander needed the affirmation of the army to make him king, or so the sources suggest. He would not have got this had he not had the charisma and, more importantly, the proven leadership ability. His network of personal friends had a lot to do with it, too. But Alexander becoming had had only partly to do with tradition, and heap to do with his personal qualities, his age, and his friends.

ATB

[Theseus]

I agree with Marcus that there are many unanswered questions to how Alexander did have his men follow him for so long. I think a lot of good points were made that Alexander knew his mens names and treated them well. I know of a story that when they were on their way back to Babylon by way of the desert that food and water were in short stock and when offered food and water Alexander did without as his men did without. A lot of the things we know of Alexander shows that he was a fair man and loved to give to others. I think his men must have seen some qualities in Alexander that made them want to fight for him and to make him proud. He was their King. He is the most successful conqueror for a reason and no others came even close, not even Ceaser.

[Theseus]

I forgot to add that you may want to view the topic "Reasons Alexander Was Great" It's on the first page of topics. http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3127
not sure if the link will work but just look for that title.