Top 10 reasons Alexander The Great was a great commander

Alexander – even today, 23 centuries after his death, his name still has the power to inspire. His achievements have stood the test of time and remain amongst the most remarkable in the whole annals of military history. With an army of typically only around 40,000 men, he conquered the largest, richest and most powerful empire the world had ever seen; and all of this in less than a decade.

When Alexander became king, his military career began when he launched a campaign against Macedonia’s northern neighbours. This is a campaign that we know little about, but we can assume that it was remarkably successful given that Antipater, his regent, never had any difficulty from that region. From there, Alexander marched in central Greece, and sent a terrible message with the destruction of the ancient city of Thebes.

In 334, Alexander crossed the Hellespont and invaded Asia. He soundly defeated the Persians in large set-piece battles at the Granicus River, Issus and finally Gaugamela in 331. During this period he also captured the great fortresses of Halicarnassus, Tyre and Gaza. After the death of Darius, Alexander spent several years campaigning in Afghanistan and India; a brutal period culminating in the defeat of the Indian king Porus at the battle of the Hydaspes.

In India, the army had finally had enough and refused to march further into the unknown. They turned back and made a disastrous march through the Gedrosian Desert. After a final siege during which Alexander was struck by an arrow that punctured his lung, he returned to Babylon where he died in 323.

Alexander’s incredible string of successes was not accidental; listed here are the 10 main reasons for them (in no particular order). You can find out more about Alexander as a military commander in my books, The Army of Alexander The Great and The Sieges of Alexander The Great, both published by Pen & Sword.

1. Philip of Macedon

Philip, Alexander’s father, was one of the finest military minds of the ancient world; but he is completely overshadowed by his son. Philip took a broken kingdom that was about to be overrun by foreign enemies, and turned it into the most powerful state in Greece. Shortly before his death he sent an expeditionary force to Asia Minor to conduct an initial campaign against the Persians whilst he prepared for a larger invasion.

Had Philip lived – he is believed to have been buried at Aigai – he clearly would have expanded upon this expeditionary campaign with a full scale invasion. It is always interesting (but ultimately fruitless) to speculate how Philip would have fared compared to Alexander.

Alexander had a first rate military education watching the successes of his father, and evidently was worried that there would be nothing left for him to conquer if his father continued too long; the assassin’s blade ensured that this would not be the case.

Could Alexander have achieved what he did without his father’s foundation? This is a difficult question to answer, but I would suggest that Alexander had the ability, but his character would likely have let him down. Alexander clearly had the ability to reorganise the army and to develop innovative strategies and tactics as required, as well as his natural military genius. We must recognise, however, that it would certainly have taken rather longer because the army would have needed to be trained and turned into the machine that Philip had already created, and the question also remains as to whether Alexander would have had the patience to delay his ambition; patience is not a trait that Alexander ever demonstrated to any great degree.

2. The Army

Alexander’s greatest inheritance was the Macedonian army. At the time of the invasion of Asia Minor, the historian Diodorus tells us that it consisted of 5,100 cavalry and 32,000 infantry. This was a respectable size by Greek standards, but tiny in comparison with the number of troops Darius could put in the field. Of the 37,100 troops, the Macedonian contingent was relatively small: 1,800 Companion Cavalry and 12,000 infantry. These were by far the most important troops Alexander commanded, and the main weapon with which he gained an empire.

This army was a very complex organisation of interlocking and mutually supportive parts. Alexander created what was probably the first combined arms force in world history: he developed a series of units that excelled at specific tasks, but retained tremendous operational flexibility. Individual units were highly trained and some were highly specialised: the hypaspists, for example, were employed to maintain a cohesive link with the Companion Cavalry during the set-piece battles; if they failed then a gap would have opened in Alexander’s line that the Persians could have exploited.

Light infantry, specifically the Agrianians, were assigned specialised tasks, and even fought alongside the cavalry units at Gaugamela. Later the Dahae horse archers were deployed with devastating effect against the Indians at the Hydaspes. The heavy infantry could operate together, or as individual taxis (battalions). Each of the individual units of Alexander’s army were dangerous if engaged independently, but when combined formed an army that was one of the finest the world had yet seen; when this was coupled with the tactical genius of an Alexander, the results are there to see. Each element of the army was highly trained and supported every other element. This was a true combined arms force as described The Army of Alexander The Great.

3. Persistence

Another, perhaps more accurate word, would be stubbornness. Alexander was remarkably stubborn and never let any obstacle, be it natural or manmade, stand in his way. When faced with the city of Tyre, he refused to allow it to remain a “free city” offering safe harbour to both Greek and Persian fleets. He did not possess any significant navy at the time so he set about constructing a mole to join the island fortress to the land. Later in his career, we see a string of similar sieges on the north-east frontier and in India where he had to build a series of wooden bridges over deep ravines. He repeatedly captured seemingly impregnable fortresses, like Aornus, and never accepted any obstacle as being insurmountable.

4. Genius

This is a much over-used word in today’s society, but by whatever measure we employ, Alexander was without question a military genius, perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen. Alexander was the finest strategist and tactician the ancient world had yet seen. He repeatedly demonstrated an ability to successfully fight campaigns in every theatre of war the ancient world had to offer (although his naval experience was limited to the later stages of the siege of Tyre), and to continuously adapt his strategies and tactics to every emerging circumstance.
Alexander also demonstrated an ability to analyse the evolving circumstances that the Afghanistan region presented, and changed the organisation of the army to deal with the new threat of guerrilla warfare. Alexander’s sense of timing during his set-piece battles was also remarkable. The timing of his decisive cavalry charge was always immaculate, and the result devastating. He had a genius for analysing a situation and instantly making a judgement of what was needed. His set-piece battles are analysed in my forthcoming book The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great.

Alexander Sarcophagus

The Alexander Sarcophagus is considered as the most important artifact in the İstanbul Archaeological Museums. It was found in the Royal Necropolis in Sidon in 1887.

Though it is called the Alexander Sarcophagus, in fact, it does not belong to Alexander the Great. It is thought to be the sarcophagus of Abdalonymus, the king of Sidon. .

On the front side of the sarcophagus, Alexander is shown on his horse. Since Alexander claimed descent from Heracles, he is depicted with the skin of the Nemean Lion on his head. Additionally, next to his ear, a ram horn, the symbol of the Egyptian god Amun is seen. Because of this depiction on the sarcophagus, it was named after Alexander. In fact, Alexander the Great died in Babylon and his body was transferred to Alexandria. It is known that his sarcophagus was an anthropoid one.

On one of the long sides of the sarcophagus, there is a scene of battle between Persians and Greeks. Greek and Persian soldiers can easily be distinguished thanks to their outfits. Greeks have short tunics or cloaks, whereas Persian soldiers, who had to cover all parts of their bodies excluding their faces and fingers, wear trousers, more than one long-sleeved shirts and tiaras covering their heads. The scene of battle is thought to represent the Battle of Issus, won by Alexander the Great in 333 BC and opened the doors of Phoenicia and Syria. As a result of this battle, the fate of Abdalonymus, who is thought to be the owner of the sarcophagus, changed and he became the king of Sidon after a while.

Two hunting scenes are depicted on the second long side of the sarcophagus. It is known that hunting with horses and carriages was usual for Near Eastern civilizations and that Alexander the Great participated in such events in Phoenicia.

It is accepted that Alexander’s aim was to establish a Greek-Persian empire through uniting Eastern and Hellenistic cultures after conquering Iran. Towards the end of his life, he married a Persian princess, started to wear Persian clothes and accepted Persian dynastic customs. The Persians and Greeks who friendly hunt on one side of the sarcophagus should be considered within this perspective. It is known that after defeating Darius III in Issus, Alexander the Great passed through the Amanus Mountains and entered Syria following the Mediterranean shores. The people of Sidon, who disliked the Persian administration, opened the doors of the rich cities to the Macedon army and asked Alexander the Great to choose a king for them. Alexander, who had no time to choose a king for Sidon, gave this job to Hephaestion. He found Abdalonymus, who was a distant relative of the royal dynasty of Sidon but who had a quiet life in the country until chosen as the king. The name of Abdalonymus means “servant of gods” in Persian and the Alexander the Great and Hephaestion depictions were therefore added to the sarcophagus ordered by him.

When the carvings are analyzed, it is understood that those who made this sarcophagus were masters of the Eastern art of decoration. The upper row of the acroter consists of eagles, partially with no remains other than pieces of wings, and women heads. In the Ancient Syria, it was believed that eagles were birds carrying the souls of dead people to heaven. Nine smaller women heads that line up at the bottoms of each of two sides bring the mother goddess worshipped since the prehistoric periods of Anatolia and Mesopotamia to mind. Upper acroters of the both pediments are decorated with Persian griffins and herbal figures. At each of the corners of the pediment, a lion is placed as sarcophagus protectors. Those lions with thin necks and small bodies, which resemble dogs, are elements belonging to the Ionian art.

Both the body and the cover of the sarcophagus is made of the same kind of marble. The carvings on the sarcophagus are so fine that it is thought that this artifact should have been made in Sidon since it would have been too dangerous to transfer such a work from Greece to Lebanon. There is no information about its sculptor. Painters of the sarcophagus should have been masters of their job as well. It seems that the eyes, eyelashes, lips and clothes were dyed in purple, yellow, blue, red and violet, and that the figures were slightly varnished.

www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr

Roxane (343-310 BC.), wife of Alexander The Great

Roxane -her name Roshanak means “little star”- was the daughter of a Sogdian nobleman named Oxyartes (Vaxšuvadarva), who defended a mountain fortress against the invading army of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great. When the fortress was captured, the sixteen year old woman was among the prisoners of  war.

At that stage of his campaign in the Achaemenid empire, it had become obvious that Alexander could not control his conquests without doing concessions to the native population. He had to show respect to their customs if he wanted their loyalty. In the years 330-327, we see Alexander appointing Persians in important functions, dress himself like an Iranian nobleman, introduce the oriental court ritual (proskynesis). Marrying a local princess was a logical step.

The obvious candidate was Barsine, who had been Alexander’s concubine since the battle of Issus in November 333. But this lady, who had already given birth to a son named Heracles, was ignored. It is not known why, but she may have been unacceptable to the Iranian population, because she had spend a great deal of her life in Europe. Barsine may have been too Greek; an extra argument for this hypothesis is that later, she settled herself in Greece. Another, more romantic, explanation may be that Alexander had simply fallen in love with Roxane.

The marriage was concluded according to the local customs, and Roxane followed her husband when he invaded India 326, where she gave birth to a child that died soon. She accompagnied Alexander to Babylon 325-324, where her husband died on 11 June 323. She was pregnant.

In the next years, the era of the Diadochi, Roxane had a very difficult position. One of the commanders, Perdiccas, was chosen as regent for Alexander’s mentally deficient brother Philip Arridaeus and his posthumous son, Alexander. Together, Perdiccas and Roxane saw to the execution of Alexander’s second wife, Statira, who might have become a rival.

However, Perdiccas died soon after, and the Macedonian commanders came together to discuss the future. During this meeting at Triparadisus, they decided to divide the empire. A new but weak regent, the old Antipater, was appointed. He ordered Roxane, Philip and the baby Alexander to go to Macedonia. For a woman who had grown up in Sogdia, had seen India, had lived in the palaces of Persia and Babylonia, it must have been a strange experience to live in a provincial town called Amphipolis in barbarous Europe.

For several years, she and her son were safe, but one of the rival commanders, Cassander, captured them in 316. Five years later, Cassander and the other Diadochi concluded a peace treaty in which they agreed that they would remain in charge of the empire until Roxane’s son would become king in 305. This was of course an incentive to execute the boy king and his mother, who were executed immediately 311/310.

Article by Jona Lendering