Alexander the Great as a Leader - Research Paper Example

How Was Alexander the Great as a Leader? I. Introduction Alexander the Great was able to conquer all the known world during his time and defeated his enemies whose armies were many times larger than his. To impress this achievement to the modern mind, such achievement was like conquering the whole world under the leadership of one man. Clearly, this achievement would not have been possible had Alexander’s leadership was ordinary. It seemed he was born to lead for he was already king at age 20 and was seen as god before his death at the age of 32 whose influence still reverberates until today. Having achieved this much with such a relative short life, we cannot help but wonder, “how was Alexander the Great as a leader?” To better understand how was Alexander the Great as leader, it would be necessary to know the man. Alexander the Great in brief Alexander the Great was born in royalty. He was born of a Macedonian King Philip II and Queen Olympias. He was educated by the best teachers and was taught how to read, ride, play the lyre, fight and hunt. His best education came from Aristotle, one of the greatest philosopher of all time. The training that Alexander the Great received from Aristotle had a tremendous influence in his later conquests and it has been said that it contributed much in the success of his military conquests1 (Foster 2001, 44). Alexander the Great was also exposed early on how to lead troops in combat. At age of 17, Alexander the Great already led troops towards victory against the combined forces of Athens and Thebes. At 20, he was already king when his father Philip II was assasinated by his own men. He began his conquest in 334 B.C. when he commenced a 12 year journey during which he traveled 22,000 miles and conquered modern day Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India to the Indus River2 (Team Trek Series). During this campaign, he defeated armies four to five times his size as he cross deserts and 15,000 foot peaks in freezing weather, facing incredible hardships to unite the known world under one common vision3. During these conquests, he also managed to have himself named the pharaoh of Egypt and conquered all of Asia, calling himself the “Lord of Asia”4. II. The Leadership of Alexander the Great Alexander was able to achieve this feat as a result of a combination of several characteristics that distinguished him from other leaders. In addition to being trained early to become a leader and a king, Alexander had inherent personal qualities that made him conquer all known world during his time. As a leader, Alexander the Great was; a. Self-confident. Perhaps even extremely but it served him well. Alexander the Great truly believed that he was a descendant of the gods (i.e. Hercules) that he thought he was invincible and this was displayed in the battlefield when he led his troops. This confidence was contagious that inspired his men to have faith in themselves which was instrumental in winning battles. This was manifested in Alexander the Great’s second confrontation with the army of Darius at the mountain pass of Issus where Darius outnumbered Alexander’s army. Out of sheer faith of Alexander’s army in him, his soldiers were able to defeat Darius army in a fierce hand to hand combat5 (Cohen 1983, 50). Alexander the Great also did not accept perceptions of his environment as limitations to be accommodated. Perceived problems were reframed into alternative problems, which were then to be solved6 (Kurke 2004, 4). As a concrete example, “any special defiance, or any reputedly impossible problem, he took as a personal challenge, and fell upon it with especial ardour. The Gordian Knot yielded when he slid the yoke sideways out of it-and revealed many rope-ends, not only two7” (Burns 1965, 140). b. Visionary. According to Kurke, “truly great leaders change the world around them. They instill in their followers a cohesive identity and clear purpose8” (2004: IX). Alexander the Great did not only exemplify this when he changed the world around him but he also united his men to share his purpose. Alexander the Great and his men was united under one common ground of purpose of uniting Europe and Asia under what he called the The Brotherhood of Man9 (Team Trek). As a result, his men thought of great things and accomplished them with passion, enthusiasm and commitment10. This translated to their seeming invincibility in the battlefield and indefatiguability in long marches they undertook in conquering countries after countries as they marched 22,000 miles from Macedonia into the modern day Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India to the Indus River. As a leader, Alexander the Great was able to tap into the hopes and aspirations of his soldiers and created a destination that not only inspires but also challenges them to be better and find their place in furthering their common vision11. This was manifested in Alexander’s phalanxes which the enemy thought to be invincible for it fight with tenacity that it can defeat an army many times over its size in an open field. c. Excellent strategist. This was a product of Alexander the Great’s excellent training from the best teachers available during his time. He was a well rounded individual and this enabled him to better craft strategies that made him victorious in his battles. Alexander the Great was adept at what experts called the “the strategy of indirect approach-keeping the enemy guessing, just when and at what angle the advancing force is going to turn directly against him12” (Burn, 1965:141). d. Hands-on leader. Perhaps this quality is the leadership attribute that defined Alexander the Great. Unlike many generals during his time who rode in special carriages and gives orders from the back, Alexander the Great literally lead at the front that made him truly great and respectable as a leader. He fought alongside with his soldiers and rallies them to charge at the battlefront. In effect, his orders became unquestioned because his soldiers know that he could also do what he demands of his soldiers to do. e. Emphatic leader. As a leader, Alexander the Great did not seek any special treatment from his soldiers. He receives the same food rations just like his soldiers in addition of fighting alongside with them. In a way, Alexander’s soldiers can relate to him. In transformational leadership, this is called idealized leadership where a leader exerts so much influence to his people through his example13 (Corona 2010,25). Alexander’s “emotional connection” with his soldiers has also a strategic value. Perhaps his method of eating the same rations and fighting alongside his soldiers is deliberate not only to become a credible and respected leader, but also to really “know” the capability of his army by being with them. Because Alexander the Great almost instinctively knew how long his army could march, how it could win battles and even when to quit. This was shown in his conquest in India where Alexander the Great decided not to push any further because his men wanted to go home. He knew that his army is no longer in a fighting mode because it is already homesick. While his army was happy with their victories and inspired by his leadership, their hearts and minds were no longer in the battle field but on wanting to go home. Alexander the Great understood this which made him truly a great leader because he knew his people. Weakness as a leader Perhaps Alexander the Great was also a victim of his own success. He was a king who was invincible in the battlefield defeating all armies that stood his way and conquered all known civilization during his time and only to die of fever at a young age of 32. Most likely, he was infected with the same disease that infected his friend Hephaiston because he did not take precautionary measure when he mourned for his friend grievously. It may be his character to really care for his friends and people that truly made him great as a leader but it also backfired on him. The death of his friend Hephaiston had an ill effect on him to the point that he died of it. He may be a visionary as a leader because he was able to unite his army under his vision of uniting Europe and Asia under the Brotherhood of Man but he failed to prepare for succession in leadership. Alexander the Great may have thought that he was really invincible because he is a descendant of the gods which is why he did not have any successor. As a result, his empire disintegrated when after his death because there was nobody that was groomed to succeed him. III. Conclusion Without question, Alexander’s leadership is extraordinary which explains why he is touted to be “Alexander the Great”. The greatness of his leadership is both a product of training and birth. As a young man, he was brought up as a Macedonian royalty because his parents were the King (Philip II) and Queen (Olympias) of Macedonia. This could explain his self-confidence as a leader that he even thought that he was a descendant of the gods. His noble birth was also put to good use because instead of indulging in privilege and wanton ways, his family used its resources to train and educate the young Alexander with the best possible teachers there was. He was taught by Lysimachus to appreciate poetry, music and drama. The best teacher around who is also considered as one of the greatest philosophers of all time was also hired to tutor the young Alexander. Alexander learned philosophy, medicine, logic, morals, arts and religions from Aristotle which has been instrumental in the success of his later conquests. Without this well-rounded understanding of these liberal arts, Alexander the Great would not have united all those countries he conquered under his rule. Perhaps his understanding about the nature of man was the primary reason why Alexander the Great chose to lead in front to become the kind of leader that defined him to be great. References: Abbot, Jack “Makers of History: Alexander the Great”(2009). New York: Harper& Brothers. Burn, A.R. “The Generalship of Alexander”. Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander the Great (Oct., 1965):140-154. Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/642311 Foster, Ed “The Persian Policies of Alexander the Great: From 330-323 BC”Graduate thesis, prepared for Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (2001). Kurke, Lance B. “Wisdom of Alexander the Great : Enduring Leadership Lessons from the Man Who Created an Empire”. AMACOM Books. 2004. Saranac Lake, NY, USA Miguel Corona. “The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership: A Hispanic American Examination”. The Business Journal of Hispanic Research, Vol. 4, No. 1(2010) 22-34 Shay D. Cohen. “Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus”. AJS Review, Vol. 7/8 (1982/1983), pp. 41-68Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486406 .Accessed: 09/12/2011 19:21 Read More