Unit 12: The Rise of Macedon and Alexander the Great: Study Questions Flashcards
Q: How was Macedon different from the Greek city-states to the south?
A: Macedon was a monarchy, unlike the democratic or oligarchic Greek poleis. It had a strong, centralized military under a king, rather than city-state militias.
Q: What social, political, and military factors account for the rise of Macedon?
A: Philip II’s military reforms, including the phalanx and siege warfare tactics, alongside strategic alliances and internal Greek divisions, allowed Macedon to dominate.
Q: How did Philip II come to dominate the rest of Greece?
A: He exploited Greek infighting, won the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE), and established the Corinthian League, enforcing Macedonian rule while appearing to unite Greece.
Q: How was Philip II’s plan to invade the Persian Empire an important part of his plan to dominate and pacify the Greek city-states?
A: The invasion redirected Greek aggression outward, unifying them under Macedonian rule and legitimizing his leadership through a Panhellenic campaign against Persia.
Q: What “stunts” did Alexander perform to emphasize his special abilities and also to present his invasion of Persia as a Panhellenic holy war?
A: He cut the Gordian Knot, visited Troy to honor Achilles, and presented himself as a liberator of Greek cities under Persian rule.
Q: Summarize the route Alexander took in his campaigns, the sequence of his conquests, and his major battles.
A: Alexander moved from Greece into Asia Minor, won at Granicus (334 BCE), Issus (333 BCE), and Gaugamela (331 BCE), then conquered Egypt, Persia, and advanced into India.
Q: What were some of the advantages of Alexander’s forces?
A: His army was highly trained, disciplined, and used superior tactics, including the Macedonian phalanx and combined arms strategies, making them adaptable and effective.
Q: What were some of the weaknesses of the Persian Empire?
A: The Persian Empire suffered from weak leadership, internal rebellions, and a reliance on mercenary forces, making it vulnerable to Alexander’s well-coordinated attacks.
Q: Do you think Alexander was skillful or just lucky—does he deserve his title, “the Great”?
A: Alexander was highly skilled, using brilliant military tactics, adaptability, and leadership to secure victories. His ability to inspire loyalty and govern effectively justifies his title.
Q: When was Plutarch’s Alexander written, and what are its strengths and limitations?
A: Written in the 1st–2nd century CE, Plutarch’s Alexander focuses on moral lessons rather than strict historical accuracy, offering insight into character but not always factual details.
Q: When was Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander written, and what are its strengths and limitations?
A: Written in the 2nd century CE, it relies on earlier accounts from Ptolemy and Aristobulus, making it a reliable military history, though it idealizes Alexander.
Q: What are some of Alexander’s virtues, according to Plutarch?
A: Plutarch highlights his bravery, ambition, leadership, generosity, and vision for uniting cultures under a single empire.
Q: According to Plutarch, what were some of Alexander’s flaws, and how does Plutarch discuss them?
A: Alexander’s flaws included arrogance, impulsiveness, excessive drinking, and violent outbursts, which Plutarch presents as the tragic costs of his greatness.
Q: In Arrian’s account of Alexander’s crossing of the Hellespont from Greece into Asia Minor, what actions does Alexander perform in order to link his campaign with the larger history of Greece?
A: Alexander visited Troy, paid homage to Achilles, and made sacrifices to the gods, reinforcing his campaign as a continuation of Greek heroic tradition.
Q: In Arrian’s account of the mutiny of Alexander’s army in India, what reasons does Alexander give for pushing on with an invasion of India?
A: He argued that retreating would diminish their legacy and that conquest was necessary to secure the empire’s borders and fulfill his divine destiny.
Q: In Arrian’s account of Alexander’s death, what missteps does Arrian note, and how does he justify them?
A: Arrian acknowledges Alexander’s overconfidence, harsh treatment of some followers, and excessive ambition but defends him as a visionary leader who reshaped history.
