It is, of course, the hero of Alexander the Great,
but why break chairs?
N. V. Gogol, "The Inspector General"
Antiquity gave mankind many great personalities who had a huge impact on the subsequent history of mankind. One of such personalities who became famous in the field of military affairs is Alexander the Great. And this is not surprising: none of the commanders living after him achieved so much in such a short time. Alexander conquered vast territories, conquered almost all the major powers of his time, covering himself with unfading glory.
However, if you take a sober look at its history and compare some facts, it turns out that everything is not at all as unambiguous as many imagine. There are more questions to the strategic talents of the Macedonian and the reliability of his actions than answers.
Moreover, questions begin in such seemingly distant from military affairs as the circumstances of the death of the hero. He did not die in battle, although, thanks to his quick-tempered nature, he could do it more than once. Alexander, often forgetting about everything, rushed into the fray, from which he had more than seven severe wounds and many light ones.
The cause of Alexander's death was never established. Which, to say the least, is strange, given the many doctors, scribes, friends and girlfriends around him. There are five versions of death alone: from overwork and injury to alcoholism and fever. The most mysterious thing is that all historians, as if by agreement, do not even deny the version of the poisoning, but do not talk about it at all.
But there is one interesting circumstance. According to the official history, Alexander had four most trusted generals with whom he planned all his military operations. These were Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Seleucus. Subsequently, they will be called "diadochi", that is, the successors of Alexander. They will divide his state into four parts and become kings of each of these lands. But all this will be a little later.
Promotional video:
One of the diadochi, Ptolemy, immediately after the death of Alexander did the following: using his connections, he stole his body, quickly mummified it, and with his faithful parts proceeded to Egypt, of which he became king. At the same time, Alexander's mummy was irrefutable evidence that it was to him that Alexander "bequeathed" to rule Egypt. Particularly piquant is the fact that the internal organs of the Macedonian (which also had to undergo mummification) mysteriously disappeared. That is, Ptolemy deliberately hid all the evidence that could indicate the king's poisoning.
Ptolemy "snatched" the most tasty morsel of the Macedonian heritage. The remaining three diadochs were already sharing the remains from the royal table. However, it did not come to open hostility at this stage, it will also be somewhat later.
Of interest are the methods of war used by Alexander. All ancient historians present Alexander's campaigns as a series of continuous victories and unprecedented successes. In reality, everything was a little more prosaic. In fact, Alexander won two major battles: at Issus and at Gaugamela. Both battles were with the army of the Persians, to which these or those allies were adjacent. In both cases, the numerical superiority was on the side of the Persians. And in both cases, Alexander's success was accompanied not so much by his military genius as by the complete mediocrity of his opponent, Tsar Darius III.
In the battle of Gavgamela, in general, the Macedonian army was actually defeated, but the fantastic stupidity of Darius, who fled from the battlefield, banal did not allow the Persians to finish the rout of the Macedonian army.
All other successes in the capture of cities, fortresses and entire provinces had nothing to do with military science at all - cities and fortresses were banally bribed. "A donkey with a sack of gold can take any city" - this aphorism, authored by Alexander's father, Philip II, was used by his son to the fullest.
By the way, about my father. To understand what kind of family Alexander came from, you need to talk a little about his unforgettable dad. Philip II lived the full-blooded life of a king who is allowed everything. For 20 of the 23 years of his reign, he was engaged in war, along the way satisfying all his whims and desires. Only the king had nine official wives, not to mention the numerous mistresses and concubines. But the tsar had few women: he lived with men without any embarrassment, appointing to his lovers any "tasty" positions: from court steward to head of security. Wines, nectars and other entertainment drinks in the palace flowed like a river, fortunately, the money received from the captured Greek cities, Philip had at least a dime a dozen. It seemed that the king's hobbies would undermine his health, but no - Philip lived for a long time in spite of his enemies and would have lived for many more years,if not for jealousy on the basis of homosexuality. He was killed by a certain Pausanias, his bodyguard and former lover.
Alexander fully adopted his father's lifestyle. Wherever he was, he did everything with great pomp and an irrepressible appetite. The parable about the Gordian knot perfectly demonstrates the hot temper of the young king and his unwillingness to understand the problem too deeply. In his justification, it can be noted that, despite numerous attempts to present Alexander as a homosexual (which is the sin of many modern historians and cultural figures), no one has ever cited any mention of Alexander's connections with men. With women - yes, Alexander's hikes were not so much conquering as entertaining and more like trips to sex tours. Let us recall at least the story of Alexander and Thais of Athens, when, in order to escape from sexual pleasures, Alexander had to burn the whole city. But he did not have male lovers.
But the most interesting thing in the case of Alexander the Great is the complete absence of descriptions of his campaigns made by his contemporaries. This is also very strange considering the fact that the army of the Macedonians was accompanied by a whole staff of scribes and historiographers.
Someone Hareth from Mytilene wrote “The History of Alexander” in as many as ten volumes, however, a detailed analysis of the work does not allow attributing it to historical works. Firstly, it completely lacks chronology, that is, the events are arranged chaotically in the books, and, secondly, the work itself resembles a collection of anecdotes and tales of military service of that time. A sort of "Adventures of the gallant soldier Schweik", only in the ancient Greek era. The philosopher Onesikritus, taken by Alexander on a campaign, also wrote his book about the campaigns of Macedon. However, it tells more about the beasts and birds of the conquered lands than about Alexander. And so on and so forth. More than a dozen "intellectuals" traveling with the army of that time wrote about anything on the campaigns, except for the description of the campaigns themselves and the role of the "commander-in-chief" in them.
But, excuse me, what about the official, so to speak, staff historiographers? There were such. All historical aspects directly related to the army were supervised by a certain Callisthenes, the official staff historiographer of the army. However, by some tragic accident, he was executed on conspiracy charges, and all his writings mysteriously disappeared. Later, some impostor took the name of Callisthenes and published the allegedly preserved works of the first, executed Callisthenes, in which he already painted the image of Alexander as a genius commander, although they most likely had nothing to do with the original.
The image of the "great commander" was introduced into the official history by one of the diadochi, Ptolemy. It was he who published the first works in which he described the "military genius" of Macedon. All subsequent works of Greek and Roman historians used the creation of Ptolemy as a basis for their works. Some kind of strange fame, isn't it? This lack of chronicles has given and gives rise to many historians to doubt that Macedonia owes all of its achievements to Alexander alone.
What is the result of the squeezed residue? One thing can be said with certainty: Alexander the Great really existed, but he was a completely different person than we are all used to thinking. In the language of modernity, it was a "media personality", a kind of boy-major, behind which stood several large clans, represented by four diadochi. It was these people who were engaged in the expansion of Macedonia, hiding behind the name of Alexander, whose extravagant disposition was an excellent disguise for the dark deeds of the oligarchy of that time.
These people perfectly understood that in the West (where the Roman Republic already existed, from which Macedonia always suffered defeat) they had nothing to catch, so they directed their forces to the East. Which is perfectly confirmed by history: less than 150 years have passed since not a trace remained of Macedonia and Greece - they were conquered by Rome. Egypt lasted longer, almost 300 years. And what Seleucus left for himself (Mesopotamia, Central Asia and a piece of India), the Romans could not "digest".