Questions on Alexander!

[Jodav]

How Did Alexander Develop as a Military Leader?What Were the Main Points of AlexanderGÇÖs Long-Term Strategic Planning?Where Did Three of His Major Battles, Sieges or Campaigns Fit Into This Strategic Planning?To what extent Did His Strategic Planning Bear Fruit?What Were the Major Points of AlexanderGÇÖs Short-Term Strategic Planning?IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD SUPPLY SOME ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS!-Thanks
Jodav

[nick]

Is this your PhD thesis? It would require half a lifetime to answer these questions properly. (If you are a student, I wouldn't mind personally if you'd explain that to your teacher.)- - -How Did Alexander Develop as a Military Leader?Funny. I would say that he didn't develop. His talent was right there from the start. Maybe only at the Hydaspes he encountered an enemy that he was not *really* prepared for. I guess it was then too late to adjust tactics and strategy - the disadvantage of a head start. (If your running half a mile ahead of the competition, the moment you discover you have a taken a wrong turn is disastrous.)- - -What Were the Main Points of AlexanderGÇÖs Long-Term Strategic Planning?This has been mentioned so often. The basics:1 - organize your defenses (see the Danube campaign, the visits to Greece, and yes, even the destruction of Thebes, and Antipater with a substantial army)2 - secure your supply lines (see Don Engels)3 - take your opponents resources (and his family if you're in the mood)4 - only then go for the final blow (Gaugamela, Babylon, Susa, Persepolis...)- - -Where Did Three of His Major Battles, Sieges or Campaigns Fit Into This Strategic Planning?Thebes: defensesGranicus: I seriously doubt Granicus was part of the strategy as we tend to conceive it now; I think that only during the March towards Gordium Alexander realised that entire Persia was indeed an opportunityHalicarnassus: supply linesIssus: supply linesTyre: resourcesEgypt: resourcesGaugamela: final blowAlexander's campaign in India wasn't half as succesful as his campaign against Persia. Mind you: the Macs walked into unknown territory. You cannot really plan a strategy if you don't have a map.- - -To what extent Did His Strategic Planning Bear Fruit?See above. Persia fell. India was impossible.- - -What Were the Major Points of AlexanderGÇÖs Short-Term Strategic Planning?Hm, this seems a contradiction to me. Something like a "short term career planning". If battle tactics are involved, please read the Army & Battles chapter on our webpages.Regards -
Nick

[Kit]

Hi Nick,'Maybe only at the Hydaspes he encountered an enemy that he was not *really* prepared for. I guess it was then too late to adjust tactics and strategy'.I'm not really sure what you mean here; would you care to elaborate? I realise that Alexander may have been encountering elephants in battle for the first time but I feel he had more than enough time to adjust his tactics to suit. I've always felt that his performance at the Hydaspes was the highpoint (battlewise), it had it all!Also, what sort of resources are you referring to at Tyre? He used a lot of resources in the siege, I'm not sure that he got much out of it? Save, perhaps, control of the seas?Just seeking a bit of clarification, as you say- those questions would take half a lifetime to address fully.regardsKit.

[H]

Hello Nick
Okay, I'll argue "India the impossible" with you...
Also "India the unknown"...
Regards
Halil

[nick]

Hi Nick -Hydaspes - just too many casualties. As I recall they are estimated at 7% killed & wounded combined for Alexander's army. A very good commander in Ancient times kept casualties between 1% or 2% if his army was victorious (Alexander's earlier battles, also Julius Caesar). 5% is believed to have been the max damage that an army could take before it would desintegrate. That Alexander's army still stood after Hydaspes is amazing (and a great achievement both of leadership as well as the discipline and morale of the men). Still losses were so severe that I can't see Hydaspes as a strategic succes.Tyre - the endless struggles of the Diadochi over the region (Phoenicia, Coele-Syria) show the economic importance of that part of the world. Egypt too - which was rich. I meant: taking Darius resources away by capturing regions that were crucial to the empire's vitality.Regards -
Nick

[nick]

Hi Halil -Interesting. Let's start.I don't want to claim that India *was* impossible when Alexander marched down the Indus Valley around 327 or 326 BC. My claim is simply that it *proved* to be impossible: a difficult attack on Aornus, a heavy battle with Porus and then a terrible siege of Sangala. Then the army refused to advance and, as Plutarch says, the "courage" of the Macedonians was "blunted". India took away the sharp edge of the Macedonians - retrun to Babylon - game over.India the unknown? I always understood that Alexander knew his way around the Persian empire quite well. So he could make strategic decisions where to encounter Darius and which cities were vital to his victory. (He left the Pisidians alone, but he figured he had to take Tyre, Halicarnassus and so on.) Was this kind of planning possible in India? How detailed was his knowledge of the Indian subcontinent? If we compare the sieges of Tyre and Sangala, it is clear that Tyre had such economic and military importance that the lengthty siege seems a sound strategic action. But what do we know about Sangala? Did the economic, military, strategic importance of this place also warrant a costly siege (in terms of numbers lost, damage to weapons and armor)?Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

Hi Nick,You missed the one point about Tyre which Chris quite rightly mentions, but perhaps doesn't attach enough importance to: "perhaps control of the seas"!Not "perhaps" at all, which suggests it was a secondary consideration. It was *vitally* important that Tyre entered Alexander's camp, willingly or unwillingly, in order to deny the Persians any decent ports. All the bestMarcus

[Kit]

Thanks Nick,I can accept that the Hydaspes was a hard fought battle, and therefore could be regarded as strategically weak (in terms of human resources lost)- although Alexander did go on to some more hard fought sieges as you point out, which would suggest the Hydaspes was not too damaging. I was mainly querying your combining strategy & tactics- I felt the tactics used by ATG in the battle were excellent. As regards Tyre: Sorry, I thought you were just referring to the city itself, I happily accept that control of the surrounding territories would have yielded resources. regardsKit

[Kit]

Marcus,I erred on the side of caution when I said 'perhaps'. I was aware that Egypt was still, at that point, unconquered and therefore the enemy fleet was not totally without friendly coastline to shelter in.Of course the reality was that with the fall of Tyre, and the defection to the macedonians of the Persian (subject) naval contingents, control of the seas was effectively secured.I thought if I had been too definitive someone would have rasied the Egypt question.regardsKit

[H]

Okay, now that you've clarified why you said India was impossible, I'll agree that India *became* impossible, but I think that Alexander, by his desire to do it, had seen how it would be possible and that was what caused his anger at the refusal of the others to see it too. (Part of Alexander's success was that he never tried to do what could not be done, the other part was seeing how to do it even though it seemed impossible.)Sangala? Again we don't know what Alexander knew, or the reasons for his decisions. I think if Alexander could explain it to us, we might understand.
Regards
Halil

[marcus]

Oh, being cautious is very dull, Chris! :-)I think Tyre and Egypt are two very different questions, though. For a start, if the Persians had a good base at Tyre then they could have used it to launch attacks on the Greek islands and on the Ionian coast, which they would not have been able to do from Egypt so well.Also, the point about Egypt was that it didn't really have any ports to speak of - which is why Alexander founded Alexandria!All the bestMarcus