of Euripides L. Eurybiadis*
As a child, I was fascinated by the exploits of Alexander the Great. Like others, I learned about them through classical history lessons. The stories of the young Macedonian who tamed Bucephalus, crossed continents, and was never defeated continue to fill me with awe.
But over time, and after 43 years of diplomatic service, I began to see Alexander the Great in a different light. Not just as a conqueror, but also as a model for studying the art of diplomacy. Was Alexander the Great simply a strategic genius? Was he cruel and expansive? Was he an imperialist before the term was even coined? Or was he also the first diplomat?
We must, of course, judge Alexander the Great in the context of his time. In essence, diplomacy is the art of managing power relations, cultural dynamics, strategic interactions, shaping perceptions, and negotiating legitimacy between different worlds. The essence of diplomacy remains constant over time. And as such, parallels with the era of Alexander the Great are inevitable.
Alexander the Great and his concubine, Pancaste, in Apelles' studio!
Why can Alexander the Great be considered the first diplomat?
What was this "first" in Alexander the Great? Why should we consider him the first to practice diplomacy in the field? Although the term "diplomacy" did not exist in his time, its essence did.
Unlike earlier rulers who ruled primarily through tradition or divine mandate, Alexander the Great redefined legitimacy through strategy, composition, diplomatic flexibility, and symbolism. Thus, he signaled a fundamental shift in the way imperial power was exercised.
The tools of early diplomacy
Alexander the Great combined cultural adaptation, strategic alliances, and image management in a way that was unparalleled for his time. He applied, instinctively or perhaps consciously, the basic tools of diplomacy: power negotiation, legitimacy building, narrative control, symbolic gestures, strategic vision, and leadership, all centuries before they were institutionalized.
Aristotle and the art of leadership
Much of what characterized Alexander the Great's strategic thinking was likely shaped by his education. His teacher was Aristotle, who taught him ethics, logic, politics, natural science, and—perhaps most importantly—the value of understanding man.
From Aristotle, Alexander the Great seems to have derived the fundamental principle that leadership requires knowledge of the customs, values, and ways of thinking of others.
As he himself is reported to have said: “I owe my life to my father, and my life to my teacher” — I owe life to my father; to the right life to my teacher.
Mild power before its time
In today’s era of soft power, strategic communication, and ever-challenged legitimacy, Alexander the Great’s methods—conscious or instinctive—are worth studying in depth. My late professor, Joseph Nye, the creator of the term “soft power,” would, I believe, approve of this perspective.
The term “diplomacy” itself comes from the Greek diplo, a folding document that granted privileges or credentials. Diplomacy may not have existed then in the form we know it today, but Alexander the Great’s actions are consistent with many of its basic principles: forging strategic alliances, integrating local elites, projecting symbolic power, legitimizing his authority through different cultural contexts, and managing both information and the narrative that surrounded him.
The power of symbolism and weddings
The campaigns of Alexander the Great are not only a study in military strategy, but also an early model of leadership, governance, and realistic politics. As the Greek-Roman citizen and historian Flavius Arrian noted, Alexander the Great "excelled not only in conquests, but also in governance."
After his victory over Darius III at Gaugamela (331 BC) and the death of his rival, Alexander adopted Persian royal dress and court ritual. He performed the "prostration"—an act of submission according to Persian customs—that shocked Macedonian officials but sent a powerful message of continuity to his new subjects.
He married Roxane of Bactria and later Stateira and Parisatida, daughters of Persian kings. These marriages were not dictated by romance but by geopolitical expediency. At Susa (324 BC) he organized a mass marriage of 10.000 Macedonian soldiers with Persian women, a spectacular but calculated act of cultural unification of conquerors and conquered.
The use of marriage as a tool of diplomacy would be repeated for centuries, from European royal courts to the palaces of the Ottoman Porte.
Religious diplomacy and cultural synthesis
Alexander the Great understood the limits of conquest by force. He retained many of the satraps of the Achaemenid kingdom and allowed the cities to retain their customs and traditions, provided they recognized his authority and paid taxes.
In Egypt, he sought divine legitimacy. He visited the oracle of Ammon Zeus at Siwa, where he was declared “son of god.” Perhaps this act contained elements of personal ambition, vanity, or even megalomania. But at the same time it was an act of religious diplomacy, deeply rooted in the logic of power.
He founded over twenty cities named Alexandria, many of which developed into administrative, commercial, and cultural centers. They were not simply strategic outposts. They were vehicles for the transmission of Hellenistic culture. Alexandria in Egypt emerged as a beacon of knowledge, philosophy, and the arts, a harbinger of a new, cosmopolitan era.
In today's terms, we would say that Alexander the Great practiced cultural diplomacy before the term was even coined.
Legitimacy, authority and respect
After the Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BC), Alexander the Great defeated King Porus. When asked how he wished to be treated, he replied: “As a king.” Alexander the Great returned his kingdom to him and ruled through him.
The incident, recorded by both Arrian and the Roman historian Curtius Rufus in his landmark work Historiae Alexandri Magni, highlights Alexander’s understanding that local legitimacy often trumps direct occupation. It was a form of indirect rule, a concept that we still encounter today in transitional regimes and peace agreements.
Failures in diplomacy and governance
Alexander the Great's diplomacy was not without its faults. His attempt to incorporate Persians into his administration provoked strong reactions within the Macedonian army. The standoff at Opi (324 BC) revealed deep cracks in identity, loyalty, and cultural composition.
The most tragic episode was the murder of Cleitus, a close friend and trusted officer, after a heated argument. It was not only a personal slip-up, but also a failure of "internal diplomacy", an inability to manage emotions, differences and contradictions within his staff.
His biggest strategic mistake, however, was the lack of a succession plan. He died without naming a successor, and the empire began to disintegrate. It wasn't just a strategic lapse. It was a failure of leadership.
Legacy beyond empire
And yet, Alexander the Great’s legacy endured. The Hellenistic world—a synthesis of Greek, Egyptian, Persian, and Asiatic elements—lasted for centuries. The methods of integration, symbolism, and negotiation of legitimacy created new cultural patterns that survived long after the collapse of his empire.
In parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, when the desert wind blows with a terrifying noise among the ruins, the locals still say: “Iskender passes by on his horse” – the name by which Alexander the Great is known in many languages of the Islamic world.
Master of image and storytelling
Alexander the Great understood the power of image. He commissioned official narratives, claimed divine descent, and had his image engraved on coins. It was an early form of information diplomacy and propaganda at the same time. Image, narrative, and memory were his political arsenal.
Alexander the Great was not only a master of war. He was also a master of communication, storytelling, and impression management. He planned his narrative with the same care that he planned his campaigns.
From the diplomacy of Alexander the Great to its continuing relevance
Alexander the Great's leadership was not simply tactical. It was grand strategy. It combined violence with reconciliation, and ambition with the legitimacy of local societies. He was not a democrat, but he understood that sustainable power does not rest on conquest alone. It required reconciliation and consensus.
In modern diplomacy we face much the same issues: managing differences and power, shaping perceptions, maintaining legitimacy, controlling information, and the need for continuity. The world of Alexander the Great was different in appearance, but not always in substance.
Alexander the Great was imperfect, often cruel and driven by ambition, but he was also realistic, flexible and insightful. If diplomacy is the management of relationships through differences and interests, then he practiced it in practice – a diplomacy without borders.
Statesmanship and strategic insight were present in his governance, even if without institutional form. What remains is not violence, but the ability to harmonize differences, bridge gaps, and temper ambition with understanding.
Alexander the Great knew that conquest alone does not create a lasting legacy. It is tolerance, adaptability, and creative synthesis that endures time.
In diplomacy, as in history, the measure of greatness is not what you conquer, but what you compose and which endures over time.
*Ambassador (Honorary), Senior Researcher, Cyprus Centre for European and International Affairs, University of Nicosia.
Source: https://www.anixneuseis.gr/
photo GreekRadioFL
