"Alexander the Great: Strategy vs Glory" Topic

What was the primary motivation for Alexander's conquests: strategy or glory?

A sense of Destiny.

Aristotle.

Glory is certainly the first thing that comes to mind. Then, I assume, the rationalizations came next to make it happen.

Also, the possibility of gaining enormous wealth for him and all his supporters would've been a factor in their thinking.

Strategy is the means to an end. Glory is an end in itself. I'm afraid the question makes no sense.

It was seen as strategically necessary to take out Persia to keep the Greek world safe.
So yes, the question does make sense.

Gunfreak +1

Yup. And that's Aristotle.

Equal for Alexander. Persia was the means to gain undying glory.
Too bad he didn't live long enough to turn west in the Med.

Seems like it should be Glory versus Security.

Could have started as one and become the other. Initially Security, where the idea is the "best defense is a good offense" to remove the Persian threat to Greek civilization once and for all. But then becomes Glory after the first flush of victory.

But, I think it was for Glory. As ruler of Macedonia, Alexander did not need to defeat Persia in order to obtain security for his Macedonian kingdom. But that was not enough. He wanted to be the saviour of all Greece and to make the Greeks admire him (as a bumptious Macedonian upstart).

And so he first subdued the Greeks, but they did not admire him still. So then to vanquish Persia and become the Great King and found many cities named Alexandria. Still not enough. Then to conquer India and Arabia. Finally, when all that is done, turn West.

If his army hadn't refused to go further into India, Alexander would have continued his conquests.

Nah, the Chinese would have turned him around.