This chapter compares specific features of the reigns of Philip II , Alexander III, and Ying Zheng. This chapter attempts to understand the lives of these figures not as Great Men history traditionally has, but rather to understand them as culminations of evolutions and processes that were centuries in the making, and representing evolutions which, in many ways, are cut off after their own eras. Major topics examined include the differing approaches taken to mass population transfer by Alexander and Zheng, the differing expressions of dissent under Philip, Alexander, and Ying Zheng, their various attempts to portray themselves as heroic and divine, and the sociopolitical motivations for their activities in the first place. Findings include the nature of Ying Zheng’s efforts at self divinization as itself bureaucratic. Alexander’s equivalent efforts are limited by the nature of Macedonian kingship as first-among-equals, which his campaigns had massively distorted, but never actually broke down, explaining the attitudes and behaviors of Macedonians towards his increasing power and prestige, as well as providing hard political and social incentivization for Alexander’s campaigns other than the notion of “Pothos”.

Although Alexander’s campaign has received less attention than it might from the perspective of geographical studies, the image of Alexander himself as an explorer has, paradoxically, enjoyed great success in the modern historiography. This is partly to be explained by the widespread belief that Aristotle had a great influence on his student. From this perspective, the image of Alexander as an intellectual and a friend of knowledge fits perfectly with that of an explorer eager to know the world. In the eyes of many scholars, an assumption of this sort has allowed Alexander to become more than a mere conqueror. A new way of understanding this problem is proposed here, since we consider that both Alexander the conqueror and Alexander the explorer were essential and indissociable elements of Alexander the king, that is to say, they were indispensable characteristics of any Argead monarch, and these two facets of rulership must be studied together. In other words, knowing the world was one more way to conquer it and rule it.