Sun Tzu vs Macedonian strategy

[Nicator]

Hello all,One of the most stiking differences between the Sun Tzu doctine and Macedonian (under Alexander) methodology was that Alexander preferred to attack his enemy at their stongest point. Sun Tzu teachings were designed to handle the opponent by attacking at the weakest place. Alexander seemed to be so dangerously effective because he mastered the ability to attack stategically at the stongest point of his enemies, and tactically he seemed to favour the attack at the opponents weakest point. The often overlooked diadem of tactics and strategy was perhaps key to his overall military effectiveness. Sun Tzu taught that when laying seige to a fortress, you should aways leave an escape route. Alexander, typically, laid seige and hemmed the residents in completely. This led to much more desperate fighting by the inhabitants and overall a more difficult seige. The advantage was that after sacking a well defended fortress (Tyre for example) future fortresses were inclined to give up without a fight (best case) or fight desperately for a while, knowing that defeat was inevitable, thus hastening the collapse at least psychologically. Perhaps the Sun Tzu methods were meant to be used as a generic guideline for any army to use. It was probably due to Alexanders incredibly well trained and effective fighting force which allowed him to take such incredible risks so often and always come out on top. A case in point: Gaugemela pitted a small but highly maneuverable and well trained force (Macedonians) against a virtual glutton of manpower (Persians). There could be no doubt that Alexander was truly the lord of Asia after winning this battle. The deck seemed virtually stacked against him. A wide open field which was prepared by his enemy. The Persians were so large in comparison that they could have (indeed should have) surrounded the Macedonians completely. One could argue that had Alexander had any brains at all he should have avoided this sure lose scenario. But I guess he proved the experts wrong and did what he did best...ripped his enemy apart on their terms and their chosen field. The tactics used were designed to open up a weakness and exploit it, which Alexander seemed to have executed flawessly. Comments please...later Nicator

[jan]

Truly amazing. I have only question. Were the Persians of the same shape and size as the Macedonian troops? I happened to find a picture of Lysippus's Heracles, and it seems that in these battles, size and health of the soldiers does matter. Pictures of the Persians that I have seen make them appear as small as European kings and queens. Using that model, Alexander's troops, though smaller in number, appear to be giants in comparison. Am I right or wrong?

[Tre]

Hello Nick!Interesting indeed. However ancient battle tactics of the Macedonians were based on a wheel turning counterclockwise. The King always took the right and whereas you might expect an opponent would put his best fighting forces there to face the King, in fact it would be more appropriate to put your stongest forces facing the King's left where the King's line might be more likely to break. Hence the tremendous pressure on Parmenio and his forces to 'hold' no matter what despite terrific onslaught. It was imperative that Persian forces not break that line because they could completely encircle the Macedonians from the rear.I theroize that indeed, Alexander faced the weaker side during battle and was a master at locating weaknesses in the line and breaking through as he did at Chaironea, where you also see the Athenians having the Theban Sacred Band facing what they perceived to be the weaker side of the Macedonians -without the King. Philip wouldn't put a young inexperienced pup in such a critical place. Boy had talent.As for leaving an escape route during a siege - that depends on what you purpose is. Alexander's was to make a point at Tyre (which failed naturally since Gaza gave similar resistance - sometimes ramming your foot down someone's throat is not the best way to go about things, and Alexander found this out several times in his short life, but that was the Macedonian way), destroy enemy forces that could possibly be used against him at a future date and frankly the booty of slavery. He had no wish for people to escape so he could just have the city. The city was not what he really wanted. As for Gaugamela - part of that was proving once and for all he was better than the Persians on the field of battle. 'I will not steal a victory.' However what faced him at Gaugamela was no longer the cream of the Persian military - their blood ran into the sands of Issus long before. What Darius had was numbers, but not necessarily quality. And whereas numbers alone can get your opponent into trouble just dodging bodies, with a man like Alexander you had better well be one hell of a strategos with one great standing army. The Persians had neither, so the outcome should have been expected. But Darius had little choice but to continue to fight for his empire, out of honor, even though he was vastly outclassed.Regards,Tre

[Nicator]

...hmmm, I really can't answer this one? Individual physical size may have mattered to a point, but a well trained smaller man will defeat an untrained larger man nearly every time. Also, consider that Alexander made excellent use of archers (one of his most relied upon and effective tactics) who are lethal at a distance. The strength of the army was at the core manifested in the phalanx. This body of soldiers had to face the Greek mercenaries in the center, I doubt the physical size was much different between these bodies of men. The Macedonian center had numerous tactical advantages though. The 4 graded length rows of cornel wood pikes combined with the ability to use both hands gave a large increase in power to the Macedonians. Alexander's secret weapon was his cavalry. He used his cavalry with deadly effectiveness throughout his entire campaign. Again, this would negate any physical size issue between individual men. Historically, animal populations tend towards smaller physical size when populations get too large for the geographical area to support. Just how this played out in ancient Greek, Macedonian, and Persian human populations is probably unknowable.