Cleopatra? Do her, or not?
Wait, that's next week's topic.

There's no doubt - to anyone - that what Alexander accomplished on succeeding his father, through to his death at the young age of thirty-two, was utterly astonishing. On his death, the Macedonian empire stretched from the valleys of India to the oracles of Egypt, from the Gulf to the Danube.

But what made Alexander so successful? A poorly unified Persian Empire? Darius and his numerous exploitable flaws? Or was it just Alexander himself? Perhaps his unique ability to overcome almost impossible sieges? Or his tactical planning before battles and during? Mayhaps the perfection of his father's phalanx soldiers?

And if someone compares him to Bush, I'll kick your head in.
Game on :)

I would propose he did so well because he was willing to incorporate his conquest's cultures and strengths into his rule. He was a far more beneficient ruler than many before him, so his conquests were relatively trouble free for the short time he lived.

Had he been a more cruel despot, his lines of supply would have been disrupted long before he got as far as he did.

Tactically he was brilliant as well, which never hurts. He pushed the hoplite style battle as far as it could go. One has to wonder what he could have done with Roman style legions at his disposal.

Something tells me that these topics are either becoming too dull or too hardcore for those not too familiar with history, ancient or modern.

Anywho,

'I would propose he did so well because he was willing to incorporate his conquest's cultures and strengths into his rule. He was a far more beneficient ruler than many before him, so his conquests were relatively trouble free for the short time he lived.'

- I couldn't agree more. His uncanny ability to embrace previous Persian/asian rulers/governers in to their previous posts I guess had to have helped him more than any culture embracing. Let's face it, he was given the title Pharaoh *before* he paid homage to Ammon or sacrified to any of the Egyptian gods.

And though a tactical genius, I think the numerous flaws of Darius contributed more to Alexander's success. Beaten twice, he still refused to wage war the only way he could have - by retreating and burning Alexander out of his land. He hand the space, the time, and the advantage. But refused too. And the poor ability to adapt and predict any measures Alexander may take (changing formations, for example) gave turned his numerical superiority against him time and time again.

So while there are some attributes I would grant Alexander for his inherent success, I do believe it would have only gotten him so far (like his father). The state of the Persian empire and the weak military mind of Darius himself had to have played a major role in Alexander's success.