The Diadochi used a variety of techniques to acquire power after the death of Alexander the Great. The deceased emperor left no clear successor ruler for his empire, the subsequent weak dual monarchy and regency that followed gave the Diadochi time to try to consolidate power for themselves. None of the Diadochi could replicate Alexander 's military brilliance and charisma but they tried their best to emulate him to carve for themselves as large a chunk of territory as possible. For sixteen years they perpetuated the impression of aspiring to restore the empire under the Argead dynasty because many Macedonians greatly admired the family. Only after the Diadochi had sufficiently consolidated their power did they assume the title king in 306 …show more content…
During the Babylon conference following the death of Alexander the army expressed a great loyalty to the Argead dynasty and desire to preserve Alexander 's empire. The Generals Craterus and Meleager were both very popular with the army and used their influence to propose Phillip Arrhidaeus as the new king. Perdiccas was aware of Meleager 's popularity and thus appointed him as Hyparchos to appease the soldiers. At one point Perdiccas incorrectly suspected Ptolemy of aspiring to claim the whole empire, so he marched on Egypt with an army. The expedition failed embarrassingly with many soldiers drowning while trying to cross the nile and they ran out of supplies early. Ptolemy turned these soldiers against Perdiccas by providing them with food and supplies. They then murdered Perdiccas in his tent11. After decades of campaigning with Alexander the macedonian army were tired of fighting and just wanted a reward for their efforts and whichever successor could provide them with the most booty earned their favour12. War was central to the successor 's economies and the resources, allowing them to live in extreme luxury, flaunting their power. It was not mearly the fruits of war that commanded authority but also skill in waging war and military bravery. For Example in 317 at the battle of Paraitakene Antigonus and Eumenes both charged into battle in the front lines of their armies13. In …show more content…
The Emperor had been vague about who should be his successor, the only two obvious biological candidates were either too young or mentally incapable. This resulted in a long period of regency with a weak dual monarchy. This gave the diadochi time to try to consolidate power for themselves. Alexander 's military brilliance and charisma were difficult for the successors to emulate and they lacked his grand ambitions. However they still tried their best to mimic him in order claim as large a chunk of power and territory as possible. Under the guise of preserving the unity of the empire and Argead rule, the successors formed coalitions to oppose anyone who looked like they were about to take full control of state, however they really wanted power for themselves. For many years the Diadochi perpetuated the illusion of wanting to restore the empire under the Argead dynasty out of loyalty. Many macedonians maintained great respect for Alexander 's family and it was essential to appease these admirers. Only after the diadochi had sufficiently consolidated their power did they assume the title king in 306 and 305. Military success itself was essential for maintaining authority but also for acquiring the treasure needed to buy the soldier 's favour and make grandiose gestures of wealth such as feasts to demonstrate their power. The successors paid great attention to
Alexander adopted Persian governing practices, but he had little use for Persian culture. According to his Greek biographer Plutarch, he considered himself "a governor from God and a reconciler of the world." He hoped that Greek culture would, through his actions, permeate all of Asia, inspiring its peoples to pursue virtue, excellence, and truth. This heroic idealism blended with practicality in his plan to develop the Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus rivers as commercial waterways linking all of Asia These undertakings promised to be long and difficult, however, and Alexander was an impatient man. His soldiers' unwillingness to proceed past the Indus was a great disappointment to him, for which he compensated by throwing his own festivals and celebrations. Alexander showed early leadership qualities. When King Phillip invaded Thrace, he left Alexander in charge of Macedonia at the age of 16. During his father's absence, one of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi, rebelled. Alexander was able to mobilize an army and put down the rebellion. In 336 B.C, Alexander's father was assassinated, putting Alexander on the throne at the age of 20. Shortly after this, Alexander left Macedonia with his armies to put down rebellions in the countries of Illyria, Thrace and Greece, all of which had previously been conquered by King Phillip. Alexander then moved his armies into Asia Minor and began to conquer the peoples there. Among the countries conquered by Alexander were Syria, Phoenicia and
Demosthenes and Isocrates came to prominence in fourth century B.C.E. Athens as public speakers and as politicians. Isocrates was a teacher of rhetoric, or the art of public speaking, while Demosthenes was a professional litigator, writing speeches for clients arguing in the courts of law, and occasionally presenting arguments himself. Both men were highly respected citizens and opinion makers throughout the sphere of influence maintained by Athens, though they held opposing views regarding the proper course for Athenian government, warfare between the Greek city-states, and the prospect of invasion from the Persian Empire to the east. While the Greek city-states engaged in fratricidal warfare, Philip of Macedon began consolidation of his political power by essentially offering up his highly trained professional Macedonian army as mercenary soldiers to the various city-states requesting assistance or protection and demanding control as hegemon or monarch of the city-state in return for military aid. Following a declaration of truce, Philip would impose his rule upon the vanquished as well.
Alexander began his military campaign and his rule much where his father left off. Whether or not it was his aim, this created a sense of normality for the men that was part of his father’s regime. Alexander’s position as a warrior-king who stood side-by-side among his men also served to create respect among his peers. Gradually, as Alexander conquered more Persian land, he began to adopt the policies of Persian rulers. Alexander’s change in policy extended beyond just political roles, he gave consideration to the local gods in many of the lands that he conquered. Eventually, Alexander brought people in from the conquered nations to serve under him.
Having a bad day can seem daunting, perhaps causing feelings like nothing can go right regardless of what you do. This seems to be the case in “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.” No matter what Alexander does, the day just doesn’t get better. From breakfast all the way to bed time, Alexander is miserable. Many things that Alexander experiences are avoidable through a better outlook on life and proper parenting.
Alexander the Great was only 20 years when his father Philip of Macedon died. Even though he was a young man, he had an unusual talent for politics and military tactics. After his father’s death, Alexander moved to continue Philip’s invasion of Persia. In the ten years of his war campaigns, Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world. (Judge & Langdon, 2012.)
Alexander is the son of King Philip of Macedonia and Queen Olympias. We see Alexander's daily life and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias and his tutor Aristotle, where he finds interest in love, honor, music, exploration, poetry, and military combat. Young Alexander impresses his father by taming an intractable horse, but both mother and son are banished from the kingdom, Olympias advising her son to seize the throne before Philip has him murdered. As things work out, Philip is murdered, and Alexander rules Macedonia. (BBC)
In document E it states “Years that it took Alexander to build his empire-11 Years that Alexander’s empire held together after his death-10” Alexander the “great” doesn’t show any intelligence because he forgot to make a will with an heir for his empire leaving it confused and aggressive because no one knew who was going to rule. Many small government officials took pieces of land changing the laws and affecting the citizens in big ways. Ten years later the empire fell apart leaving people with many burdens. Alexander left his empire after he died in a big mess, hoping someone could help it. This was unsmart because even though death might not be expected, it is always important to create a will with as much at stake as there was in Alexander’s situation. In summary, Alexander was not smart because he wasn’t able to think ahead to help his empire stay strong.
In Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War the Athenian Empire started out with just intentions, but once they had a taste for power they did whatever it took to obtain more, even if they had to take it by force. Over time the Athenian Empire became ruled by individuals acting with the sole purpose of furthering their own self-interests at any cost, which led to the empire becoming more amenable to the use of force as a means to get what they desired. One such instance where someone in the Athenian Empire was more than willing to use force to get what he or she wanted was during the Mytilenenian dialogues. The Athenian colony of Mytilene attempted to rebel against Athenian rule but when they failed their fate rested on the outcome of the debate between Diodotus and Cleon. Thucydides refers to Cleon as the “most violent man in Athens” and he demonstrates how he earned that name when he suggests that the Athenians kill every man of fighting age and enslave the rest. Cleon then says, “Give these people the punishment they deserve… show them that the penalty for rebellion is death” (Thucydides, p. 70-71) because he believes that this show of power and force will dissuade other colonies under Athenian rule from thinking about rebellion. Fortunately for the Mytilenians Athens did not use force in this
The son of Philip II, Alexander the Great, will become the conqueror of the western world. Alexander received the Macedonian empire when his father passed, he was only twenty at the time. As soon as he had the power of the Macedonian army, several lightning fast campaigns led them into the west and north. Next, he compelled the city-states that rebelled against the League of Corinth. This action demonstrated how Alexander punished disloyalty [Martin 244]. Alexander was able to keep his rule on the territories he conquered by rewarded the cities who recognized his powers and punished the individuals that betrayed his trust or ambitions. The power he possessed depended on his superior force and his unwillingly desire to use it [Martin 245]. The
Alexander the Great is hailed, by most historians, as “The Great Conqueror” of the world in the days of ancient Mesopotamia. “Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BCE. His parents were Philip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and Alexander inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom. He quickly dealt with his enemies at home and reasserted Macedonian power within Greece. He then set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire” (Web, BBC History). It is important to note, which will maybe explain his brutal actions, that Alexander was only twenty years old when he became the king of Macedonia. “When he was 13, Philip hired the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be Alexander’s personal tutor. During the next three years Aristotle gave Alexander training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy, all of which became of importance in Alexander’s later life” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). “In, 340, when Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and invaded Thrace, he left his 16 years old son with the power to rule Macedonia in his absence as regent, but as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled and posed a danger to the country. Alexander assembled an army, led it against the rebels, and with swift action defeated the Maedi, captured their stronghold, and renamed it after himself to Alexandropolis. Two years later in 338 BC, Philip gave his son a commanding post among the senior gener...
Thucydides set out to narrate the events of what he believed would be a great war—one requiring great power amassed on both sides and great states to carry out. Greatness, for Thucydides, was measured most fundamentally in capital and military strength, but his history delves into almost every aspect of the war, including, quite prominently, its leaders. In Athens especially, leadership was vital to the war effort because the city’s leaders were chosen by its people and thus, both shaped Athens and reflected its character during their lifetimes. The leaders themselves, however, are vastly different in their abilities and their effects on the city. Thucydides featured both Pericles and Alcibiades prominently in his history, and each had a distinct place in the evolution of Athenian empire and the war it sparked between Athens and Sparta. Pericles ascended to power at the empire’s height and was, according to Thucydides, the city’s most capable politician, a man who understood fully the nature of his city and its political institutions and used his understanding to further its interests in tandem with his own. After Pericles, however, Thucydides notes a drastic decline in the quality of Athenian leaders, culminating in Alcibiades, the last major general to be described in The Peloponnesian War. While he is explicit in this conclusion, he is much more reticent regarding its cause. What changed in Athens to produce the decline in the quality of its leadership?
While the Gods were a very important aspect of the Greeks, so was war and militaristic power. These values can be seen in Thucydides The Funeral Oration of Pericles, which explains a battle of the Peloponnesian War. "And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil".
The death of Pericles was a significant event in the course of the Peloponnesian War; however, even without Pericles' leadership the Athenian Assembly had countless opportunities to prevent their loss and chose not to take them. The fickleness and inefficiency of democracy ('the mob') allowed the Athenians to be easily influenced and therefore electing populists such as Cleon, Lysicles and Hyperbolus into dominant leadership roles. Election, via democratic means, of such populists, meant that the Athenians would take a much more aggressive approach to the war and therefore abandon the policies that Pericles had previously established. So in turn, democracy the institution for which the Athenians fought tirelessly to protect, rather than the death of Pericles, ironically became the dominant factor influencing the final outcome of this Ancient Greek civil war.
As a ruler, Alexander the Great had aspirations to stretch his empire from coast to coast through a variety of measures. Those tactics included military action as well as conveying his terms and allowing people to accept them and surrender to him. His malleability came into play when the places he sought to conquer did not accept to his terms. This can be seen when Alexander and his army were fighting to overrun the Persian Army. After being informed of another route by a captive, “the king and his tropes filed down into the gorge to arrive behind the Persian lines”. This was a different tactic of war that the Persian had never seen because no one was able to find the alternative route. Due to Alexander’s quick thinking and ability to adapt to the place where he was fighting, the Macedonian army gained the upper hand over the Persians. His malleability can also be seen in the battle of the Elephants where Alexander was put up against a strategy he had never faced prior to the battle in 326 BCE. Alexander did a good job of counteracting what the Indian army felt would be an unbeatable force. He “planned to restrict the creatures’ space as much as possible, forcing back the Indian cavalry”. His ability to think fast and change his army’s attack plans helped the Macedonian army come out of battle successful, not only in the
Have you ever wondered why Alexander from Macedonia is called Alexander the Great. According to history, it is because he is the most glorious general in the history who conquered Persia, Greece, Egypt and Babylon in a very inexperienced age. He became the commander of Macedonian armies at age eighteen and the king of Macedonia at age twenty. After six years of preparation, he conquered the great Persian empire. Unfortunately, he died at age thirty-three. He would have conquered many lands if he hadn’t died at a such young age. He was a legend and an icon for great kings like Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, and Pompey. World’s most famous generals tried to compete with him but they couldn’t accomplish. After years, his tomb