Audio · 2025-12-22 · 4h 14m · 6 moments

Show 73 - Mania for Subjugation III

Attacking the largest empire the world had ever seen is a huge endeavor at any age, but try doing it at 21. Alexander, fusing the qualities of a Napoleon with a gladiator, aims for immortality. The Persians are just in his way. ✦ AI generated

Apple Podcasts ↗

GUEST Dan Carlin

timeline · colored by role

Context

Alexander's youth at 21 makes him an outlier among history's great conquerors, who were typically in their 30s, 40s, or 60s when they took power.

The host compares Alexander's age to other major historical figures like Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Caesar, and Napoleon, all of whom were much older when they assumed leadership roles.

transcript

Dan Carlin: I mean, look at some of the recent people. I mean, Stalin was in his mid-40s when he first came to the leadership. Hitler was also in his mid-40s, 43, something like that. Franklin Roosevelt was in, I think he was just 50 or somewhere right around 50. Churchill was in his mid-60s. Caesar, late 40s, I think. Napoleon now, he was only about 30 or something when he became first consul at like 33, 4, 5 when he became emperor.

Claim

Alexander's Macedonian army was so dominant that it could have won its early campaigns under almost any commander, diminishing the extent to which Alexander personally deserves credit for those victories.

The host argues that the professional Macedonian army, which never went home and trained constantly, was so good that it could operate on autopilot, and even a less capable ruler like 'King Tommy Boy' or 'King Some Dude' could have won early battles with it.

transcript

Dan Carlin: I have a pretty good sense here that if I put you in charge of that army in this time period, you could win with it. All you have to do is sit back and let the army do everything. I mean, just the generals that run it alone, but the entire officer corps, the junior officer corps, it is, it's an amazing army and it operates almost on autopilot at this time period.

rebuts · 1

Claim◆

What truly distinguishes Alexander from any other Macedonian ruler is his insatiable appetite for conquest — he would keep using the army to push farther and farther, long after anyone else would have stopped.

The host argues that while any commander might have won with the Macedonian army, only Alexander would have kept pushing it to the breaking point, never satisfied, endlessly expanding the empire.

transcript

Dan Carlin: I think that's the difference here is that anybody maybe could win with that army, but nobody's going to keep using it to conquer farther and farther and farther forever until it's, you know, whittled down to the nub. And maybe that's what makes Alexander the real different figure here. He has a, and this surrounds the story too, this Homeric idea, this desire to be the best.

rebuts · 1

Fact◆

Alexander's finances were in such a dire state that he was essentially running a startup company — borrowing money from friends, pawning royal lands, and effectively treating the Persian invasion as a venture that his companions were angel investors in.

The host details Alexander's crushing debt, inherited from Philip II, the enormous ongoing cost of the professional army, and how he raised cash by selling Theban citizens into slavery, borrowing from friends, and offering his companions shares in the Persian plunder.

transcript

Dan Carlin: The reason all this stuff, all this financial stuff is so important is because with so much fiction surrounding the few facts that are available about Alexander, when you can get your hands on something that at least seems to be the truth... This isn't one nation state going against another in the modern day sense. These are a bunch of guys who are going, hey, you know what? You let me get my share of the profits in this Persian expedition of yours. And I'll give you some money and I'll give you some upfront investment. I'll be an angel investor.

Anecdote

The tradition that Alexander's mother Olympias told him during their last meeting in Macedonia that Philip II was not his real father — that his true father was divine — may have given him a lifetime supply of 'liquid luck' confidence before he ever achieved anything.

The host explores the tradition that Olympias told Alexander — allegedly during their final winter together — that his real father was Zeus, not Philip II. This belief, if held from the start rather than adopted later after great achievements, would have supercharged his willingness to take risks.

transcript

Dan Carlin: What if Alexander goes into his career thinking this? What if he thinks it from the time his mother tells him, allegedly, during this interlude? Does it change your willingness to take risks, for example? I mean, I would think there'd be a whole bunch of things that if I truly believed I was the son of a god and that I had some sort of destiny here, that might impact my willingness to take risks, my willingness to keep going, my willingness to sort of trust in fate. Sure is a confidence builder, even if it's sort of a placebo effect.

explains mechanism · 1

Context

Our view of the Achaemenid Persian Empire is hopelessly distorted by Greek propaganda, which the Persians — lacking their own surviving historical record — cannot counter, and which Alexander himself weaponized to justify his conquest.

The host argues that the standard narrative of Persian decline is largely Greek propaganda, that the Persians pioneered a tolerant approach to ruling multi-ethnic empires, and that Alexander immediately began spinning his own propaganda to justify his war.

transcript

Dan Carlin: What a lot of the really good modern historians covering the Achaemenid Persian Empire point out is this is all propaganda and bigotry and prejudice from the Greek side. And also intended to show off, you know, sort of a pro-Greek everything. And it's colored the way we view the entire situation here... There's a ton of propaganda to wade through, including a ton of stuff Alexander put out himself during and after his war with Persia, intending to bolster his claim that he's the rightful king.

Highlight slides

Alexander's Insatiable Drive✦ from: What truly distinguishes Alexander from any other Macedonian ruler is his insatiable appetite for conquest — he would keep using the army to push farther and farther, long after anyone else would have stopped.The Homeric Motive✦ from: What truly distinguishes Alexander from any other Macedonian ruler is his insatiable appetite for conquest — he would keep using the army to push farther and farther, long after anyone else would have stopped.Alexander's Startup Empire✦ from: Alexander's finances were in such a dire state that he was essentially running a startup company — borrowing money from friends, pawning royal lands, and effectively treating the Persian invasion as a venture that his companions were angel investors in.Companions as Angel Investors✦ from: Alexander's finances were in such a dire state that he was essentially running a startup company — borrowing money from friends, pawning royal lands, and effectively treating the Persian invasion as a venture that his companions were angel investors in.

Related episodes

Video · Lex Fridman

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire | Lex Fridman Podcast #498

→

Article · Import AI

Import AI 464: Fables writes GPU kernels; AI automation; and analog computation

→

Video · The Compound

Is This One of the Greatest Bull Markets Ever?

→