Research Paper Rough Draft

Ethan Parrish
Sharon Aiken
English 1101
November 17, 2009
Alexander, the Great Strategist
Alexander the Great was the son of Philip, who was the king of Macedonia at the time. Alexander did not come from obscurity and neither did his brilliance and great ability to command. His father was a great general and leader of men in his own right. Alexander was a great commander because he learned to adapt and innovate. These traits and many others lead to the successes that he garnered throughout his short life. Through learned strategy, adaptation, and a superior intellect Alexander the Great conquered the majority of the known world in an organized and efficient way that was before his time.
From an early age Alexander gathered the knowledge he would need to lead his grand armies. He served in the cavalry of his father’s army before he inherited the empire. These hands on approaches coupled with a high level of learning set Alexander up to be very complete strategist. When his father was killed he inherited a well trained army of veteran soldiers. The army was based around heavy pike men with a supporting cast of very mobile light cavalry and infantry that could fill any gaps left by the heavier ground units (Fisher). Philip, Alexander’s father, had planned to invade the area known as Asia Minor before his untimely demise; Alexander decided to commence with the invasion as arranged. He gathered an army of 30,000 that was composed of pikemen, infantrymen, and also engineers; 5,000 cavalry was also included in the force (Fisher).
The most important of his early battles was the conflict at Issus. This fight was against the main Persian force that outnumbered him by a very significant amount, one estimate is 600,000 to 75,000 (A.C.). As the story goes Alexander hears that the Persian king Darius is waiting for him in Syria and leaves the city of Issus to go confront him, at the same time Darius is camped in an area that would make an effective battlefield for his superior cavalry (Plutarch). The problem from the Persian side is where is Alexander? Many of them believe he is being cowardly and waiting for a move to be made by the Persians before he will come out of hiding, they don’t know that he is looking for them. So Darius decides to make the move and go to Issus where he believes that Alexander is camped, when Alexander hears that Darius is on his way there Alexander turns his force and fast marches to the city. On arriving, Darius realizes he has made a large tactical gamble and will lose miserably if he does not escape the city where Alexander was rumored to be, but in actuality he was not. The terrain around the city is rough and made up of rolling hills that make his numerical superiority in cavalry void (Plutarch). Alexander helps himself by arriving in a very timely fashion to discover his information was correct and the Persians were in the city. This is where Alexander’s tactical greatness comes to light; to start the battle the Macedonians don’t attack, but try to invite the Persians to attack a much smaller force (A.C.). Alexander’s right wing was launched into the center of the Persian formation where their king was stationed and the Persian front gave ground very quickly to the stoic Macedonians who were better trained and had clear instructions due to Alexander’s open lines of communications with his commanders. This was a small victory for a small force, however the phalanx endured some bad luck as a gap opened in their ranks and the Persians leapt forward into the breach and to counteract this Alexander brought his cavalry behind the Persians which effectively cut them off from their main force (A.C.). Cooler heads did not prevail in the Persian camp as Darius, seeing these early Macedonian victories, decided to retreat hastily to fight another day. This is one of Alexander’s most written about battles because it showed the Persians that they weren’t the only ones in the Aegean anymore. The significance of the battle is also shown in the fact that the Persians lost around 100,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, whereas the Macedonians lost only 450 infantry (A.C.). This is a staggering kill to death ratio that would be more likely to be seen today with our system of small kill teams attacking large targets; Alexander is seen from this point on as a master tactician and his men loved him for it almost as much as his enemies hated him for it.
Alexander, now that he had shown exceptional skill at open war, decided to try a siege of Tyre. This surprised many people because Tyre was an island with very high walls and they also controlled the sea (Chinnock). He started to build a ramp from the mainland to the city which would be a vast undertaking today under terms of peace. The Tyrians controlled the sea and so they would send out ships to disrupt the construction and destroy and kill all that they could (Chinnock). Alexander decided to build a wider ramp so that he could put war engines on it that could deter ships, also he gained the use of many ships because of his reputation and the cities he had conquered (Chinnock). This was a new type of warfare to Alexander and he shows his ability to adapt to every situation and even incorporate his enemies’ techniques of waging war. He was beaten back several times during the siege and had to recoup and change his plan of attack. The Tyrians at one point sailed out and caught the Macedonians napping or close enough to it that they were able to destroy many of the Macedonian ships before Alexander rallied his troops and actually snatched victory from the jaws of defeat (Chinnock). Then Alexander launched an attack and actually gained the walls by attacking from many different points so as to confuse the defenders then he put bridges up on the walls and gained ground on the Tyrians who were slaughtered. Alexander innovated many new battle techniques and also new siege engines that would be used throughout the Mediterranean world.
Alexander created the first use of strategy in warfare on ancient battlefields. Pre- Alexander battles were mainly decided on who had more men and who could pay for better weapons; with the inclusion of an intelligence factor Alexander changed the way war was waged in its entirety. He championed new techniques, such as luring a larger force into the middle of his army and then using his flanks to encircle the enemy and effectively trap them. He incorporated navies into his military system and sought newer designs that were used for sea warfare for a long time after his death (Fisher).
The use of highly mobile troops that had an adequate form of communication all throughout the formations and were more highly trained than any other force were some of the key elements of Alexander’s victories. He used less troops than most other empires, therefore they could traverse large distances faster and did not need as much food or pay. Alexander was a proponent of using strategy as opposed to might; he was more of an artist than a general. He was the Michelangelo of the sword and the Rubens of the shield. He truly deserved the title of the Great if for no other reason than he did everything he set out to do on the battlefield and once he set his mind to a battle he would find a way to win with the least casualties to him and the most to his enemies. Alexander the Great was a true champion to his people and to his art of strategy which is still studied today. He conquered the majority of the known world before his death at the age of thirty-three and controlled the single largest empire ever all because he could out think his opponent and was in command of one of the best armies in the history of the world.