§-Syllabus dot point

NSWAncient HistorySyllabus dot point

What was Alexander's background and upbringing, and how did he accede to the Macedonian throne in 336 BC and secure his power against rivals at home and in Greece?

Alexander the Great's background, accession and securing of power: his birth in 356 BC to Philip II of Macedon and Olympias of Epirus; his education by Aristotle at Mieza and early promise (the taming of Bucephalus, the regency at 16, and the command of the Companion cavalry at Chaeronea in 338 BC); the estrangement from Philip (the Pixodarus affair and Philip's marriage to Cleopatra-Eurydice); the assassination of Philip II in 336 BC and the debated question of Alexander's and Olympias' complicity; and the accession and ruthless securing of power in 336 to 335 BC, including the elimination of Attalus, Amyntas and Cleopatra-Eurydice, and the destruction of Thebes

A focused HSC Ancient History Personalities answer on Alexander the Great's background, accession and securing of power - born 356 BC to Philip II and Olympias, taught by Aristotle at Mieza, Chaeronea 338 BC, Philip's murder 336 BC, the purge of rivals, and Thebes destroyed 335 BC.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.813 min answerUpdated 2026-07-01

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

Alexander was born in 356 BC at Pella to Philip II of Macedon and Olympias of Epirus, was tutored by Aristotle at Mieza from about 343 BC, and showed early promise - taming Bucephalus, acting as regent at 16 in 340 BC, and leading the Companion cavalry at Chaeronea in 338 BC. In 337 BC he was estranged from Philip over the Pixodarus affair and Philip's marriage to Cleopatra-Eurydice, leaving his succession insecure. Philip was assassinated by Pausanias at Aegae in 336 BC; whether Alexander or Olympias was complicit is debated and unproven. As king at 20, Alexander secured power ruthlessly - eliminating Attalus, his cousin Amyntas and the Lyncestian princes, while Olympias killed Cleopatra-Eurydice and her child - then confirmed his hegemony over Greece and, in 335 BC, destroyed Thebes as exemplary terror. Historians divide over how far his success rested on Philip's legacy (Worthington) and how far his methods were rational statecraft (Hammond, Tarn) or ruthless terror (Badian, Bosworth).

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
How to read a source on this topic

What this dot point is asking

NESA's "Background and rise" strand for Alexander wants you to explain who he was before he became a conqueror and how he came to power: his birth in 356 BC to Philip II of Macedon and Olympias of Epirus; his education by Aristotle at Mieza and the signs of early promise (the taming of Bucephalus, the regency at 16, and his cavalry command at Chaeronea in 338 BC); the growing estrangement from Philip in 337 BC (the Pixodarus affair and Philip's marriage to Cleopatra-Eurydice); the assassination of Philip II in 336 BC and the debated question of whether Alexander or Olympias was complicit; and the swift, ruthless securing of power in 336 to 335 BC, from the purge of rivals to the destruction of Thebes.

In plain English

Think of Alexander as the heir to a family business that his father had just turned into the biggest firm in the region. Philip II had built a superb army and made Macedon the boss of Greece. So Alexander inherited a powerful machine, a bit like taking over a company your parent spent twenty years building.

But inheriting is not the same as being safe. Alexander's mother was a foreigner, and when Philip took a new local wife, people started asking whether Alexander was really the rightful heir. Father and son fell out badly.

Then Philip was suddenly murdered at a public festival, and no one is quite sure who was behind it - some pointed the finger at Alexander and his mother, though there is no proof. The moment Alexander took over, aged only 20, he moved fast and hard: he had his rivals killed, forced the Greek cities back into line, and when the city of Thebes rebelled, he wiped it off the map to scare everyone else into obedience.

The answer

Birth and parentage: Philip II and Olympias

Alexander was born in 356 BC at Pella, the Macedonian capital. His father was Philip II, the king who in a single generation had transformed Macedon from a weak, fractious kingdom into the dominant military power of the Greek world, reforming the army around the long pike (sarissa) and the elite Companion cavalry. His mother was Olympias, a princess of the Molossian royal house of Epirus, a strong-willed woman devoted to the cult of Dionysus and fiercely protective of her son's claim to the throne.

This parentage gave Alexander a double royal inheritance - the Macedonian kingship through Philip and Epirote royalty through Olympias - but it also carried a weakness. In a Macedonian court where the king took several wives, Olympias' foreign origin could be used to question whether Alexander was the most "legitimate" heir, a tension that would surface in 337 BC.

Education by Aristotle at Mieza

From about 343 BC Philip engaged the philosopher Aristotle to tutor the adolescent Alexander at Mieza, at a precinct known as the Nymphaeum. Alexander studied literature (famously the Homeric Iliad, which he is said to have kept with him on campaign), philosophy, ethics, politics and natural science. The education left a lasting mark on his intellectual curiosity and his self-image as a bringer of Greek culture, though we should be cautious: much of what later writers say about the relationship is coloured by hindsight and by Aristotle's own fame.

Early promise: Bucephalus, the regency and Chaeronea

Several episodes were remembered as signs of Alexander's early ability. Plutarch (Alexander 6) tells the famous story of the boy taming the great horse Bucephalus, which no one else could mount, by noticing it feared its own shadow and turning it toward the sun. Whatever its literal truth, the anecdote reflects a tradition of precocious boldness.

More concretely, in 340 BC, aged only 16, Alexander was left as regent of Macedon while Philip besieged Byzantium. He crushed a rebellion of the Thracian Maedi and founded a city, Alexandropolis, an early exercise of independent command. Then in 338 BC, at the battle of Chaeronea, the 18-year-old Alexander commanded the Companion cavalry on the Macedonian left and delivered the charge that destroyed the Theban Sacred Band - the victory that made Philip master of Greece. By his late teens, Alexander had already proved himself both as a governor and as a battlefield commander.

The estrangement from Philip (337 BC)

In 337 BC relations between father and son broke down. The immediate cause was Philip's marriage to Cleopatra-Eurydice, a Macedonian noblewoman and niece of the powerful noble Attalus. At the wedding feast, Attalus reportedly toasted the hope that the union would produce a "legitimate" heir - a pointed insult to the half-Epirote Alexander. Alexander hurled his cup at Attalus; Philip drew his sword on his own son but, drunk, stumbled and fell (Plutarch, Alexander 9). Alexander withdrew, taking Olympias to Epirus and himself going to Illyria.

The rift deepened with the Pixodarus affair. Pixodarus, the satrap of Caria, offered his daughter in marriage to Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus. Fearing he was being pushed aside, Alexander secretly sent an actor, Thessalus, to offer himself as the bridegroom instead. Philip was furious at the meddling, cancelled the match, and exiled Alexander's closest friends, among them Ptolemy, Nearchus, Harpalus, Erigyius and Laomedon (Plutarch, Alexander 10). Although Alexander was formally reconciled with his father, the episode showed how insecure his position as heir had become - a fact central to understanding what followed.

The assassination of Philip II (336 BC)

In 336 BC, at the old capital of Aegae, Philip staged a magnificent festival to celebrate the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus (Olympias' brother). As Philip entered the theatre, he was struck down and killed by Pausanias, a member of his own bodyguard, who was cut down as he tried to flee.

The ancient tradition (Diodorus 16.93 to 94; Justin; Plutarch) records that Pausanias had a personal grievance: he had been wronged, allegedly at the instigation of Attalus, and had been denied justice by Philip. This points to a private motive. Yet the same sources also preserve suspicion that Olympias - humiliated and sidelined by the new marriage - or even Alexander himself had encouraged the deed.

Here the evidence must be handled critically. The complicity claims come from sources written centuries later, some shaped by the propaganda of Alexander's rival successors, and no source close to the event names Alexander or Olympias as instigators. Alexander and Olympias certainly had motive after the estrangement of 337 BC, but motive is not proof. The honest position, and the one HSC markers reward, is to present the assassination as certain and Pausanias as the killer, while treating the question of complicity as genuinely debated and unresolved.

Accession and the securing of power (336 to 335 BC)

Alexander, aged 20, moved with speed and ruthlessness to secure a throne that was far from safe.

Winning the army: Macedonian kingship depended on the acclamation of the army. Backed by the senior marshal Antipater and by the influence of Parmenion, Alexander was proclaimed king at once.
Eliminating rivals: He then removed every possible claimant. Attalus, who commanded in Asia with Parmenion and represented the hostile faction, was executed. His cousin Amyntas (son of Philip's predecessor Perdiccas III), a plausible alternative king, was put to death. The Lyncestian brothers Heromenes and Arrhabaeus were executed as alleged conspirators in Philip's murder (their brother Alexander of Lyncestis, first to hail Alexander as king, was spared for the moment). Meanwhile Olympias took her own revenge, having Cleopatra-Eurydice and her infant killed - an act Plutarch (Alexander 10) says occurred in Alexander's absence and of which he disapproved.
Reasserting control of Greece: The Greek states, hoping Philip's death had loosened Macedon's grip, began to stir. Alexander marched south rapidly, overawed Thessaly and the rest, and had himself confirmed as hegemon of the League of Corinth and strategos (commander) of the projected war against Persia - the position his father had held.
Securing the north and the destruction of Thebes (335 BC): In 335 BC Alexander campaigned in the Balkans against the Thracians and Triballians, crossing the Danube, and then against the Illyrians. While he was in the north, Thebes revolted on a false rumour that he had been killed. Alexander marched south with extraordinary speed, stormed the city, and razed it - killing thousands and enslaving the survivors, sparing only the temples and the house of the poet Pindar (Arrian 1.7 to 9; Diodorus 17.8 to 14). The destruction of one of the great cities of Greece was calculated terror: it shocked the other states, above all Athens, into submission and left Alexander free to turn east.

How to read a source on this topic

The evidence for Alexander is unusual: not one contemporary narrative survives intact. Everything comes through later writers who drew on now-lost eyewitness accounts, so you must handle each by its genre and its distance from the events.

First, distinguish the main surviving traditions. Arrian's Anabasis (2nd century AD) is generally the most reliable narrative because he followed Ptolemy (a companion of Alexander and later king of Egypt) and Aristobulus; but Ptolemy had his own reputation to protect, so Arrian can be apologetic. Against this stands the "vulgate" tradition, deriving from Cleitarchus and preserved in Diodorus (Book 17), Quintus Curtius Rufus and Justin, which is fuller on drama and scandal but more sensational and less critical.

Second, treat Plutarch (Life of Alexander, c. AD 100) for what it is: moral biography, not analytical history. It is our richest source for the background material on this dot point - Bucephalus, the wedding-feast quarrel, the Pixodarus affair - but Plutarch selects anecdotes to illuminate character and drew on writers of uneven reliability.

Third, watch for propaganda and hindsight. Alexander's court historian Callisthenes wrote to glorify him; the later successors slandered rivals. Claims about the assassination of Philip, in particular, are shaped by these agendas, which is exactly why the complicity of Alexander and Olympias cannot be settled from the sources we have.

Command words and using this evidence

"Outline" and "identify" want correctly sequenced facts with brief development, one mark per point; they do not require you to resolve a debate. "Explain" wants a causal chain - why the estrangement of 337 BC or the murder of 336 BC changed Alexander's prospects - not just what happened. "Assess," "evaluate" and "to what extent" require a sustained judgement: weigh Philip's legacy against Alexander's own agency, and weigh the effectiveness of his methods against their ruthlessness.

When a source appears, work through content, then reliability (who wrote it, in what genre, how long after the event, and drawing on whom), then usefulness (what it does and does not let a historian conclude), then perspective. Weave historians in as argument - for example "Worthington stresses Alexander's debt to Philip's army, but Hammond credits Alexander's own generalship" - rather than listing names at the end.

The second figure sets out the sequence from Alexander's birth to the destruction of Thebes, distinguishing the early background from the crisis of 336 to 335 BC.

Modern scholarship on Alexander's rise

W.W. Tarn (Alexander the Great, 1948) gave the classic idealised reading, presenting Alexander as a chivalrous visionary aiming at the "brotherhood of mankind"; his portrait now looks over-generous and sits awkwardly with episodes such as Thebes. Ernst Badian, in a series of influential essays, reacted sharply against Tarn, depicting Alexander as a ruthless, insecure autocrat, and reading the purges of 336 BC as the pattern of the reign. A.B. Bosworth (Conquest and Empire, 1988; From Arrian to Alexander) is the leading source-critical authority, cautious even about Arrian and alert to the brutality behind the achievement. N.G.L. Hammond, the great historian of Macedonia, is more sympathetic, crediting Alexander's own generalship and defending much of the tradition. Ian Worthington (By the Spear, 2014) stresses Alexander's debt to Philip II and the army Philip built, while Elizabeth Carney (Olympias, 2006) has reassessed the political agency of Olympias, which matters directly for the securing of power in 336 BC. Together these historians frame the central interpretive questions: how far Alexander's success rested on Philip's legacy, and how far his securing of power was rational statecraft or ruthless terror.

Model responses

Model 1 (source-analysis, extract). The reconstruction is useful for the secure outline of Philip's murder because those elements - Aegae, the theatre, the assassin Pausanias of the bodyguard, his death in flight - are attested consistently across the later tradition (Diodorus, Justin, Plutarch), so a historian can rely on them. Its reliability collapses, however, on the claim that Olympias or Alexander was complicit: that suggestion survives only in sources written centuries afterwards, some coloured by the propaganda of Alexander's successors, and no near-contemporary names them. Since Pausanias is elsewhere given a private grievance, the document is useful for the fact of the assassination but must be treated sceptically on its cause. Marker's note: the response separates what the tradition establishes (the killing) from what it cannot (the conspiracy), and dates the sources to justify the doubt.

Model 2 (essay paragraph on securing power). The destruction of Thebes in 335 BC reveals the method behind Alexander's securing of power: calculated terror. When the city rose on a false rumour of his death, he did not merely retake it but razed it, killing or enslaving its people and sparing only the temples and Pindar's house - a deliberate advertisement of restraint amid annihilation. The target audience was the rest of Greece, above all Athens, and the immediate submission of the states shows the method worked. Badian sees in such acts the essential Alexander, compelling obedience by fear rather than consent, which is exactly why Tarn's chivalrous idealist is hard to sustain here. Marker's note: the paragraph evaluates a method (terror), ties it to a dated event, and uses the Badian/Tarn divide to reach a judgement rather than narrating the siege.

Common exam traps

Confusing Alexander's two sides of the family: The Macedonian kingship comes through his father Philip II; the Epirote royalty (and the succession disputes) come through his mother Olympias. Keep them straight.
Stating flatly that Alexander killed his father: The complicity of Alexander and Olympias is genuinely debated and unproven; the killer was Pausanias. Present it as an open question, not a fact.
Giving Philip no credit: Alexander inherited a superb army, a unified kingdom and the League of Corinth from Philip. For "to what extent" questions, weigh this legacy (Worthington) against Alexander's own agency (Hammond).
Narrating instead of evaluating: For "assess" or "evaluate," weigh the effectiveness of Alexander's methods against their ruthlessness and his reliance on others (Olympias, Antipater), and reach a verdict rather than retelling 336 to 335 BC.
Treating the sources as eyewitnesses: No contemporary account survives; Arrian, Plutarch and Diodorus all write centuries later from lost sources. Flag their distance and bias when you use them.

Practice questions

Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.

foundation3 marksOutline Alexander's family background and upbringing before his accession in 336 BC.

Show worked solution →

A 3-mark "outline" wants three correct, clearly stated points.

His parents: Alexander was born in 356 BC at Pella to Philip II of Macedon, the king who transformed Macedon into the leading Greek military power, and to Olympias, a princess of the Molossian royal house of Epirus (1 mark).
His education: From about 343 BC he was tutored by the philosopher Aristotle at Mieza, an education in literature, philosophy and science that shaped his outlook (1 mark).
Early promise: He showed early ability - taming the horse Bucephalus as a boy (Plutarch, Alexander 6), acting as regent at 16 while Philip campaigned, and commanding the Companion cavalry at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward the double inheritance (Macedonian kingship through Philip, Epirote royalty through Olympias) plus the Aristotelian education and a concrete sign of early promise, not just "he was Philip's son."

foundation4 marksIdentify four individuals connected to Alexander's background and accession, and state each one's relationship to him.

Show worked solution →

A 4-mark "identify" needs four distinct, correctly stated relationships.

Philip II: Alexander's father, king of Macedon (reigned 359 to 336 BC), whose army and hegemony Alexander inherited.
Olympias: Alexander's mother, a Molossian princess of Epirus, who championed his succession and later killed his rival Cleopatra-Eurydice.
Aristotle: The philosopher who tutored Alexander at Mieza from about 343 BC.
Attalus: A leading Macedonian noble, uncle of Philip's last wife Cleopatra-Eurydice; his faction threatened Alexander's succession, and Alexander had him executed in 336 BC.

Marker's note: markers reward four distinct, correctly labelled relationships (two by blood, one teacher, one rival), not a general narrative of the reign.

core5 marksExplain the significance of the estrangement between Alexander and Philip in 337 BC for Alexander's position as heir.

Show worked solution →

A 5-mark "explain" needs the causes of the estrangement stated and its significance argued.

Philip's new marriage: In 337 BC Philip married Cleopatra-Eurydice, a Macedonian noblewoman and niece of Attalus. At the wedding feast Attalus reportedly called for a "legitimate" heir, an insult implying Alexander (whose mother was a foreigner) was not fully so. Alexander's furious response led to a breach with Philip; Alexander withdrew, and Olympias left for Epirus (Plutarch, Alexander 9).
The Pixodarus affair: Soon after, when the Carian satrap Pixodarus offered his daughter to Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus, Alexander, fearing he was being sidelined, secretly offered himself instead. Philip was enraged at the interference and exiled Alexander's closest friends, including Ptolemy and Nearchus (Plutarch, Alexander 10).
Significance: The estrangement mattered because it exposed Alexander's succession as insecure: a new marriage could produce a rival of purely Macedonian blood, and Attalus' faction was hostile. This insecurity helps explain both the suspicion that later attached to Alexander over Philip's murder and the ruthlessness with which he purged rivals once king.

Marker's note: markers reward the link from the wedding-feast insult and the Pixodarus affair to a genuine threat to Alexander's succession, not just a family quarrel.

core6 marksSOURCE ANALYSIS. Source A (owned reconstruction, ExamExplained): a summary in the manner of a modern textbook, paraphrasing the later Alexander tradition. It states that in 336 BC, as Philip II entered the theatre at Aegae for the wedding festival of his daughter, he was struck down by Pausanias, one of his own bodyguards, who was killed as he fled; and it adds that some writers in antiquity suspected that Olympias, and even Alexander himself, had a hand in the deed. Assess the usefulness and reliability of Source A for a historian investigating the assassination of Philip II.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark source task needs balanced usefulness AND reliability, anchored in origin and purpose, plus own knowledge.

Origin and purpose: Source A is an ExamExplained reconstruction that summarises the surviving ancient tradition (Diodorus 16.93 to 94; Justin; Plutarch), not a contemporary record. Its purpose is to report what the later sources say, so it is a guide to the tradition rather than independent evidence.
Usefulness: It is useful for the agreed core facts: the place (the theatre at Aegae), the occasion (the wedding of Philip's daughter to Alexander of Epirus), the assassin (Pausanias, a member of the bodyguard), and his death in flight. These are attested across the tradition and let a historian reconstruct the event's outline with confidence.
Reliability and limitation: Its reliability weakens sharply on motive and complicity. The suggestion that Olympias or Alexander was involved reflects a hostile or speculative strand in sources written centuries later, several shaped by the propaganda of Alexander's successors. Pausanias is elsewhere said to have had a personal grievance, which points to a private motive; the conspiracy claims cannot be verified and may be retrospective rumour.
Own knowledge and corroboration: A careful historian treats the assassination as certain but the complicity as an open question: Alexander and Olympias had motive (the estrangement of 337 BC), but motive is not proof, and no source close to the event names them. Source A is therefore useful for the fact of the murder but must be used critically for its causes.

Markers reward candidates who separate the secure facts (place, assassin) from the contested claim (complicity), and who date the sources to explain their unreliability on motive.

core6 marksExplain how Alexander secured his power in Macedon and Greece in the years 336 to 335 BC.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark "explain" needs the methods set out and a clear causal chain to a secured throne.

Securing the throne (336 BC): On Philip's death Alexander, aged 20, was proclaimed king with the backing of the army and of Antipater, a senior Macedonian marshal. He moved at once against rivals: Attalus was executed in Asia; his cousin Amyntas (son of Perdiccas III), a possible claimant, was put to death; and the Lyncestian brothers were executed as alleged conspirators. Olympias, meanwhile, killed Cleopatra-Eurydice and her infant, removing that dynastic line (Plutarch, Alexander 10).
Securing Greece (336 BC): The Greek states, hoping Philip's death loosened Macedonian control, wavered. Alexander marched south with speed, overawed Thessaly and the states, and had himself confirmed as hegemon of the League of Corinth and commander of the planned war on Persia.
Securing the north and the terror at Thebes (335 BC): In 335 BC he campaigned against the Thracians, Triballians and Illyrians, crossing the Danube. When Thebes revolted on a false rumour of his death, Alexander stormed and razed the city, killing thousands and enslaving the survivors, sparing only the temples and the house of the poet Pindar. The destruction terrified Greece into submission.

Markers reward the chain (army backing to elimination of rivals to Greek hegemony confirmed to Thebes as exemplary terror), not a list of events.

exam20 marksESSAY. To what extent did Alexander owe his early success to his father, Philip II?

Show worked solution →

A Band-6 essay sustains a judgement on "to what extent," uses specific dated evidence, and weaves historiography. Plan plus model paragraph.

Thesis: Alexander owed a great deal to Philip, who bequeathed a reformed army, a unified kingdom, mastery of Greece and a plan to invade Persia; but inheritance is not the same as achievement, and Alexander's own decisiveness in 336 to 335 BC was needed to convert Philip's legacy into secured power. Judgement: a large debt, but not the whole story.
Argument line 1: the military and political instrument: Philip (reigned 359 to 336 BC) created the sarissa phalanx and the Companion cavalry, unified Macedon, defeated Greece at Chaeronea in 338 BC, and founded the League of Corinth. Ian Worthington stresses that Alexander inherited the finest army in the Greek world and the machinery of hegemony, arguing Alexander's early wins were unthinkable without Philip's groundwork.
Argument line 2: the Persian project and trained commanders: Philip had already sent an advance force into Asia and planned the Persian war; Alexander inherited the strategy and Philip's veteran marshals (Parmenion, Antipater). His success thus began on foundations Philip laid.
Argument line 3: Alexander's own agency (the counter-weight): Yet in 336 BC the inheritance was fragile: rivals, a wavering Greece and rebellious tribes. Alexander secured it by his own speed and ruthlessness - the purge of rivals, the rapid march south, and the exemplary destruction of Thebes in 335 BC. N.G.L. Hammond credits Alexander's personal generalship and nerve; A.B. Bosworth notes the calculated terror. Philip supplied the tools, but Alexander wielded them.
Model paragraph (line 1): The clearest measure of Alexander's debt is the army he never had to build. By 336 BC Philip had spent two decades forging the Macedonian phalanx around the long sarissa and the shock Companion cavalry, and had welded fractious Macedon into a single kingdom. When Alexander crossed into Asia in 334 BC he did so with an instrument already tested at Chaeronea in 338 BC, where he himself had led the cavalry charge that broke the Theban Sacred Band. Worthington presses this point hard: the victories that made Alexander's name were won with Philip's army, by Philip's officers, toward Philip's objective. But an inherited weapon still needs a hand to wield it, and it was Alexander who, in the perilous months after the murder, kept the army loyal and the kingdom intact.
Conclusion: Philip explains the means, the trained army, the unified state and the Persian plan; Alexander explains their survival and use in the crisis of 336 to 335 BC. Judgement: the debt is large and real, but Alexander's early success was jointly the work of the father who built the instrument and the son who saved and drove it.

Marker's note: Band 6 answers reach a clear verdict on "to what extent," use precise dated evidence (359, 338, 336, 335, 334 BC), and integrate named historians (Worthington, Hammond, Bosworth) as argument rather than decoration.

exam25 marksESSAY. Evaluate the methods Alexander used to secure his power in 336 to 335 BC.

Show worked solution →

A Band-6 essay sustains a weighted judgement on the effectiveness and character of Alexander's methods, with named evidence throughout. Plan plus model paragraph.

Thesis: Alexander secured his power by four linked methods - winning the army and the Macedonian nobility, eliminating dynastic rivals, reasserting Greek hegemony by speed, and inflicting exemplary terror at Thebes. Together they were highly effective, but they were also ruthless and depended heavily on others, above all Olympias and Antipater.
Line 1: securing the army and nobility: Kingship at Macedon rested on the army's acclamation. Backed by Antipater and by Parmenion's influence, Alexander was proclaimed king at once. Winning the men was the indispensable first method; without it nothing else held.
Line 2: eliminating rivals: Alexander removed every dynastic threat in 336 BC: Attalus executed in Asia, his cousin Amyntas killed, the Lyncestian brothers executed as conspirators, and (through Olympias) Cleopatra-Eurydice and her infant destroyed. The method was effective but brutal, and it relied on Olympias' own violence - a dependence historians such as Elizabeth Carney emphasise in reassessing Olympias' political role.
Line 3: speed in Greece: Rather than negotiate, Alexander marched south in 336 BC before the states could organise, and was confirmed hegemon of the League of Corinth. Speed substituted for the authority his father had built over years.
Line 4: terror at Thebes (335 BC): The razing of Thebes, sparing only the temples and Pindar's house, was calculated terror: it broke Greek resistance for the duration of the Persian expedition. Ernst Badian reads such acts as the signature of a ruthless realist; W.W. Tarn's idealised Alexander sits awkwardly with the evidence here.
Line 5: historiography: The methods thus divide interpreters: Badian and Bosworth stress ruthlessness and insecurity; Hammond and Tarn stress necessity and statesmanship. The evidence supports a middle reading - the measures were politically rational for a young king facing collapse, yet undeniably violent.
Model paragraph (line 4): The destruction of Thebes in 335 BC shows Alexander's method at its most deliberate. When the city revolted on a rumour of his death, he did not merely defeat it; he had it razed, its people killed or enslaved, and only the temples and the house of Pindar spared - a gesture that advertised the calculation behind the cruelty. The message was aimed less at Thebes than at Athens and the rest of Greece: revolt would be annihilation. Badian sees here the essential Alexander, securing obedience through fear rather than consent, and the immediate submission of the other states proved the method worked. Yet its very effectiveness is what makes it hard to reconcile with Tarn's chivalrous visionary; the securing of power in 335 BC was an act of terror, coldly successful.
Conclusion: The methods worked: within two years Alexander held Macedon, Greece and the northern frontier and could turn to Persia. But they were ruthless and reliant on others, so a full evaluation credits their effectiveness while refusing to sanitise their violence. Judgement: politically masterful, morally brutal, and not the work of Alexander alone.

Marker's note: Band 6 answers evaluate the methods (weigh effectiveness against character and reliance on others) rather than narrating, anchor each claim in dated evidence, and engage the Badian/Bosworth versus Hammond/Tarn divide to reach a qualified verdict.