.....................
Alexander the
Great
Why Was Alexander the Great’s Army So Formidable
GUEST BLOGGER
War
History online presents this Guest Piece from Turin Bridge
Alexander
the Great is one of the most legendary kings of all time: in a ten-year period,
he conquered 90% of the known world, including the world superpower of his day,
Persia.
He
founded dozens of cities, was worshipped as a god, never lost a single battle
and began the process of cultural syncretism across much of Asia.
But
how did a relatively poor country such as Macedonia accomplish such incredible
exploits in a single decade?
What
made Alexander and his armies so incredibly invincible?
Phalanx
In simple terms, the Macedonian army was split between the
cavalry and the infantry.
Many
of the Macedonians’ enemies also had strong cavalry regiments – the Persians
recruited across many areas famous for horsemanship, such as Parthia and the
steppes on that count, but they could not stand against the Macedonian
infantry.
Alexander
infantry was arranged in a formation known as a phalanx, an evolution on the
earlier hoplite, who had fought so famously at Thermopylae and Plataea.
Much
like their Greek hoplite counterparts, phalangites fought using shields and
spears.
The
difference, however, was that the soldiers of the phalanx had their shields
strapped to take the weight around their shoulders, leaving both arms free.
This
meant they could wield a far longer spear, known as a sarissa–
a 21 foot-long spear.
In
battle, the men would be arranged in ranks sixteen deep, with the first five
ranks extending outwards and the ranks at the back tilting their spear to
deflect missiles.
Ultimately
this meant that in any given metre of the Macedonian line, there would
effectively be dozens of men fighting simultaneously.
This
made the phalanx a daunting unit for shock warfare, with maximum force being
brought to bear.
The
phalanx was well trained, it had to be strong to carry the long sarissa,
and was well-trained in drill.
During
Alexander’s campaigns, the phalanx was often used to hold and break enemies,
even if those enemies were highly equipped or fought in massive numbers.
For
example, at Guagamela, it was the phalanx that neutralised the Persian chariots
and kept Darius’s armies at bay for hours while the cavalry chased the King of
Kings from the field.
In
all of Alexander set-piece battles, the phalanx served as an inexorable anvil,
marching through their lightly armoured enemies, with none able to dodge
through the wall of spears.
Siege equipment
Alexander’s all-conquering army, like the
all-conquering army of Assyria before it, and the all-conquering armies of Rome
after it, had a dedicated corps of engineers who built and maintained siege
equipment, such as catapults, ballistae and siege towers.
This meant that enemies could not simply hide behind walls to
force a lengthy and costly siege.
The importance of this cannot be overstated; for most of his
early campaigns, Alexander was surrounded by wealthy client states of the
Persian empire who had access to the sea for supplies and only had to slow him
down in order for the Great King to rally his armies.
The ability to quickly reduce enemy strongholds quickly broke
the back of resistance in southern Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean and
may be why the satrapy of Egypt surrendered without resistance.
The siege corps came in use when reaching the far ends of his
empire.
When Alexander was at war with a tribe of Scythians in
modern-day Uzbekistan, he was confronted with a large army of mounted archers
guarding a river crossing and challenging his forces.
Alexander is recorded as using his missile throwers to
bombard the Scythians both before and as cover during the crossing – the first
instance of an artillery bombardment being used in this way in history.
Needless to say, the Scythians were dismayed at this display
of firepower and were promptly defeated once the Macedonians crossed the river.
The importance of
engineers is perhaps best demonstrated in Alexander’s most famous siege: at
Tyre.
Although the New
City was based on the mainland and was quickly occupied, the Old City was
located on a small island off the coast.
Tyre was part of a
confederation of Phoenician cities with strong navies who were strongly loyal
to Persia, and it resisted occupation by Alexander after he insisted on
sacrificing in their temple.
Being on an island
with plentiful food, supply lines, a strong navy, and allies, they trusted in
their walls and sea moat to hold off the invader until Darius could catch
Alexander on the coast.
It
is here that the value of the engineers quickly becomes apparent.
They
organised the destruction of the New City, for raw materials, and began to
build a solid rock path to link the island to the mainland that still exists to
this day.
Despite
heavy resistance, the Macedonians were able to mount towers on this stone
causeway that were taller than the walls.
They
were then also able to mount siege equipment onto ships (a marvel at the time)
and attack the city from all four sides, including the much lower, weaker
seaward walls.
The
conquest of such an invincible fortress, as well as others at Halicarnassus and
the Rock of Oxyartes had a far-reaching and profound effect on the people in
surrounding settlements: that resistance was futile, because they were no
invulnerable forts anymore.
Magnanimity
There were many times in which Alexander made examples of
his enemies, such as the slaughters at Thebes and Tyre, the destruction of
Halicarnassus and Persepolis, or dragging the Persian commander, Batis, around
the city of Gaza tied behind a chariot after that city’s fall.
However,
these examples stand out precisely because they are exceptions.
In
the main, most cities surrendered to Alexander willingly, and were treated with
great generosity and mercy.
This
policy, of punishing resisters and rewarding those who joined him gave great
dividends, for example, the wholesale surrender of Egypt, a jewel of the
Persian crown.
It is this policy
which is why Alexander was able to march straight from Guagamela to Babylon,
without resistance, march into the latter without a siege of any kind, resupply
and immediately continue the pursuit of Darius, preventing the Achaemenid King from
raising fresh armies in Iran.
It is fair to say
that with Alexander’s small army and limited initial resources protracted
resistance would have bled his forces white very quickly.
Alexander’s
open-handed treatment of those who came to serve him was the wise adoption of
the policy of Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian empire who had
conquered Asia himself roughly 200 years before.
As with Cyrus, it
allowed Alexander to rapidly expand his territory without having to parcel up
his forces into garrisons.
It meant that trade
was not interrupted by constant sieges, nor did he cause resentment by
punishing resisters with reprisals.
This goodwill
ultimately led to increased wealth towards his war efforts, as well as a large,
willing supply of manpower for his recruiters.
Alexander was able
to train regiments from across his empire; at the great review of his forces in
324BC, there were apparently 120,000 men in his army, including contingents
from Arachosia, Bactria, Sogdia, India, Scythia, and Egypt.
There was even a
company of all-Persian cavalry, made up of noblemen who served willingly.
It is hard to
imagine this being possible without the co-operation of his subjects.
Officers
As much of a genius as Alexander was, his conquests were
made possible because of the incredible work of his lieutenants and captains.
Alexander
was fortunate to inherit veteran commanders such as Parmenion, who held the
left at the Granicus, Issus and Guagamela, and Antipater, who acted as viceroy
in Europe, guarding against the Thracians and Spartans during Alexander’s
conquests in Asia.
As
his campaigns wore on, new men also emerged who helped make his vision
manifest, such as Hephaestion, Craterus and Perdiccas.
These
men would often be entrusted to lead sections of the army independently.
Here
a comparison between Hannibal and Alexander is important: whenever Hannibal’s
lieutenants were left to act independently, they would invariably be defeated by
the Romans, leading to Hannibal’s eventual defeat.
In
Alexander’s case, having men who could act on their own without supervision
allowed him to divide his forces for his lengthy guerrilla campaigns against
Spitamenes and Bessus in modern-day Afghanistan, leading to the Macedonian
victory.
This
trust in the competence of his subordinates is also very important for another
reason.
Signalling
an army was a difficult proposition in ancient times, which normally precluded
complex plans.
However,
since Alexander could rely on his officers to deliver results, it meant he
could enact advanced strategies to defeat his enemies. Nowhere is this better
illustrated than at the Hydaspes.
The forces of Alexander fought a battle at night, with units
speaking languages, in a battle which involved river crossings, during monsoon
season, to attack a well provisioned force with elephants and chariots, and
still won.
This incredible victory was brought about by the remarkable
work of the officers.
For example, Craterus had been left behind at the main camp,
to give the illusion of the presence of Alexander’s main force in order to
deceive the Indian king, Porus.
When Porus’ army turned to face Alexander, Craterus was able
to co-ordinate his own forces into another river crossing, which was then
flanking Porus.
Additionally, Coenus was able to launch a surprise attack on
the Indian right, throw it into disarray, before riding behind the Indian lines
and taking the Indian left in the rear, to co-ordinate with Alexander and
Hephaestion’s units, in what is one of history’s greatest cavalry manoeuvres.
Professionalism
Ultimately, Alexander’s army represented a truly
professional force, with an organised logistical corps, uniform equipment and
frequent drill.
Alexander’s
men could form many different formations very quickly and were well trained.
They
had been blooded while subduing the tribes of the Balkans and the Greek cities,
and were well versed in mountain and siege warfare.
Constant
drill also meant that soldiers could perform complex manoeuvres on a
trumpet-call and trusted the skills of the men around them.
Fighting
mostly militia and conscript armies in Europe and Asia, these professional
soldiers could trust in their abilities, compared to the poorly-equipped farmers
who faced them.
For example, at Chaeronea the Macedonian line staged a false
retreat, which deceived the levies of Athens into breaking formation.
On a trumpet-call the Macedonians uniformly turned face,
reformed, and then slaughtered this militia, destroying the Greek right flank.
This skill meant increased discipline, and bravery in the
face of diversity; when the lines were overrun during Guagamela, the phalanx
held firm until reinforcements were able to relieve them.
This
approach to army building not only led to creation of the engineer corps, as
described above, it led to the formation of a cadre of pages that allowed new
crops of officers to be raised, allowing the lessons of the past to be passed
on.
This
explains the rise of men such as Ptolemy and Seleucus, who had such incredible
careers during and after Alexander’s reign.
Comparable
to Sandhurst or West Point in modern times, it guaranteed the competency of
officers moving up the ranks, allowing for the level of independence and
co-ordination we saw at the Hydaspes.
Conclusion
Alexander was certainly a genius with the heroic bravery
that inspired his men to extraordinary heights again and again, however, we
should not ignore that his tools of conquest – his army was sublime.
Although
constantly outnumbered and often surrounded, Alexander was always able to bring
a local superiority of numbers; the one place at Issus
Alexander outnumbered Darius was where Alexander’s elite forces were directly
engaging the bodyguard of Darius himself, threatening the Persian king’s own
life.
Repeatedly
we see that Alexander’s greatest gift was his constant ability to have
numerical superiority at the most critical part of the battle: the enemy
general. This was only made possible through Alexander’s outstanding army.
As we can see using other remarkable generals as examples,
such as Hannibal or Belisarius, without the resources available to him,
Alexander may have never conquered anywhere near as much as he did.
Instead, he was able to quickly subdue his enemies, create
momentum and use that momentum to rapidly overwhelm his opponents, with minimal
attrition and establish the beginning of a new era that would last until the
rise of Rome.
No comments:
Post a Comment