The Ancient Greek Wars

In ancient Greece, two dominant city-states emerged, each playing a distinct role in the region. Sparta became synonymous with military prowess, while Athens rose as a naval power, implementing a strict code of conduct and providing effective military training for all male citizens. This resulted in a society filled with military personnel, as every male citizen was obligated to defend their city in times of war.

In contrast, a Spartan man possessed knowledge that emphasised endurance during battles and was taught the importance of collective unity rather than individual prowess. This approach has influenced modern military organisations, particularly in Russia, where teenagers are often enlisted for a specific period before pursuing other career paths.

The boys who underwent rigorous training were well-prepared when the Persians, led by Darius I and his son, attacked Greece. The male soldiers were given extra protection in the form of helmets covering most of their faces, leaving openings for the mouth, nose, and eyes. However, Alexander realised that this design limited their peripheral vision.

He introduced the Phrygian helmet, offering better visibility and hearing. This helmet technology has evolved, and modern soldiers are required to wear helmets as essential gear in warfare. The air force has advanced helmets with improved features for navigating fighter jets and providing a 360-degree view during combat. Additionally, Alexander organised the army in a structured formation, assigning each soldier a shield to protect both themselves and their neighbours.

An Organised and Disciplined Army

Alexander the Great implemented a strategic approach to organize and discipline his military, a concept he inherited from his father. Upon assuming the throne, he swiftly introduced reforms to enhance his military's effectiveness. Recognising the inadequacies of ancient methods witnessed in past wars like the Peloponnesian and Persian, Alexander collaborated with his father to create an unparalleled army, transforming a poorly disciplined group into a formidable force.

His experiences, including being a hostage in Thebes, influenced his ideology, particularly witnessing the shortcomings of the dishonourable sacred band. Alexander expanded the army's size, especially the cavalry, turning them into more than just citizen warriors. He also established a team of skilled engineers who developed innovative siege weaponry like catapults and towers. The use of siege towers at Tyre had significant consequences.

Furthermore, Alexander's strategic military formation led to a significant Greek victory, reinforcing the effectiveness of his security system. This success gave rise to a new tactic called the phalanx, where individuals formed a protective line. The phalanx strategy ensured soldiers were well-shielded and armoured, creating a formidable barrier for their defence.

Despite the phalanx's success, it required regular drilling, enforcing army obedience, and patience. Deviation from the formation led to punishment, a discipline akin to the modern military where soldiers are expected to follow orders without questioning superiors. This practice traces back to Alexander the Great, who emphasised loyalty to showcase Macedonia's authority under his leadership.

Upon succeeding his father, Alexander aimed to restructure the army, considering it a crucial step for victory. He revamped the phalanx, assigning a commander to each unit of soldiers. This organisational shift facilitated smooth communication from junior to senior ranks, aiding decision-making for conquering regions. Many nations worldwide have adopted similar organisational structures, proven effective in historical conflicts like World War I and II.

Weapons and Tactics

The Sarissa replaced the hoplite as Alexander's primary weaponry, offering advantages over short spears, though it required more skill and strength to wield effectively. To address this, Alexander's soldiers also carried double-edged small swords as a backup plan for close combat.

However, the phalanx faced challenges in uneven terrain, limiting its effectiveness. Despite this, Alexander insisted on equipping his troops with various weapons, leading by example and achieving remarkable success. Weapon advancements continue in modern militaries, aiding in combating criminal activities like those perpetrated by groups such as Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and al-Qaeda.

Senior troops served as flag bearers in demanding battles, leading with advanced weaponry, while junior soldiers, less heavily armed, focused on pushing back enemies based on their physique and skills, requiring specialised training. This concept influenced the formation of modern military special forces with specific roles, such as the air force and navy. Alexander's tactics and weaponry organisation continues to influence modern military structures, with specialised troops equipped with dedicated weapons.

Cavalry

Soldiers used cavalry as a tactic when fighting on horseback, positioning the main striking force on both flanks for easy breakthroughs in enemy lines. This strategy proved successful in battles like Gaugamela, Issus, and Granicus. The cavalry was divided into two parts: prodromoi and companion, providing versatility and flexibility.

The companion, the more significant division, consisted of teams with minimal armour and lances. Alexander employed a straightforward tactic, using pezhetairoi to attack the enemy's centre from a sloping position while the cavalry punched holes and attacked the borders. The cavalry served as an offensive weapon, a tactic emulated by modern armies through vigorous training, especially in street demonstrations.

Additionally, Alexander led his troop from a majestic camp, where war guides gathered in a large tent containing the king's personal statements, an armoury, and a vestibule. Special army units guarded the area day and night in shifts. While suggestions were welcomed during meetings, the king's decisions were final, and objections were not allowed—this system has been adopted globally, with heavily guarded military barracks serving as command centres and storage for war necessities.

Crossing the Hellespont

Upon entering Asia, Alexander employed another effective strategy, bringing along over 6000 Greek infantry to maintain and conquer garrison armies. The young king of Asia supplemented his forces with 2000 hypaspists, 8000 pezhetairoi, and 11,000 phalangists, essential for crossing the Hellespont. As the leader, Alexander ensured that the infantry received mercenary training and could communicate in various languages in preparation for the upcoming battle with Darius III at Gaugamela.

The intense battle depleted his troops, prompting the need for reinforcements to establish a stronger foundation for victory against his enemies. Alexander welcomed new and young soldiers to join his army, making it the most powerful during his reign. The addition of recruits strengthened the troop, rendering it unconquerable. In the modern world, recruits join militaries at different levels, following a similar concept to Alexander's strategy of enhancing troop strength.

Alexander’s Leadership

Even with the highly skilled and disciplined troops of Macedonia, their efficiency hinged significantly on the leadership qualities of Alexander. Strauss (2013) emphasised that the exceptional characteristics of leaders like Caesar, Hannibal, and Alexander manifested in their effective leadership, encompassing tactics, terror, agility, audacity, and judgement throughout their reigns. Alexander, in particular, exemplified all these qualities and demonstrated a certain level of respect for his enemies, showing fearlessness in the face of opposition. He expressed that he did not fear armies led by a lamb but was wary when faced with an army of lambs led by a lion approaching him.

One of Alexander's notable abilities was anticipating the tactics of his enemies, providing him with a strategic advantage, as seen in the Battle of Gaugamela. During his rule in Persia, he strategically avoided close encounters with Darius, focusing on conquering enemies rather than personal confrontation. Despite being the ultimate leader in all wars, he displayed respect for individuals at different command levels, both within his own ranks and among the enemy, whenever they met to resolve conflicts.

Appreciation of Culture

Alexander the Great lived up to his name by showcasing ingenious qualities that set him apart. Beyond conventional tactics, he delved into unexpected areas such as studying and understanding diverse cultures, including tragedy, Homer, and philosophy. During his journey to Asia, he surrounded himself with historians, scientists, and philosophers to enhance critical thinking. To appreciate and comprehend cultures, he carried numerous books and continually sought more knowledge from Greece, demonstrating his broader appreciation for art and literature. Alexander supported artists, commissioning portraits, pictures, and sculptures of himself.

His curiosity extended to rival cultures, leading him to marvel at their art. Upon reaching Babylon, he immediately initiated the construction of a headquarters in Nebuchadnezzar, known for its hanging grounds for punishment. He entered Babylon through the gates of Ishtar, symbolising conquest and establishing his image as a conqueror. This symbolic action influenced modern military troops to improve their understanding of enemies through literature and cultural insights. In addition to his tactical prowess, various conquests provided skills and methodologies adopted by troops.

Conquest of The Achaemenid Empire

The Achaemenid Empire, initially established in Persia by Cyrus, eventually stretched from Eastern Europe and the Balkans to the Indus in the east. The empire was efficiently governed through a centralised bureaucratic administration, resembling the governance of modern provinces.

Upon Alexander's crossing into Asia, a diverse group of satraps awaited him in the town of Zelea. This encounter sparked a famous battle at the river banks, known as Troy in modern-day Turkey. Alexander's strategic thinking played a crucial role in the fight, much like his governance ideas. Anticipating the battle's purpose, he cleverly exploited the muddy and soft soil along the rivers, rendering the large Persian military and deadly chariots powerless. This tactical advantage allowed him to attack the Persians abruptly, creating a hole in the centre using the wedge formation and positioning his infantry to counter the Persian forces.

Following the defeat of the Persians, their king sought to limit and sever the supply routes and connections of the Greeks. A significant army was assembled, merging with Alexander's forces at the village of Issus in the south. The subsequent battle at the river banks of Pinarus saw the Persian king overlooking the lessons from his previous defeat. Although Alexander was compelled to engage his troops on an unfavourable battlefield, he innovatively employed tactics, instilling confidence in holding a defensive stance.

Alexander's unexpected tactic caught Darius off guard, who had planned to attack the Greek army. The loyal companions of Alexander executed a successful ambush on the left flank of the Persian troops positioned on a hill. This strategic move carried out in a confined terrain, forced the Persian forces to retreat rapidly as their numbers dwindled. This battle's tactics hold significant relevance for modern armies, demonstrating how to reorganise on the battlefield and instil confidence in their ranks.

The Seige of Gaza and Tyre

Recognising the importance of securing his supply chain before confronting adversaries, Alexander targeted Phoenicia, Egypt, and the coastal territories of Palestine. His initial strategy involved proposing a peace treaty to the cities he aimed to conquer. However, Tyre, the largest city in Phoenicia, rejected the proposal, asserting that Alexander's stance was biased in wars. Unwilling to compromise, Alexander initiated a protracted blockade of Tyre by constructing bridges to its islands.

This strategic move ultimately led to the fall of Tyre, prompting Alexander to turn southward and besiege Gaza. The persistence in conquering Gaza, which resisted alignment with Alexander's ideologies, resulted in its fall and marked Alexander's reign in Egypt, where he was hailed as a saviour. These conquests played a pivotal role in influencing military strategies deployed in the present day.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Alexander's military prowess and strategic vision had a profound impact, particularly in the realm of technology. His army, the first to incorporate technology in combat, became a driving force behind the global advancement of military technology. Alexander's influence extended beyond technological innovations, shaping improved strategies for organising and leading troops in a more efficient manner. This research underscores the enduring legacy of Alexander's innovations in the ancient Greek military, as many of these concepts continue to be implemented worldwide, demonstrating powerful weaponry and fostering more professional troop organisations in the contemporary military landscape.

Suggestions

Politics & History

Parent Categories