Gerard Muller wrote:
So many accounts of Alexander focus on his exploits with little explanation of why he was particularly effective even though he was always vastly outnumbered. There is no secret to his success. It stemmed from his use of the classical Greek phalanx which was for many centuries (up through the Romans) the ultimate weapon. This weapon was wielded by Macedonians who had been trained to be very efficient killers employing a new tactic which consisted of not simply defeating opponents but annihilating them. Alexander was able to brilliantly wield this weapon because he himself was a pathological killer...closer to a Hitler than a Napoleon.
To those interested in learning how Alexander conquered without little romantic decoration that is common among playrights, authors and, unfortunately, many historians, I commend to you "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Davis Hanson. The book not only deals with Alexander but, through key battles over the centuries, provides an understanding of why the West has been so dominating in its encounters with other civilizations.
So many accounts of Alexander focus on his exploits with little explanation of why he was particularly effective even though he was always vastly outnumbered. There is no secret to his success. It stemmed from his use of the classical Greek phalanx which was for many centuries (up through the Romans) the ultimate weapon. This weapon was wielded by Macedonians who had been trained to be very efficient killers employing a new tactic which consisted of not simply defeating opponents but annihilating them. Alexander was able to brilliantly wield this weapon because he himself was a pathological killer...closer to a Hitler than a Napoleon.
To those interested in learning how Alexander conquered without little romantic decoration that is common among playrights, authors and, unfortunately, many historians, I commend to you "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Davis Hanson. The book not only deals with Alexander but, through key battles over the centuries, provides an understanding of why the West has been so dominating in its encounters with other civilizations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075760889881174.html?KEYWORDS=tom+holland#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Dcomments
Miltiades Bolaris replied:
Saying that the secret to Alexander's success "stemmed from his use of the classical Greek phalanx..." is as naively simplistic as it is plainly factually wrong. To begin with, Alexander NEVER used the "classical Greek phalanx but Philip II's improved version of it, the Macedonian phalanx. The typical hoplite carried a 3ft shield with his left hand, which partially covered his left comrade and used an 8-9ft Dory spear, which he wielded with his RAISED right hand above head, striking from above.
The Macedonian phalangist was instead protected by a smaller and lighter 2ft shield that was hung from his shoulder, leaving BOTH of his hands free to wield the cumbersome 18-22 ft Sarissa spear that was striking from the chest level. In the typical southern Greek phalanx the dominant feature was a defensive looking wall of interlocking round shields, with shorter spears hanging over it. Someone that faced the Macedonian phalanx was terrified by the very threatening & offensive looking impenetrable forest of sarissas staring at him at different angles like a hedgehog coming at you.
Having said that, if it was true that the statement that "This weapon was wielded by Macedonians who had been trained to be very efficient killers employing a new tactic which consisted of not simply defeating opponents but annihilating them." is also missing the historic mark on several fronts. To begin with, the Macedonian phalanx while offensive looking was defensive in practice. It was terrifying to enemies who were held at a distance, unable to approach that forest of spears, but the coup de grace was ALLWAYS given by the Macedonian (and Thessalian) cavalry. The battles at Issos, Gaugamela and Hydaspes in India were won by using the Phalanx as the anvil against which the enemy lost his momentum, while the cavalry was used by Alexander masterfully as the striking hammer that decided the battle by annihilating the enemy army. The sieges of Tyros and Alicarnassos were carried by naval support supporting lighter troops, as well as phalangists without sarissas, in combination with an effective engineering corps. Lighter troops, as well as phalangists without sarissas were also employed in the sieges of several Bactrian and Indian cities, while some action like the one against Skythians or retreating Persians was carried only by cavalry.
Claiming, therefore that the "explanation of why he was particularly effective even though he was always vastly outnumbered" lies in his ability "to brilliantly wield this weapon", i.e " the classical Greek" is simply dead wrong.
Starting from this factual and historically flawed basis and then going as far as to say that "Alexander was able to brilliantly wield this weapon (which, we are told, was made up of "Macedonians...trained to be very efficient killers") because he himself was a pathological killer...closer to a Hitler than a Napoleon", is below any comment, it is plainly laughable and as a Greek I find it in really bad taste. Someone should read what Napoleon said of Alexander before comparing the two, and keep Hitler out of it. Hitler's disastrous career ended with his gasoline burned corpse, having made every strategic blunder in the book. He attacked Russia before subduing England. He ruined his army in Stalingrad and brought ruin & disaster to Germany as much as he did to the rest of Europe. How can Nazi hateful racist intolerance compare with Alexander's fusion of nations, barbarians and Greeks alike, through intermarriage, or inclusion of the defeated Persians, Indians and other Asiatics into his army and governing elite, or his uncompromising reverence to every religion & local deity he even encountered? Wherever Nazis went they brought death, poverty |
| Phalanx battle scene, Chigi Vase. Marching hoplites with locked shelds, ca. 640-630 B.C. |
 |
| Realistic scene of Macedonian phalanx from O.Stone's "Alexander". |
Claiming, therefore that the "explanation of why he was particularly effective even though he was always vastly outnumbered" lies in his ability "to brilliantly wield this weapon", i.e " the classical Greek" is simply dead wrong.
Beyond that, speaking of "efficient Macedonian killers", what are we then to assume, that the Persian empire was protected by an army of "inefficient Persian, Bactrian or Indian killers"? If the phalanx was all that someone needed to conquer the world, then why did Alexander's Epigonoi lose the Persian hinterland not long afterwords, unable to capture it again? And if the Persians were such inefficient "killers" how come they annihilated every single Roman army, which had previously defeated the Greek phalanx, "typical" or Macedonian before them? Obviously there are other reasons for his success, his brilliant mind, a mind trained by Philip II, inspired by Olympias and educated by Aristotle himself, having had something to do with it. We all know how Caesar cried, comparing himself to Alexander. Few know that when Hannibal, the nemesis of the Romans and a brilliant mind second only to Alexander himself was asked which captain was THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL, he gracefully kept Alexander out of the comparison!
Beyond that, speaking of "efficient Macedonian killers", what are we then to assume, that the Persian empire was protected by an army of "inefficient Persian, Bactrian or Indian killers"?
ReplyDeleteObviously armies must kill to be successful but by the time Alexander's troops had "rebelled" in India, they'd become a rather frighteningly efficient killing force. Even were we to reduce the sources' native casualty lists for Indian campaign (particularly Arrian's) we are still confronted by slaughter on a scale only bettered by industrial war. The Mallians (those "who still survived" as Arrian so quaintly puts it) surrendered after a campaign designed to ensnare the lot (the army divided into three groups: forward, the attack group and the rear). It was well executed and terribly efficient and resulted in near extermination if the figures are anywhere near correct. This was the end result of a campaign that witnessed much such slaughter.
The cold and calm efficiency of Alexander's veterans as battlefield killers is demonstrated by his hypaspists after his death. At Paraetecene and - more so - Gabiene At the latter the Argyraspides took their countrymen to pieces; killing was a way of life and had been for over a decade.
Whilst Tarn's silly "brotherhood of man" is largely an anachronistic gentlemanly romance and rightly dismissed, so too should Hanson's silly notion of Hitler be dismissed out of hand: opposite ends of the same pendulum arc. That said, I doubt that Alexander was ever interested in any "fusion of nations". A "fusion of empire" might better describe it. Happy, originally, to take up the Achaemenid tools of empire and utilise Persian satraps whilst busily on the conquering trail, he soon found the need to dismiss and execute several who were replaced - generally - by non-descripts of little importance.
Whilst the hypomnenata include provisions for the transference of populations from west to east and visa-versa, there is no evidence this was ever attempted (though Antipater and Craterus certainly wished to give the Aetolians a one way ticket east). The marriages were limited and sought the same end as the satrapal refig: to stabilise the empire enough for the conqueror to set off and that which he was good at: conquering. Even Arrian admits the political reasons for such actions and declares Alexander would never sit still whilst there was somewhere to conquer.
The inclusion of Asians into the armed forces was necessary: Alexander's superannuated phalanx needed new blood. Training for these troops is noted in the sources and 30,000 duly fronted at Opis. They would play a not insignificant role in the Diadoch wars.