Strategic Genius

[dean]

Hello,
I was reading that the conquest of the Levant was strategically unnecessary and it made me ponder on Alexander's strategic genius.So here is the question- what do you think was the greatest demonstration of Alexander's genius in the strategic sense?I think that perhaps it was the abandoning of the chase of Darius to reduce the Phoenician strongholds.I love Renault's analogy of a game of chess where a great master is playing, his "moves" were sheer genius.Anyway take care of yourselves,
Dean.

[ruthaki]

I think one would be at the Hydaspes R. when the massive army of Porus's elephants charged and frightened the horses. It didn't take him long to figure out the strategies that help him win that battle. I believe he was quite brilliant at strategies in general. But he had a good teacher in his youth -- Philip.

[maciek]

What You are writing Ruth is a tactic not strategy. Definition from Clausewitz goes like this:
Tactic is the use of armed forces to conduct the battle and strategy is a use of battles for conducting the war.
Of course strategy ha wider meaning then only the battles - it is all plans of campaign or war, and many more. Maciek

[nick]

Hello Dean, Ruth -I am going to repeat myself over and over again. But the issue comes up every now and then. So please allow me. No offence Ruth, but the Hydaspes example shows Alexander as a brilliant military tactician, not as a strategist. Military strategy comes down to four 'holy' principles:1 - organise your defenses
2 - secure your supply lines
3 - capture your opponent's supplies first
4 - only then go for the final assaultIf someone claims conquest of the Levant and Egypt was stratgically irrelevant - they did not not quite got the point, did they? Going after Darius immediately after Issus would have been a violation of 1 and certainly of 2, probably also of 3. (Please check the debacle of Cyrus the Younger who rushed into the heart of the Persian Empire - when something does go wrong, there is nothing to fall back on.)Regards -
Nick

[maciek]

For me the best of his strategies was his actions in Asia Minor when he put for himself the aim - to win persian fleet from the ground. It was risky but genial. Especially his first move was special when he disbanded his fleet and took all the risk then. And what is most suprising - that he almost complete made it only Halicarnasus was the problem for some time but conquering of Tyre was the final step in this part of his strategy.Maciek

[marcus]

Just so, Nick.Marcus

[maciek]

This definition was received by Armies nowadays and it functions now Marcus.Maciek

[marcus]

Absolutely, Maciek. I suspect that, with today's technology, the issue of supply lines is less urgent than it was in the old days... but the principles hold true.All the bestMarcus

[David Symes]

A contender for his greatest strategic exhibition was allowing the sacking of Persepolis. This action reverberates today because it symbolized the new dominance of western culture and that dominance has really not yielded since. No?

[dean]

Hello,
Maciek, nice to hear from you.
You mention Tyre.
I think here his powers as a strategist were lacking as his true motives for taking Tyre were more related to his being denied access to the Temple of Mequart to make sacrifices and not to any strategic necessity.
And Nick- thankyou for your analysis of strategy.
It does help to assess the true value of Alexander's decisions or the decisions of any general or king through history. I must read "The art of war"
Best wishes, Dean.

[maciek]

Hi Dean!
I think Tyre was very importand point in his strategy and the temple was only kind of test for the citisens how he could rely on them if he will not attack them like they asked him. He couldn't leave such large naval base - especially that until then persians had advantage on the sea.
What he was lacking was in my opinion for sure not the strategy skills or idea of operation but equipment. He could do small or nothing not having the fleet. As we all know he changed this situation and then won the city.Maciek

[maciek]

Whatever You're trying to say David Burning of Persepolis hadn't as a point shoving domination over east or over worst race or whatever. It was just revenge for burning Athens about 150 years before. Maciek

[dean]

Hello!
I realise that Tyre was very important as far as its strategic position yet according to the story, was Alexander not offered the sea port stronghold first and then had the doors closed in his face after he was refused the right to the sacred temple?
Were Alexander's motivations in this case purely strategic or was he moved by more personal reasons? Later after the siege of Tyre- Alexander certainly indulged fully in his rage- crucifying Tyrians left right and centre.
And David: thankyou for your opinion.
I think that the act of the sacking of Persepolis was at least in spirit done in revenge and as you say a devastating blow to the heart of the oriental world.
And wasn't Thais, the mistress of Ptolemy, Athenian? Had Athens not suffered the harshest blows and sacrilige in the years of Xerxes?and Thais supposedly started the subsequent blaze...(Maybe Alex asked her to start the blaze for its dramatic and symbolic effect)Alexander was burning down the old order and starting the new.
Best wishes,Dean.

[agesilaos]

there must always be a big problem in assessing Alexander's genius , strategic or otherwise, in that the sources we have have surely obscured the roles of his advisors to the point of obliteration.For instance it is unclear whether the strategy of taking the Persian fleet out of the equation by denying it land bases was not part of Philip's original plan; he too would have had to neutralise them.Again Alexander's strategy seems flawed during the Issos campaign where pushing on with insufficient intelligence of his enemy's position and the local geography he allows the Persian army to straddle his lines of communication.For the most part Alexander's strategic thinking seems dominated by the twin concepts of horme and bia, impetus and violence. He is determined nothing shall stand in his way and although earlier on there are signs that more measured council may have prevailed; the initial failure at Myndos is not pushed to a conclusion, pursuit of Dareius is twice escewed for city-taking: after the fall ofParmenion it is generally bull-at-a-gate strategically though there is the usual tactical flare and stubborness.I think I rate him as a great captain but an ordinary general

[maciek]

sea port stronghold first and then had the doors closed in his face after he was refused the right to the sacred temple?
It was totally oposite!
They denied him to enter the stronghold and temple INSIDE the island but allowed him to go to the temple outside the citys walls. It's obvious that he wanted to enter the city not only to make the carifice but to see if he can trust Tyrians - it appired then NOT.
Siege was long and cruel from both sides but killing the official messengers is out of any rules.
We can disscuss why Alex burned Persepolis to crush persian culture or only to make the symbol of revenge but there are a new archeologica evidences that fire was puted metodically and it was planned so if it is true this whole story about the Tais can be false or just not complete true.
At the end I'm sure thet Alexander didn't want to show dominance of west over east - it was last thing he would do.