Why was Alexander the Great seen by the Romans as the greatest military leader of the ancient world? This question would endlessly fascinate and drive Roman commanders to envy his innovative military strategies since he was the standard for battlefield excellence. The Martial Roman society honored Alexander with mosaics and statues. Roman historians focused on his military prowess in expanding his empire while noting that he never conquered Rome. Centuries later, rulers such as Cleopatra and the Emperor Augustus still offered their respect to the Macedonian king.
Alexander’s Legacy
Alexander was aware of his role in unifying his sprawling empire. In his last words before his death, his subordinates reportedly asked to whom he wanted to leave his empire. “To the strongest,” he replied (Strauss, p. 241). His successors, the Diadochi, swiftly carved up his realm but could not diminish the power of his legendary exploits. Alexander’s empire depended on the magnetism of the man himself.
Alexander’s generalship and leadership skills gave him legendary status. The odds were always against him in the battles he fought and the sieges he waged, yet he never panicked or retreated to fight another day. He had an uncanny ability to adopt the right strategy and tactics, no matter how audacious, no matter the risks involved for him and his men (Worthington, p. 304).
Hellenism Conquers the Romans
Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox
Sign up to our Free Weekly NewsletterDuring the 1st century BCE, many Romans were inspired by Greek culture and history. The educated Roman citizen was fluent in Greek and immersed himself in Hellenic philosophy and literature. Hellenistic culture spread throughout the Roman world. Many succeeding emperors modeled themselves on Alexander and tried to match his conquests in the East, though none was able to extend Roman rule beyond Mesopotamia (Freeman, p. 327).
While Alexander’s short-lived empire never conquered Rome militarily, his cultural influence dominated Asia, Africa, and Europe (Freeman, p. 323). The love for Greek culture diminished as the Roman Empire became more diverse, but admiration for Alexander remained constant throughout the imperial period (Worthington, p. 309).
The Hero of Roman Generals
Lacking Alexander’s exploits, the Roman Emperors depended on battlefield superiority and effective administrative organization. Yet, they longed for Alexander’s mythical heroism. The parallels between Alexander and Caesar—both youthful, energetic, and ambitious—were obvious. It was no coincidence that images of Julius Caesar from the Republican Period of Rome show that he had adopted Alexander’s hairstyle and presentation (Goldsworthy, 2014, p. 207).
During the Roman Empire, emperors such as Augustus, Caligula, Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian visited Alexander’s tomb in Alexandria. His body symbolized the zenith of imperial power. When Octavian (later known as Caesar Augustus) arrived triumphantly in Alexandria in 30 BCE after defeating Cleopatra and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium, officials offered him a tour of the city. When his guide inquired, “Would you now like to visit the Mausoleum of the Ptolemies?” Octavian retorted, “I came to see a king, not a row of corpses” (Everitt, p. 196).
Emulating Alexander’s Battlefield Strategies
Roman military commanders celebrated and emulated Alexander’s battlefield strategies. He was a symbol of world conquest, and his legacy made him immortal in the eyes of the Romans long after his death in Babylon in 323 BCE. Even when outnumbered on the battlefield, Alexander’s armies were able to use the terrain, encircle his enemies, and adopt innovative tactics to surprise seasoned opponents.
He inherited his father’s fine-tuned core of professional infantrymen and capable subordinate commanders who could act independently on the field. They used long pikes and formed square battle formations known as phalanxes to neutralize cavalrymen. Alexander gave these troops a prominent place in his battle plan and respected their role in his victories. They rewarded him with loyalty.
Pompey the Great’s Inspiration
As the Hellenistic period gave way to the Roman era, Alexander’s military exploits continued to inspire admiration. This is not surprising in a society that honored a victorious general with a triumphant parade through the streets of Rome if he had killed at least 5,000 enemy troops (Worthington, p. 303).
During the 1st century BCE, the Roman general Pompey claimed the title of Magnus (“the Great”) as an allusion to Alexander’s conquests in Asia. Pompey had proven himself an effective commander throughout his campaigns, even leading charges personally in emulation of Alexander’s heroic style (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 154). Popular stories of the time described Pompey’s fighting at the front of his men, striking down enemies with sword and spear (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 249).
Julius Caesar Struggled to Surpass Alexander
Roman generals typically led from close behind the fighting line. Directing troop movements from the rear allowed the general to issue commands to subordinates and take advantage of the flexible nature of the Roman legions. Generals were at risk from missiles or the attack of a bold individual who sought fame by killing the commander. In this way, leaders shared the risks with their soldiers.
Like Alexander, Julius Caesar took these risks one step further. Caesar moved to the front of the fighting line, displaying the aristocratic virtues of personal courage and masculinity—the ideal of valor for a commander (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 249). He encouraged the men around him on the battlefield, assuring them of his personal leadership and concern.
Trajan Yearns for Alexander’s Empire
Emperor Trajan envied the size of Alexander the Great’s empire. He believed that Rome could equal Alexander’s dominance, noting that Alexander had conquered Achaemenid Persia when he was little more than 20 years old (Jackson, p. 199). Trajan decided to strike at the heart of Parthia’s empire in Babylonia and chase down the King of Kings as Alexander had done.
Once his legions had crossed the Tigris River, the Romans faced little resistance in their invasion of Parthia. Nineveh fell quickly into Roman hands. Then, Arbela, the very city where Darius III, the last King of Persia, fled from Alexander after suffering defeat at the Battle of Gaugamela, surrendered (Jackson, p. 219).
In his last campaign, Trajan was able to advance the Roman troops to the mouth of the Euphrates. Though he was victorious, Trajan lamented that his forces could advance no further. He was unable to equal Alexander’s conquests. From the river’s harbor, Trajan watched ships depart for India. As he gazed over the hazy turquoise waters of the Persian Gulf, he dreamed of accepting the adulation for the conquest of the distant mythical lands of the Indian subcontinent, and he wept, knowing that he would not achieve his dreams (Jackson, pp. 223-224).
Alexander’s Detractors
Not everyone shared the Roman generals’ esteem for Alexander. Cicero, the great Roman statesman, and orator, told a story about Alexander angrily asking a pirate: “What is your idea of infesting the sea?” The pirate answered boldly, “The same as yours in infesting the earth! But because I do it in a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you are called an emperor” (Freeman, p. 331).
The Roman historian Livy expressed no surprise that Alexander had easily defeated the barbarian armies of Persia, but he maintained that an encounter with a Roman army would have been quite different (Freeman, p. 332). Livy argued that the Romans’ shield and javelin were superior weapons. Further, Rome and its allies fielded far stronger and better-trained soldiers than Alexander could have managed.
Livy, a devoted Roman patriot, was not awed by Alexander’s mythical reputation. For him, those who praised Alexander were the “silliest of Greeks who are fond of exalting the reputation at the expense of the Roman name” and who believed “that the Roman people would not have had resolution to bear up against the splendor of Alexander’s name.”
The Enduring Hero
In spite of those who tempered their analysis with their patriotism, statues and coins bearing Alexander’s image were still made centuries after his death, a testament to his lasting legacy.
The Greek tradition of hero-worship was “the cult of the individual, and the hero is always imagined standing alone” (Lieven, p. 55). Among later rulers in the Roman, Christian, and Muslim worlds, no ancient emperor enjoyed more fame and allure than Alexander, though his influence was sometimes nefarious.
From Alexander’s successors to Pyrrhus of Epirus, Hannibal to Julius Caesar, and Augustus to Trajan and a whole host of Roman emperors after term, would-be conquerors looked to Alexander as their model. Alexander was a man brought up on the steps of a throne, and he risked megalomania, achieved military fame, and conquered an empire. He needed no encouragement from misleading Homeric role models (Lieven, pg. 55).
Bibliography
Everitt, A. (2006). Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor. Random House.
Freeman, P. (2011). Alexander the Great. Simon & Schuster.
Goldsworthy, A. K. (2006). Caesar: Life of a Colossus. Yale University Press.
Goldsworthy, A. K. (2014). Augustus: First Emperor of Rome. Yale University Press.
Lieven, D. (2022). In the Shadow of the Gods: The Emperor in World History. Viking.
Nicholas, J. (2022). Trajan: Rome’s Last Conqueror. Greenhill Books.
Strauss, B. S. (2013). Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Worthington, I. (2014). By The Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire. Oxford University Press.
