Alexander the Great's untold story: Excavations in northern Greece are revealing the world that shaped the future king

Thank you! I'll read your link as well!

As a rambling aside, I just want to mention on this point of the article's:

he sees Alexander as a great general but a poor ruler.

I'm not a historian, but I take issue with this view of him being a poor ruler in the context of "the empire." Alexander relied on satraps and alliances like most everyone else at the time and wasn't building an empire that would be comparable to the Romans or even to Egypt. His personal alliances, perhaps his charisma with conquered peoples, and especially economic trade was a major binding agent when it came to having new lands come into the fold. By all accounts he was well-liked. I don't think that being likeable is inherently a flaw of a powerful ruler, but certainly the rulers he's compared to were, by some measures, more successful while being less likeable.

The Achaemenid Empire used satrapys and the satraps were more or less in a constant state of flux. Alliances and military strength of the central government held things together for ~200 years. It seems to me that the levying of soldiers and having a large professional army was itself a means of keeping satraps militarily poor, while also allowing the ruler to exert military might in any capacity they wished to keep the peace internally. I think the same thing occurred with levies during China's Warring States period, which occurred roughly around the same time.

Despite the confederations of satrapys under Persian rule, some people still view the Achaemenid Empire as a monolithic empire while denigrating Alexander's short-lived consolidation of assorted satrapys and empires. Was it a long-term failure to not build the foundations necessary for dynastic longevity? Sure. But I feel like not using military might to hold together a larger territorial consolidation than any that the Persians or Egyptians had achieved is a different kind of success. And maybe Alexander wasn't looking to build that kind of empire, either.

Militarily, it seems like he might have set himself up for success by surrounding himself with loyal followers, whether they were friends, mentors, or military leaders. He listened to those around him, at times, and helped break them out of their molds as well. While this is not necessarily what a ruler of an empire needs to do, it suggests he was a skilled military leader. I might draw parallels between Eisenhower as the Supreme Allied Commander negotiating the challenges of managing so many generals beneath his leadership who all had their own unique personalities. Eisenhower went on to become a President, so we know what his abilities as a "ruler" were and how his military abilities might have influenced that. We'll never know with Alexander.

It's also true that Alexander's conquests didn't last long enough for there to be enough proof that satraps would've maintained their loyalty. There wasn't enough time for rebellions and for Alexander's army to be split between conquering new lands and putting down revolts. No matter what's dug up, or what ancient texts are revealed, we'll probably never know what would've happened. But I think we can make some better educated inferences with what we have.