Alexandet the great.

[Ninjagrenen]

Hey.

Why do you guys think Alexander manage to conquer that much?
I have to write an assignment about it. So i were thinking what factores made him win the war?

Propaganda?
Best tactic?
Best army?
Luck?

If any of you could refer to some artikels about the reasons that would be great.

[Truth Bearer]

He was a genius his tactics were second to none his bravery was unsurpassed as he led from the front.He was inovative he would listen to others in regards to battle tactics which shows you that he had an open mind ready to listen.He inherited a ready made army from his father the army was battle hardend and thanks to the mines Philip had created a profesional army at that.Antipater and Parmenion were his rocks of Gibraltor as they remained loyal to him throughout and yes he had some luck no doubt.

[Not Biased]

I honestly think this is a bit of a biased source of information to use on the guy...
The man was one of the best tactitions of his time but he had his faults, he was paranoid, actually had very little control of his men outside of battle, and his ego caused him a lot of problems. And despite his efforts he never really managed to win over the citizens of many cities and empires he conquered, such as Persia, who's citizens commonly referred to him as Alexander the Condemned and Alexander the fool.
He was also more then likely assassinated by his own men (or by Persians, though that theory hasn't been properly looked into).
Try looking at some other encyclopedic links. Wikipedia actually does a good job.

[Orphic_Hymn]

What exactly is the "biased source of info" when you yourself actually agree to TB's titling him a great tactician?

Originally Posted by Not Biased

The man was one of the best tactitions of his time

As for your reference to Persians, its interesting that while Zoroastrian folklore does present him as you state (Gojaste), later Persian traditions present a totally different image. Nizami for example compares him to the birth of a pearl.

Actually his death is still a mystery.

Please don't refer to wiki the "encyclopedia which anyone can edit" as an accurate "encyclopedic link". Just a glance at it and you'll see exactly what all the propaganda war edits have done to this only by name, neutral and informative source.

[Lakonian]

Charisma i believe was his main feature. Bravery aswell. Apart from that his ability to use what little he had ( men) to overwhelm the Persians three times ( against Darius) was phenomenal.

I think youll find most Greek heros carried these two traits.

[Truth Bearer]

The Persians didn't poison him.They never called him the fool.The devil yes but Alexander a fool no.His men I believe had realized that they would never stop fighting so they figured maybe it was time to do away with him.The key is how and what type of poison did they use??

[Alita]

Originally Posted by Ninjagrenen

Hey.

Why do you guys think Alexander manage to conquer that much?
I have to write an assignment about it. So i were thinking what factores made him win the war?

Propaganda?
Best tactic?
Best army?
Luck?

If any of you could refer to some artikels about the reasons that would be great.

There's a lot of reasons, most of which you will find in the historical sources. But ultimately, I think the main reason is God made him great.

[olvios]

Well the Persians lost most fights with the Greeks and made many failed invasions.They were also invaded from Sparta by Agesilaus so Alexanders great feature aside from the many ones he had must have been that he managed to act for the interests of Greece without allowing local interests and rivalries reduce his effort to that of Agesilaus, rushing back to defend Sparta from other Greeks..........something like that.

He was superior to everything from any other.......

[Not Biased]

Alright:

His death by poison was if not proved then highly likely, there was a research project into it and based on the symptoms that were written about and the poisons that were available at that time the researchers became confident he was poisoned by his men.

And the Persians did call him "Alexander the Fool/Devil/Condemned/Accursed". I studied Persian history and know a lot about how they treated him. You have to understand that the burning of Persepolis was considered and unforgivable attack. Though later on they became more lenient because the Macedonian style of leadership was close the the original Persian one that was in place. And the Persian Poisoning was at a time considered a likely explanation since several Persians of the time took credit for it. Though I agree it's likely not true.

And Wikipedia is actually not as bad a source as people claim. We did a study where several of us were assigned to become members and change different topics of different value and importance in any way possible and we never managed to change a thing. In the last while the site has become very strict and every change made is monitored and even the slightest adjustments are debated before being accepted or declined. I agree that there are encyclopedias FAR better then wikipedia, but it's one of the best on-hand ones out there.

[olvios]

The burning of Persepolis was the least we could do after what the Persian empire did to us.