Did Alexander have any idea of how to administer the empire he conquered

Alexander was born into greatness in the year 356 B. C. E being the son of King Phillip of Macedon and Olympias of Epirus.

He rose to the throne of Macedonia in 336 B. C. E at just twenty years old, gaining himself a kingdom on the northern border of modern day Greece, as well as inheriting "one of the greatest armies in the world. " (Dell, P. Skelton, D. 2005.

P. 15). During his twelve-year reign his empire expanded greatly having conquered most of the known world to the ancient Greeks, this was (according to Plutarch) more than likely due to Aristotle's encouragement of the geographical limits of the world during Alexander's childhood.Due to Alexander's achievements he is "regarded as one of the greatest military strategists and tacticians who ever lived. " (Wikipedia, 2006) However did Alexander have any idea of how to administer the empire that he conquered? In order to answer this question we have to rely entirely on using secondary sources, as primary sources have inevitably been lost over these many years.

Modern day historians have based their works on "the two remaining major sources, Plutarch and Arrian. " (Heckel, W. Yardley, J. C, 2004, P.

xxiii) Both of these base their understandings of Alexander on earlier works, as there accounts were written hundreds of years later. There are problems due to this such as Arrian's "whitewashing" of Alexander and the fact that their personal opinions very much shape their work.We must also consider the fact that these historians may have filled in the gaps were evidence has been lost. Both sources are however vital in the understanding of Alexander and his achievements. In 334 B. C.

after securing his base in Greece Alexander began his conquest starting with the Persian Empire, which "was divided administratively in to twenty provinces known as satrapies, each governed by a satrap. " (Heckel, W. 2002. P. 22. ) His invasion there was very successful showing his greatness and skill as a military leader.

What is more important to us though is how he dealt with each place once it had been conquered and how he administered them? Alexander was on new ground, "there were no precedents for the administration of the territory he annexed, no system inherited from his father. "(Bosworth, A. B. 1988, P.

229).Therefore one of the biggest questions for Alexander was how to deal with the natives that he had conquered? His first acts were accordingly transporting the captured mercenaries to Macedonia where they were "to redeem themselves by labour and possibly to augment the agricultural workforce. "(Bosworth, A. B. 1988, P.

229). The other Persian mercenaries had no choice but to serve Alexander to the very end, although anyone who was considered too powerful was apparently disposed of, such as the great "Persian landholders. "(1988, P. 45). Acts such as these were very common in Ancient times, and are seen as good administration.

As Alexander was of course depleting his empire of potential enemies therefore ensuring that there was less threat to his rule. Other administration tactics that Alexander used in the Empire he conquered "was to win the respect and cooperation of the native peoples by lenient and generous treatment" (Hammond, N. G. L. 1989. P.

79), such as giving Mithrenes, a Persian commander an honourable position in his entourage. Although according to some he was only lenient "to those who were willing to accept his leadership; for he came both as a liberator and a leader. " (Hammond, N. G.

L. 1989. P. 69).

Though most peoples did give their allegiance to him, especially the Greek cities and their neighbours for they had been liberated from Persian rule. They were still however "not exempted from the taxes and services which were due to Alexander as king. " (Hammond, N. G. L.

1989. Pg79)Another example of how he won over the natives was to increase his legitimacy as their leader such as his adoption by the princess, Ada and his marriage in to the Bactrian nobility. "His choice was Rhoxane, daughter of the Bactrian magnate Oxyartes. "(Bosworth, A. B.

1988, P. 17). Further more he also encouraged his men to take wives from the conquered territories. Such administration tactics were purposely carried out to enable him to integrate himself and his men well in to the newly acquired lands. Alexander's next administrative acts "were simply to place his own men over existing satrapies, preserving the Persian hierarchy of command. "(Bosworth, A.

B. 1988, P. 229) Alexander did however improve upon their system by dividing civil, military and financial powers between different men, which ensured no one man could gain too much power.It also meant there was no direct government needed thus a Macedonian stationed garrison was unnecessary and he was able to use Greek allies and mercenaries for garrison duty and for lines of communication. According to Arrian the mercenary army, which consisted of these Greek men, was some 3,200 strong. (Arrian.

1. 23. 6). Now "as the possessor" of the lands he conquered, "Alexander levied taxes on his subjects" (Hammond, N. G. L.

1989. P. 79) in general though these "payments to him were less than they had been to Persia. " (1989. P. 254) These acts un- doubly show Alexander's great skills in his administration of the lands he conquered.

By simply taking over the Persian administrative system with his own men it meant that the natives were really unaffected as they were already accustomed to it's law, although they perhaps favoured the lower taxes. As A. B. Bosworth says, "the ruler was merely Macedonian and not Persian.

" (1988, P. 229) His administrational skills are further more shown through his organisation of his troops. By placing his own men which he trusted into positions of power he was able to leave these lands with the knowledge that these men would remain loyal to him and be capable to "defend and secure their territory against the Persian counter-offensive. (Bosworth, A.

B. 1988, P. 230)In-fact this is an administrative strategy often used by Alexander, to use men whom he considered trustworthy to run different places and ensure they have a large army to defend his rule. For example he had left Antipater (regent in Macedonia) a defence army in Macedonia that was nearly as powerful as his invasion army, with a nucleus of 12,000 phalanx infantry.

(Diodorus. XVII. 17. 5). Similar strategies of administration, mainly the use of Satraps, can be seen throughout Alexander's empire, for example: Egypt, Babylon and even India.Although Satrapel government was not Alexander's creation he appreciated that it worked well and that it ensured stability amongst his empire.

However in some cases Alexander though it necessary to give satraps other duties as well, such as supervising the finances. According to Diodorus, Nicanor was both satrap and general of Cilicia and may even have been responsible for the payment of the army during the siege of Tyre. (Diodorus. XVIII. 22. 1).

This is evidence of how much Alexander relied upon his men not only for their military skills but also in part to carry out his administration.In-fact Alexander's strong relationship with his troops is shown throughout his conquest especially his relationship with Ptolemy whom he placed as satrap of Egypt. He relied upon his men as much as they did him; it was therefore crucial for him to eliminate anyone who had turned treacherous, as his Empires administration and stability depended upon it. It is reported by Arrian that Alexander was forced to execute Philotas and his father Parmenion on charges of conspiracy against him. (Plutarch.

Al. 5. 1).This ruthless act shows what lengths Alexander was willing to go to, to administer the empire which he conquered, for Philotas had been one of Alexander's long standing friends.

Another aspect of his administration throughout was were possible to work alongside the local kings forming alliances with them. Such places included Byblus and Sidon; they "retained their quasi-independence under the serenity of Alexander" (Bosworth, A. B. 1988, P. 232.

) This meant that Alexander was their leader therefore received taxes from these places but was un-involved in the day to day running of them.This was because Alexander considered the civil administration of some places as less important, as it "could be delegated to subordinates or vested in a native ruler. " (Bosworth, A. B.

1988, P. 230. ). In some places, for instance Babylon, he also "began a practice of appointing local Persian officials to leading positions" (Dell, P.

Skelton, D. 2005, P. 32) This was a wise administration policy used by Alexander as "it meant that uprisings would be less likely, and other Persian satraps would be more willing to surrender if they knew they were likely to be reappointed. (Dell, P.

Skelton, D. 2005, P. 32) In some of the Greek states, were Alexander was known as hegemon (commander of the league for life) similar administration policies were used. States such as Athens "were treated as free as sovereign states.

Thus they issued their own coinage," (Hammond, N. G. L. 1989.

P. 254) as long as they honoured their contractual obligations. Hammond even raises the suggestion that Alexander unlike his father favoured democracy, thus let some like the Lydian people govern themselves.So in affect yes he was their leader but had formed almost an alliance with these people. This meant Alexander was able to concentrate his efforts in expanding his empire.

Other places were however more problematic for him and their "local rulers were coerced into submission. " (Bosworth, A. B. 1988, P.

232. ) Due to this Alexander was forced (in places such as Syria) to use different administration tactics, so he integrated his own Macedonian men to work alongside the native rulers; this tactic would have ultimately insured their stability.There is little evidence, which suggests Alexander had no idea how to administer the empire he conquered. Yes some cities "revoked their submission once Alexander's back had been turned and cooperated in the Persian led resistance after Issus. "(Bosworth, A.

B. 1988, P. 231) Such as in the case of the Paphlagonians, however these changes of submission were few and far between and if one looks at the vastness of Alexander's empire treachery was perhaps un-avoidable in some cases.We cannot let these small factors impede our perception of Alexander and his achievements, as during his twelve-year campaign he was able to conquer an Empire that stretched approximately two million square miles over three different continents.

His methods of control were second to none and ensured stability with in his empire, as he was able to devise appropriate forms of administration in each region. Therefore in answer to our question yes, Alexander was brilliant in administrating the empire he conquered and due to this he is still remembered today more than 2,300 years later as not Alexander of Macedon but Alexander the great!