Alexander the Great

[Atlas14]

Many Macedonians hated Alexander for appointing Persians as regional governors and rulers, and the fact that Alexander began to adopt the Persian wardrobe, and even food. Perhaps this immortalization is in many peoples' heads, but the historians seem to give a good portion of both sides of the story. I never really got the impression in the four books I've read- strictly about Alexander the Great- that there existed a glaring historical bias in favor of him, where facts had been clearly distorted. Actually Alexander came across more as great general and leader who devoted himself to his men and army, and had a passion for conquest. However he did resort to torturing enemies and other savage tactics of war. He wasn't completely loved by all Macedonians, Persians, Greeks, or Egyptians- obviously. I admire him though for his military organization and accomplishments. The Greeks at that time were a whiny bunch, and Alexander sort of "shut them up" for a while to halt any rebellion that might break out against Alexander's puppet rule.

 

[Sidhe]

There is actually a chapter in Machiavelli's "The Prince" in which he explains this with great precision. The Persian Great King had a bureaucracy of satraps (governors) which answered to him. Satraps had no personal authority outside of the monarchy, and therefore nothing to rely upon besides the king. The people of the satrapies (provinces) knew that the satraps were ministers of the king and were replaceable, so that the people essentially answered to the king directly. The Persian Empire was rather benign in that local customs were respected. When Alexander toppled the Persian monarchy, he simply replaced himself as the Persian King, and kept the satrapy system intact (although he replaced some satraps). The satraps had no resources to command of their own, so they could not rise against him. The people had no special loyalty to the satraps because they were nothing but goons to them, nor did they have incentive to revolt, as the King was just a figure to whom they paid taxes. This is why the locals made no effort to revolt. They neither had the incentive, nor the resources, as everything was centralized in the king's domain.

Machiavelli notes that a kingdom that is centralized is hard to conquer, because it can command great resources, but that once conquered, is easily kept. On the other hand, it is far easier to conquer a kingdom that is divided into fiefs, where each regional warlord has his own resources, because there is always some among them who is dissatisfied with the central government, and who may not be willing to fight. Once conquered however, such a state is hard to keep, because each lord will resist with his own resources.

Well I stand corrected but then I am just going on memory it's been a few years since I read about this stuff.

 

[CaptainF]

Bah, Alexander, who cares?

Ghengis Khan, easily the most badass mofo ever.