Alexander the Great (HIST-301)

Reading 1

1. Sources of Alexander's History: Various ancient historians and accounts describe Alexander's life, including his ambitions, military strategies, and his character. Stories about his drinking, interactions with philosophers, and decisions regarding his fleet and army are discussed.

2. Death of Philip II: This section narrates the assassination of Alexander’s father, Philip II, and the political intrigue surrounding it, including claims of involvement by Olympias (Alexander’s mother) and Alexander himself.

3. Sack of Thebes: Highlights Alexander's decisive action against Thebes after their rebellion, showcasing his military might and strategic ruthlessness.

4. Peace Proposals of Darius: Accounts of Alexander's interactions with Darius III of Persia, including rejected peace offers, reflecting Alexander’s ambition to conquer the Persian Empire entirely.

5. Sack of Persepolis: Describes Alexander's burning of the Persian capital as an act of revenge for Persian actions against Greece, mingled with accounts of his interactions with Greek prisoners.

6. Philotas Conspiracy: Details the execution of Philotas and Parmenio, generals accused of plotting against Alexander, showing his paranoia and control over his army.

7. Visit to Siwa: Explores Alexander’s visit to the Oracle of Ammon, where he was allegedly proclaimed a divine figure, influencing his later self-perception and actions.

8. Deification and Death of Clitus: Focuses on Alexander’s increasing arrogance, culminating in the killing of his friend Clitus during a drunken dispute.

9. Policy of Integration: Discusses Alexander's attempts to unite Greeks and Persians through intermarriage and cultural integration, as exemplified by the mass weddings at Susa. Alexander marries Darius’ daughters, members of his own elite to Iranian noblewomen. Good diplomacy to ingratiate nobles to each other.

10. Death and Last Plans: Narrates Alexander's grand but unfinished plans for expansion and development, as well as the political aftermath of his death, reflecting the enormity of his ambitions.

Reading 2

1. Roisman, Alexander, Ch. 1

Themes and Focus:

• Development of Alexander Scholarship:

  • Reviews historical perspectives and evolving narratives about Alexander the Great.

  • Discusses the impact of scholars like F. Schachermeyr, who portrayed Alexander as a complex figure of ambition and ruthlessness, influenced by 20th-century contexts (e.g., WWII).

  • Highlights the work of Ernst Badian, who depicted Alexander as pragmatic and ruthless, focusing on consolidating his rule and severing ties with traditional Macedonian norms.

• Source Problem:

  • Examines the limitations of ancient sources on Alexander, noting biases and discrepancies in accounts.

  • Mentions primary ancient authors such as Callisthenes, Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and Quintus Curtius Rufus, and the challenges of interpreting their works.

2. Cartledge, Alexander, 267–289

Themes and Focus:

• Sources of Paradox:

  • Explores the contradictory and incomplete historical records of Alexander’s life.

  • Discusses the efforts of Alexander’s contemporaries to control narratives, including Callisthenes’s encomium and the limitations of other primary accounts.

• Historiographical Traditions:

  • Differentiates between the "Vulgate" tradition (e.g., Diodorus, Curtius Rufus) and the "Official" tradition (e.g., Ptolemy and Aristobulus).

  • Examines how sources reflect personal biases, including their roles in Alexander's court or political motives.

• Evaluation of Sources:

  • Highlights the value of narrative accounts such as Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, which combines historical anecdotes with moral lessons.

  • Notes modern scholarly methods like Quellenforschung (source criticism) in addressing ancient historiography.

Summary of Chapter 1: "The Ancient Evidence for Alexander the Great" by Elizabeth Baynham (Roisman Companion)

1. Lost Histories:

   • Many firsthand accounts by Alexander's contemporaries, such as Callisthenes, Ptolemy, and Aristobulus, have been lost.

   • These works often contained detailed narratives of Alexander’s campaigns but were subject to biases due to the authors' proximity to the events.

2. Extant Histories:

   • Surviving accounts (e.g., Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, and Justin) are based on earlier sources but often lack direct quotations or fidelity to the originals.

   • Arrian, for example, relied on Ptolemy and Aristobulus, presenting a coherent but idealized view of Alexander.

3. Primary Records:

   • Includes official documents like the Ephemerides (royal journal), which recorded daily activities of the Macedonian kings. However, its exact content and usage by historians like Ptolemy remain speculative.

   • Alexander's letters, referenced by Plutarch and others, are likely forgeries or heavily edited.

4. Technical Experts:

   • Alexander’s campaigns included records by surveyors and engineers, such as the bematists, who measured distances and provided technical data. However, their accounts often mixed factual data with sensational descriptions of exotic locales.

5. Challenges with Sources:

   • The extant sources are prone to embellishment, bias, and moralizing interpretations.

   • Writers like Plutarch often prioritized moral lessons over historical accuracy, complicating efforts to reconstruct events faithfully.

6. Bias and Propaganda:

   • Many accounts were written to promote Alexander's image or political agendas, such as portraying him as a divine figure or justifying controversial actions.

   • Ptolemy, as a ruler himself, likely tailored his history to enhance his own legacy.

Reading 3

1. The Death of Philip II (Badian, 1963)

• Philip’s Rise and Reign: Philip II transformed Macedonia into a powerful kingdom through military innovations, political marriages, and strategic diplomacy. His military campaigns expanded the kingdom’s boundaries and solidified his dominance over Greece.

• Assassination Details:

  • Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE during the wedding festivities of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus. The assassin was a bodyguard, Pausanias of Orestis.

  • Pausanias had a personal grievance with Philip and his court after being mistreated by Attalus, Cleopatra’s uncle, and receiving no redress.

  • Speculation exists about whether the assassination was purely personal or politically motivated, potentially involving Alexander, Olympias (Philip’s wife), or other political actors.

• Aftermath:

  • Alexander was immediately proclaimed king with the support of Antipater and the army.

  • Olympias returned to Macedonia and eliminated Cleopatra and her infant to secure Alexander's position.

  • The assassination also led to the elimination of potential rivals like Amyntas, a former king.

• Conspiracy Theories:

  • Some ancient accounts suggest Persian involvement or internal Macedonian conspiracies, while others emphasize the personal vendetta of Pausanias.

  • Antipater’s potential role in ensuring Alexander’s succession is hinted at due to his alliance with Alexander through marriage.

2. Philip II and the Macedonian Background (Roisman, Chapter 2)

• Philip’s Achievements:

  • Reorganized Macedonia politically, militarily, and economically.

  • Integrated Upper Macedonia into the kingdom, securing its resources and manpower.

  • Strengthened the monarchy by centralizing power and creating a network of loyal nobles and Companions.

  • His military innovations included the use of the sarissa (a long pike) and systematic training, creating the formidable Macedonian phalanx.

  • Expanded Macedonia’s territory significantly, subduing Thrace, Thessaly, and parts of Greece.

• Diplomatic and Strategic Marriages:

  • Philip’s polygamous unions, including his marriage to Olympias, were political tools to secure alliances. The marriage to Cleopatra, however, destabilized his family and led to tensions with Olympias and Alexander.

• Assassination Context:

  • Philip’s deification and display of hubris, such as seating his statue among the Olympian gods at the wedding festivities, might have offended some Macedonians and Greeks.

  • Attalus, Cleopatra’s uncle, was suspected of supporting a succession line excluding Alexander, further escalating family conflicts.

• Theories on Philip’s Burial:

  • The royal tomb discovered at Vergina has sparked debate on whether it belongs to Philip II or his successor Philip III Arrhidaeus. Archaeological evidence, including a hero shrine and the grandeur of the tomb, supports its identification as Philip II’s burial site.

Overarching Themes:

• Legacy: Philip’s reign laid the groundwork for Alexander’s conquests. His military and administrative reforms turned Macedonia into a dominant power.

• Family and Politics: The interplay of personal and political ambitions in Philip’s household directly influenced his assassination and Alexander’s succession.

• Historical Controversies: Both ancient and modern accounts debate the motives behind Philip’s assassination and the identity of figures involved.

Philip's Marriages and Political Strategies

• Philip II's marriages were mostly political, securing alliances and expanding Macedonia's influence. His seven wives came from different regions to stabilize borders and build political ties:

  • Six marriages were strategically tied to political and military campaigns.

  • Cleopatra, his seventh wife, was a Macedonian noblewoman and marked a departure from his usual political motivations. This marriage was likely driven by love and the desire for additional heirs.

Tensions Between Philip, Olympias, and Alexander

• Philip's marriage to Cleopatra strained his relationship with his wife Olympias and their son Alexander.

  • Cleopatra's Macedonian heritage made her a potential rival to Olympias, who was from Epirus.

  • At Cleopatra's wedding, her uncle Attalus implied that a son from Cleopatra would be a "legitimate" heir, angering Alexander, whose mother was not Macedonian.

  • A violent argument ensued, culminating in Alexander leaving the court and taking Olympias to Epirus. The rift between Philip and his son deepened.

The Pixodarus Affair

• Alexander became frustrated when Philip arranged for a marriage between his half-brother Arrhidaeus and the daughter of the Carian satrap Pixodarus.

  • Alexander tried to undermine this plan by offering himself instead, but Philip dismissed the proposal and exiled Alexander’s close friends, further worsening their relationship.

Philip's Assassination

• Context:

  • The assassination occurred during the grand wedding of Philip's daughter Cleopatra (by Olympias) to her uncle, Alexander of Epirus.

  • The event symbolized Macedonian unity, Philip's dominance in Greece, and the launch of his Asian campaign.

• The Assassination:

  • Pausanias, a disgruntled bodyguard, killed Philip during the public procession.

  • Pausanias had a personal grievance after being publicly humiliated by Attalus and receiving no justice from Philip.

  • Speculations abound regarding the motives:

    • Personal motives: Revenge for Pausanias' humiliation.

    • Political motives: Possibly incited by Olympias or Alexander due to their rivalry with Cleopatra and her Macedonian faction.

    • No definitive evidence links Alexander directly to the murder, but Olympias’ actions following Philip’s death—killing Cleopatra and her infant—imply potential involvement.

Aftermath

• Alexander was immediately proclaimed king and moved quickly to secure his rule.

• Olympias acted decisively to eliminate rivals, including Cleopatra and her child.

• The assassination disrupted Philip’s plans for the Persian invasion, leaving Alexander to assume leadership and carry out the campaign.

Key Themes

1. Family Conflict: The dynamics between Philip, Olympias, and Alexander played a central role in creating tensions that may have contributed to his assassination.

2. Political Intrigue: The balance of power between Macedonian nobles, generals, and royal family members shaped events leading up to the assassination.

3. Alexander’s Rise: The death of Philip provided Alexander with the opportunity to consolidate power and fulfill the expansionist ambitions Philip had initiated.

Reading 4

Key Themes:

1. Greek Opposition to Alexander

   • A speech falsely attributed to Demosthenes criticizes Alexander for violating agreements with Greek states, particularly Athens.

   • Complaints include Alexander’s interference in city governance, reinstating tyrants, and disrespecting the autonomy of Greek city-states.

   • The speech argues that Alexander’s actions contradicted the treaty provisions for Greek independence.

2. The Destruction of Thebes (335 BCE)

   • Thebes rebelled against Alexander, believing he had died.

   • Alexander swiftly crushed the rebellion, leading to the city's destruction, mass killings, and enslavement of its inhabitants.

   • Other Greek states were horrified by the severity of his response, which served as a warning against further uprisings.

3. The Exiles’ Decree (324 BCE)

   • Alexander ordered the return of Greek exiles to their home cities, disrupting local political and economic structures.

   • Many city-states, particularly Athens, resisted the decree as it threatened their political control (e.g., Athens had settled its citizens in Samos).

   • The decree demonstrated Alexander’s increasing autocratic rule, disregarding the League of Corinth’s previous agreements.

4. Macedonian Hegemony and Greek Reactions

   • Scholars analyze how Alexander initially respected the League of Corinth but gradually abandoned legal frameworks, issuing direct commands instead.

   • His interventions in Greek affairs became increasingly forceful, culminating in the Exiles’ Decree.

   • Many city-states viewed his policies as oppressive, leading to unrest and eventual revolts after his death.

5. Impact on Greek Politics

   • The decree destabilized Greece, with Athens and the Aetolian League considering resistance.

   • While some states sought diplomatic solutions, tensions grew, ultimately contributing to the Lamian War (323–322 BCE) after Alexander’s death.

   • His policies marked a shift from Philip II’s more diplomatic approach to an outright Macedonian autocracy.

Key Themes and Summary:

1. Philip II’s Conquest and the League of Corinth

   • Philip II defeated Athens and Thebes at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE), marking the decline of Greek independence.

   • He established the League of Corinth, a political and military alliance meant to ensure Greek stability under Macedonian dominance.

   • The League granted Greek states "freedom and autonomy," but in reality, it enforced Philip’s control.

   • A governing council (synedrion) and the hegemon (military leader) maintained order, with Philip as its first leader.

2. Alexander’s Inheritance of Macedonian Hegemony

   • After Philip's assassination in 336 BCE, Alexander quickly asserted control over Greece.

   • His formal recognition as the League’s hegemon was met with unrest in Athens, Thebes, and other cities.

   • He secured support from Thessaly and the Delphic Amphictyony before being confirmed as leader.

3. The Destruction of Thebes (335 BCE)

   • Thebes revolted, hoping to restore its independence, believing Alexander had died.

   • The rebellion gained support from some Greek cities, nearly drawing Athens into the conflict.

   • Alexander swiftly crushed the revolt, destroyed Thebes, and sold its population into slavery.

   • This sent a clear message that Macedonian rule was absolute and would tolerate no dissent.

4. The Role of the League of Corinth

   • Although technically a Greek-led alliance, the League became a tool of Macedonian control.

   • Alexander framed his Persian campaign as a Greek war of liberation, though it primarily served Macedonian interests.

   • Greek cities had little say in major decisions and were expected to follow Alexander’s leadership.

5. Spartan-Led Revolt (331 BCE)

   • Sparta, which had refused to join the League, attempted to lead an anti-Macedonian rebellion under King Agis III.

   • With Persian support, Sparta gathered allies but received limited enthusiasm outside the Peloponnese.

   • The rebellion was crushed, reaffirming Macedonian dominance.

1. Paul Cartledge, Alexander the Great, pp. 108-115

Cartledge analyzes Alexander’s relationship with the Greeks, particularly focusing on the destruction of Thebes in 335 BCE.

• Greek Resistance to Alexander: Many Greek states resisted Macedonian rule, believing it to be a suppression of their political liberty.

• Thebes’ Rebellion (335 BCE): The city revolted after rumors of Alexander’s death. They called upon fellow Greeks to join them in overthrowing the "tyrant of Greece."

• Alexander’s Response: He swiftly crushed the rebellion, using extreme political violence to set an example for other Greek states.

• Propaganda vs. Reality: The official narrative (recorded by Arrian) claimed that the destruction of Thebes was a decision of the League of Corinth, not Alexander alone. However, other sources (Diodorus) suggest that Alexander personally orchestrated the city’s destruction.

• Alexander’s Hellenism: While he promoted Greek culture, his actions were largely driven by political and military pragmatism rather than genuine admiration for Greek ideals.

• The League of Corinth: Philip and Alexander used this coalition to justify their rule over Greece. While it was framed as protecting Greek autonomy, it ultimately served Macedonian dominance.

2. Diodorus on the Sack of Thebes (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica)

Diodorus provides a detailed and dramatic account of Thebes’ destruction.

• Greek Discontent with Macedonian Rule: After Philip’s death, many Greek states, including Thebes, sought to regain their independence.

• Initial Theban Rebellion: The Thebans expelled the Macedonian garrison from the Cadmea (the city’s citadel), hoping to rally Greek support.

• Alexander’s Response: He swiftly marched to Thebes with a large army, arriving unexpectedly and throwing the city into panic.

• Battle and Siege: Thebes fought fiercely but was overwhelmed when the Macedonian garrison from the Cadmea joined the attack.

• The Aftermath:

  • Brutality of the Sack: Over 6,000 Thebans were killed, 30,000 were enslaved, and the city was completely destroyed.

  • Punishment of Thebes: The League of Corinth (under Macedonian influence) officially decreed the destruction of Thebes as punishment for past alliances with Persia.

  • Terror as a Strategy: The destruction was meant to serve as a warning to other Greek states contemplating rebellion.

  • Alexander’s Gain: The sack solidified Macedonian dominance over Greece and demonstrated the futility of resistance.

3. Plutarch on the Sack of Thebes (Plutarch, Alexander & Demosthenes)

Plutarch provides a moralistic perspective on Thebes’ destruction, emphasizing the broader implications for Greece.

• Alexander’s Early Challenges:

  • Upon inheriting the throne at age 20, Alexander faced widespread Greek resentment and threats from barbarian tribes.

  • His advisors recommended leniency toward the Greeks, but he chose decisive military action.

• Revolt of Thebes:

  • The Thebans demanded that Alexander surrender key Macedonian officers, refusing any negotiations.

  • Alexander offered amnesty to those who switched sides, but Thebes held firm.

• Destruction of Thebes:

  • The city was besieged and eventually overwhelmed when the Macedonian garrison from the Cadmea attacked from within.

  • Over 6,000 Thebans were killed, and more than 30,000 were sold into slavery.

• Political Consequences:

  • The destruction was meant to terrify other Greek states into submission.

  • Alexander framed it as an act of justice, satisfying allies like the Phocians and Plataeans, who held grudges against Thebes.

• Athens’ Reaction:

  • The Athenians initially supported Thebes but hesitated to send troops.

  • When Alexander demanded the surrender of anti-Macedonian leaders like Demosthenes, Athens successfully negotiated to keep them.

Conclusion: Plutarch portrays Alexander’s actions as both strategic and punitive. While he sought to unify Greece, he did so through fear and force rather than diplomacy.

Reading 5

1. Achaemenid Dynasty (PDF)

   • This document provides a chronological listing of rulers from the Achaemenid Dynasty, including Darius II, Artaxerxes II and III, and Darius III. It appears to be a reference sheet with key names and dates but lacks detailed historical context.

2. Plutarch on Darius' Peace Proposal (DOCX)

   • This excerpt discusses how Darius III attempted to negotiate peace with Alexander the Great after suffering defeats. Darius offered ransom for captives, territorial concessions, and a marriage alliance, but Alexander rejected the proposal. Parmenio advised acceptance, but Alexander dismissed it, stating that he was not Parmenio.

3. Diodorus on Darius' Peace Proposals (DOCX)

   • This document details multiple peace offers from Darius III to Alexander. Initially, Darius proposed releasing prisoners for a ransom and offering territory west of the Halys River, but Alexander refused. Later, Darius increased his offer, including land west of the Euphrates, a significant monetary sum, and a royal marriage alliance. Alexander rejected the offers, declaring that the world could not have two rulers and that he would fight for total domination.

4. Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander (PDF)

   • This selection covers Alexander's campaigns, including the pursuit of Darius III, the looting of Persian wealth, and the capture of Darius' family and loyalists. It also narrates Darius’ desperate attempts to escape and his ultimate betrayal by his own men. Additionally, the document describes Alexander’s siege of Tyre and its brutal aftermath, where thousands of Tyrians were slaughtered or crucified.

5. Roisman, Alexander (PDF)

   • This scholarly work discusses Alexander the Great’s ambitions, strategies, and interactions with Darius III. It examines the ideological and military justifications Alexander used for his conquest, his rejection of peace proposals, and his vision for uniting Asia and Europe. The text also explores the contrast between Alexander’s self-image and the political realities of his rule.

Reading 6

1. Curtius Rufus, 103-108

• Alexander's army faced challenging terrain, including deep chasms and dense forests, during their advance.

• His forces overcame Persian resistance, and Ariobarzanes' desperate breakout attempt failed.

• Alexander rushed to Persepolis to secure its wealth before looters could seize it.

• He encountered Greek captives who had been mutilated by the Persians; some chose to remain in Asia rather than return home.

• Alexander stormed Persepolis, looted its immense wealth, and allowed his soldiers to plunder and massacre its inhabitants.

• In a drunken revel, he set fire to Persepolis, urged on by the courtesan Thais, as an act of vengeance for Persian attacks on Greece.

• He later regretted the destruction, realizing it might alienate Persians.

• The document emphasizes Alexander's dual nature—strategic brilliance and impulsive recklessness.

2. Cartledge, Alexander, 126-133

• Discusses Alexander’s interactions with Greek city-states and their reactions to his rule.

• The Spartan-led revolt under Agis III (331 BCE) was crushed by Antipater, showing that most Greeks preferred Macedonian rule over Spartan hegemony.

• After defeating Persia, Alexander positioned himself as the new ruler of Asia rather than a Greek liberator.

• The burning of Persepolis remains controversial—either a drunken act (as legend suggests) or a calculated political statement marking the end of the Panhellenic crusade.

• Some Greeks saw Alexander as a liberator, while others, especially in Athens, resented his dominance.

• The Lamian War (323 BCE) saw Athens and other Greek states revolting after Alexander’s death, marking the last significant challenge to Macedonian rule over Greece.

• The Exiles’ Decree (324 BCE) further alienated Greeks by forcing them to reintegrate exiles, disrupting local political balances.

3. Plutarch on Persepolis

• Alexander’s entry into Persepolis was guided by a bilingual Lycian-Persian man, supposedly fulfilling an oracle.

• He allowed mass slaughter and looting, claiming strategic advantage.

• Came across a toppled statue of Xerxes and debated whether to restore it as a sign of magnanimity.

• Engaged in a months-long stay in Persepolis, during which he participated in a drinking party with Thais, who suggested burning the palace as revenge for the Persian sack of Athens.

• In a state of drunken excitement, Alexander led the torching of the palace.

• Some sources suggest it was spontaneous, others that it was premeditated.

• Alexander later regretted the destruction.

4. Diodorus on Persepolis

• Alexander was informed by Tiridates, Persepolis' governor, that he could capture the city before defenders arrived.

• He encountered Greek captives who had been mutilated by Persians and chose to remain in Asia rather than return home.

• Persepolis was described as the wealthiest city in Asia, and its looting was particularly brutal, with soldiers massacring and pillaging indiscriminately.

• The wealth of Persepolis was so vast that thousands of camels and mules were needed to transport it.

• During a drinking party, Thais suggested burning the palace as revenge for Persian actions against Greece.

• Alexander and his men, in a drunken revel, set fire to the palace.

• The destruction of Persepolis was symbolically seen as avenging Greek losses but also alienated Persian elites.

5. Plutarch, Agesilaus 15

• Criticizes the idea that Greeks should have been proud to see Alexander on Darius’ throne.

• Suggests that Greek infighting led to Macedonian dominance.

• Implies regret that Greek generals wasted their efforts in internal wars instead of resisting Macedonia.

Reading 7

1. Roisman, Alexander, Chapters 4 & 6:

   • This text discusses Alexander the Great’s ambitions and objectives throughout his campaign. It examines the symbolic acts he performed upon landing in Asia Minor, such as throwing his spear into the ground to claim Asia as a prize. It also delves into his correspondence with the Persian King Darius, emphasizing Alexander's justification for his invasion. The text further discusses Alexander’s final plans before his death, which included grandiose projects such as conquering Carthage, constructing major temples, and integrating European and Asian cultures. The document also reflects on how Alexander viewed his role as a divine ruler and his broader impact on world civilization.

2. Plutarch on Unrest:

   • This section from Plutarch details the unrest among Alexander’s troops. As they grew weary of the ongoing campaigns, Alexander tested their loyalty by offering them the chance to leave. However, after he framed his mission as one of securing Macedonian dominance and avoiding appearing weak to their enemies, his men responded with renewed enthusiasm, pledging to follow him wherever he led. This passage highlights Alexander’s leadership and ability to manipulate his soldiers’ loyalty through rhetoric.

3. Diodorus on Philotas:

   • Diodorus recounts the conspiracy involving Philotas, son of Parmenio. The plot was initially revealed by a young boy, Nicomachus, who informed his brother Cebalinus. Cebalinus, in turn, informed Philotas, who failed to act on the information. When the plot was eventually uncovered, Philotas was accused of either being involved or neglecting his duty to inform Alexander. He was tortured, confessed, and was subsequently executed along with his father Parmenio, who was put to death in Media before the news of Philotas' punishment could reach him. The episode underscores Alexander's growing paranoia and the brutal elimination of perceived threats.

4. Arrian on Philotas:

   • Arrian presents a slightly different version of the Philotas conspiracy. He notes that reports of Philotas' disloyalty had reached Alexander earlier in Egypt but were dismissed due to the long-standing trust between them. However, once the accusations were confirmed, Alexander publicly condemned Philotas before the Macedonians. Philotas admitted to knowing about a plot but failing to report it. He was executed by his fellow soldiers, and Alexander ordered the assassination of his father, Parmenio, to eliminate any potential retaliation. The event marked a shift in Alexander’s rule, as he began restructuring the command of his elite cavalry to prevent excessive power from being concentrated in one individual.