Alexander the Great loved comparing himself to the heroes of mythology. He believed that he was destined for greatness and conquest of the known world. His mother, Olympias, instilled in him a sense of divine purpose, and Alexander came to believe that he was the son of Zeus and destined to conquer Persia. This belief was further reinforced when he was proclaimed the son of Zeus-Ammon after visiting the Oracle of Amun at Siwa in Egypt.

When he visited the Oracle at Delphi, the sanctuary was closed. Not taking no for an answer, Alexander reportedly dragged the Pythia, the priestess of Apollo, by her hair until she cried out, “You are invincible, my son!” Satisfied with the response, Alexander is said to have replied, “Now I have my answer.”

The Gordian Knot was another instance of such validation for Alexander that he was destined to become the ruler of Asia. According to the legend, the famous Gordian Knot was formed by fastening the yoke of a wagon to its pole. The wagon had been dedicated to Zeus by a Phrygian ruler named Gordius. According to Arrian, an ancient prophecy stated that whoever succeeded in untying the knot would become the ruler of Asia.

The challenge had reportedly remained unsolved for generations. However, Alexander approached the problem with an unconventional solution. The prophecy did not specify how the knot had to be untied. In the popular version of the story, Alexander drew his sword and sliced through the knot, effectively solving the challenge.

This episode perfectly showcases Alexander’s decisive and bold personality. Rather than allowing himself to be constrained by the conventional interpretation of a problem, he found his own solution and seized the initiative. The same qualities would become hallmarks of his military career, where he frequently took the initiative and dictated the pace of battle.

For more detailed information on the legend of the Gordian Knot and what actually happened at Gordium, please read the full article.

In Chapter 4 of The Prince**, Machiavelli compares centralized and decentralized states, naming the Kingdom of France as a contemporary example of a decentralized state and the Ottoman Empire as an example of a centralized state. He claims that decentralized states are easier to conquer because one can find dissatisfied nobles within the realm as potential allies, but difficult to hold because these nobles continue to be powerful actors who can quickly turn against the new ruler. Centralized states, on the other hand, are supposedly harder to conquer because one will not find any powerful conspirators to ally with, but easier to hold because there is no rival nobility or feudal elite that one needs to deal with.**

He names the Achaemenid Empire as a historical example of a centralized empire and claims that Alexander the Great's successors therefore did not need to worry about internal enemies, as there was no independent nobility that could possibly revolt. Was he correct? What confuses me is that I had always thought that the Persian Empire, apart from the Great King, was governed by several subordinate rulers, called satraps, and that they de facto formed a kind of aristocracy or nobility.

This is my first time posting on this sub, but I just wanted to leave this here as a testament to how much I’d love to be with Alexander the Great had I been alive during his time.

He ascended to the throne at 20 years old. From then on, most of his time was taken up by conquering the world…

However, if he had brief moments throughout the day which he felt like he needed to relax I wish to have been there.

I think there’s something so alluring about his prowess, even if we know little about what he looked like. It almost doesn’t matter to me. I’m deeply attracted to the type of power and youth he exudes.

Being in his proximity would bring me the opportunity to make important decisions and establish myself elsewhere. I understand that those sorts of relationships are almost never monogamous and that’s fine by me.

In another life, I am Roxana.

The Battle of the Persian Gate is the perfect example of how terrain can be used to neutralize the effectiveness of even a superior army in training and numbers. Alexander's army were high on morale and marching towards Persepolis after their victory in Gaugamela. What stood between the mighty Macedonian army and the Persian city was well entrenched forces led by Ariobarzanes.

The Persian Satrap occupied the Persian Gate, a key narrow mountain pass. Having defeated the main Persian army, Alexander did not expect much resistance and marched head on. However, a carefully planned ambush pushed the Macedonians back into a humiliating withdrawal.

The mighty Macedonian Phalanx was torn apart by Persian missile troops attacking them from the top of the hills. They were equipped to handle head on assaults but were vulnerable when attacked from the sides. Alexander's Trump card, the Companion Cavalry could not be deployed due to limited room to maneuver in the choke point.

This encounter proved that a well entrenched and prepared army could take on even the might of Alexander's army if they used the terrain to their advantage. This battle mirrors the battle of Thermopylae where the Persians were unable to breach the Greek defenses for several days.

Alexander had to adapt. He scouted a path through the mountains that led him behind the enemy, again mirroring what happened in Thermopylae. The Persian defence soon collapsed when attacked from both sides and they were unable to capitalise on the delay hard fought in the Persian Gates.

In some documentaries I watch,some people say Mac-eh- donia.Why do they say it like that instead of Mass-eh-donia? People from there do not pronounce it the weird way ,so why do some of these historians?

I’ve been reading about Alexander’s crossing of the Granicus, and I’m having trouble making tactical sense of the traditional account, particularly the Persian deployment.

In Arrian’s version, the Persians have their cavalry positioned along the riverbank while their Greek mercenary infantry is farther back. Alexander then attacks across the river despite Parmenion reportedly advising him to wait. This seems to require two strange decisions: the Persians voluntarily put their cavalry in terrain that severely restricts its mobility, while Alexander voluntarily attempts an opposed river crossing against an already prepared defender.

Could the surviving accounts instead be preserving the *positions in which the armies ended up* without accurately preserving the sequence that produced them?

For example, is the following reconstruction compatible with the evidence:

Alexander reaches the Granicus while the Persian army is still concentrating or deploying. He recognizes that waiting would allow the Persians to establish a much stronger combined-arms river defense, so he begins crossing immediately. The Persian cavalry, able to respond much faster than the infantry, moves to the river to disrupt or contain the Macedonian bridgehead and buy time for the infantry to arrive. What begins as a cavalry delaying/spoiling action then escalates as Alexander commits the Companions to secure the crossing, eventually producing the major cavalry melee described by the sources.

This would seem to explain several otherwise odd features at once: why Persian cavalry is fighting immediately against the riverbank, why the infantry is behind it, why Alexander accepts the risks of crossing immediately, and why Alexander and so many senior Persian commanders become personally involved in the cavalry fighting at the apparent decisive point.

It would also change the interpretation of Alexander’s decision somewhat. Rather than successfully attacking a deliberately prepared but strangely arranged Persian defense, he would be exploiting a temporary opportunity before the Persians could finish concentrating—an aggressive and risky decision that succeeded partly because of the quality of the Macedonian army.

I know Peter Green proposed a substantially different reconstruction involving the timing of the crossing and later backed away from parts of it, and that the surviving accounts of Granicus are difficult to reconcile. Have any historians specifically interpreted the battle as something resembling an **encounter battle or hasty Persian attempt to contain an ongoing Macedonian crossing**? More generally, what evidence prevents or supports this interpretation of the Persian cavalry’s position?

I want to know from everyone here,do you think Parmenion knew or had had anything to do with the attempt on Alexander’s life? He I’ve read article after article that goes either way blaming the other side.

In Anthony Everitt's book "Alexander the Great: His Life and His Mysterious Death," right around the time Alexander killed Cleitus the Black in a drunken rage, there's a story of Alexander killing an "unusually large lion" with his spear while hunting, a common activity engaged in for sport and, of course, food. The lion charged at the king and his bodyguard was ready to react to protect him, but Alexander pushed him aside to show he was capable of killing a lion on his own too, due to the bodyguard's previous encounter with another lion where he killed the beast but almost died himself from a serious shoulder injury. Alexander supposedly slayed the lion with a single spear thrust. This must have been an Asiatic lion, which are smaller than African ones but it's still a lion and who knows what they were like back then.

Exaggerated story or truth?

I just want as much info as I can possibly get on this topic.

Maybe some guy found a Macedonian helmet at x and y coords, or a man made structure was found, crude drawings, "i was here."

Im VERY interested in all of this!

As a king, you should know more than just war and considering that Alexander the Great's empire was unstable and fell the moment he died, he obviously wasn't very good at governing.

He was a behemoth, a titan in terms of military command and if he was just a military commander, I would call him great. But he was not just a military commander, he was an absolute ruler of a kingdom that became an empire.

We say Peter the Great, he fought battles, he defeated Swedish forces and secured trade routes while founding a city. He wasn't as great of a commander as his rival Charles was but he did modernize the armed forces which secured victory over the Swedes.

He modernized his country, took inspiration from more developed countries and laid it into his own.

That is a person deserving of the title "The Great" in my opinion, not Alexander.