Alexander the great was successful in his military conquest of the known world at the time for several reasons. His crafty tactical mind and military daring should be noted, as should his diplomatic skill and the element of luck. Above all, he led a highly skilled and adaptable group of military units, each specialized in their duties yet able to do otherwise at a moment's notice. The troops were thoroughly loyal, as well, which sharply contrasted with the various enemy-troops faced by Alexander during his campaigns.
Because Alexander won his first war. Then he kelped goign. He never gave up. He wanted to make his falthers dreams come true. So he did. He worked his whole life to have his fathers dreams come true.
He was sucessful because he conqured almost half of Peria durining the was and he was a little greedy though because after he conquer that he wanted more and more and that lead to his death by the pleague that started in Greece
Why Was He Successful
Clearly Alexander's success lies in his military genius in knowing how to use his cavalry and troops precisely at key moments in battle. Several times it seemed he was close to defeat but was able to use the situation to his advantage by luring his enemies into a deeper trap. Furthermore, his troops were well trained in holding their positions and not panicking in battle. However, a lot of the success had little to do with Alexander but the nature of the Achaemenid Empire.
The Achaemenids were perhaps the most successful empire up to that point. They had not only succeed in uniting a vast territory but also truly integrating it into a cohesive empire that traded extensively and had well maintained roads. The Achaemenid state was prosperous and people had by then began to move and live in areas far from their homelands. The world, in essence, had become smaller thanks to many of their tolerant policies. While it is true that Egypt and some other regions had revolted against them, many had actually benefited from the Achaemenids. It is no wonder, therefore, that Alexander marries Persian royalty and eventually takes on the regalia of the Achaemenid kings. This is also why he had planned for Babylon to be his new capital, as it was one of the chief cities and capitals of the Achaemenid Empire despite being in Mesopotamia. Commerce had now become the glue that bound many regions and Alexander understood this. This probably led to his men resenting Alexander's penchant for the Achaemenids, as the Greeks still held beliefs that the Persians were not on the same level as them.
While Alexander died perhaps before he could realize his dream of a super empire, the benefits of the east became more apparent to his generals and men, where many stayed after the wars. New Greek populations began to migrate to the Near East and the process of mixing Hellenic and eastern cultures had begun, something that also brought and integrated knowledge that facilitated the rise of astronomy, physics, mathematics, and other scientific fields. Alexander's legacy lasted long after his death and his military success paved the way for the great Classical achievements that eventually became one of the foundations of the Renaissance and our modern Western world.
cuz he conquered many countries and then he conquered them not to be mean but to teach them greek cultures
Careful planning and mobilising, and absolutely ruthless execution of it.
He was a very capable and ruthless conqueror, taking over the Persian Empire, eliminating competition and establishing his own rule.
Yes, Phillip the II was Alexander the greats fatherPhillip the II was the ruler of Macedonia and was killed by an assassin so Alexander then became the ruler of Macedonia
It was cut short by his premature death so we don't know whether he was a capable ruler or just a good general.
Saladin was an Obvious sucessful ruler, he became so famous he had all the good stuff
He created many different laws, and many people followed them, and he was the ruler of the Babylon kingdom in 1792 B.C., so I would say yes, he was an effecive ruler.
Alexander was so Successful at spreading his empire because he was Very clever, intelligent, brave and was a fierce warrior. Also he had good strategies.
Yes, Phillip the II was Alexander the greats fatherPhillip the II was the ruler of Macedonia and was killed by an assassin so Alexander then became the ruler of Macedonia
It was cut short by his premature death so we don't know whether he was a capable ruler or just a good general.
Saladin was an Obvious sucessful ruler, he became so famous he had all the good stuff
Alexander was so Successful at spreading his empire because he was Very clever, intelligent, brave and was a fierce warrior. Also he had good strategies.
the general that did so was Lysimachus
He created many different laws, and many people followed them, and he was the ruler of the Babylon kingdom in 1792 B.C., so I would say yes, he was an effecive ruler.
In my opinion I think he was not, he was just a good ruler not so much great because he had killed so much people and he was cruel man.
Alexander was so Successful at spreading his empire because he was Very clever, intelligent, brave and was a fierce warrior. Also he had good strategies.
Ancient Greece was made up of a lot of small city states, which were each ruled by their own individual ruler. There was no ruler of all of Ancient Greece until the time of Phillip II, Alexander the Great's father, who united all of Greece and Macedonia.
Alexander the Great was able to build such a large and expansive empire because of his warfare strategy. Alexander the Great was able to defeat any enemy that crossed his path, which allowed him to conquer all of the countries he entered and add them to his empire.
As he defeated his armies three times and disabled his fleet, it would seem so.
in general, I should think so yes.If they were not, devices such as mobile phones and satellite tv would not work...