Alexander vs. Other Great Conquerors & Military Leaders

[alexkhan2000]

Just on which alexkhan2000, on this (or another thread) you mentioned you'd not read the ancient Alexander historians. Perhaps you might? It would help when reading such articles as the Maihafer one. Arrian is no turgid read. He is no prize winning author to be sure but still quite readable. Ditto Diodorus - especially when "following" Hieronymus' post Alexander narrative.

I have the Arrian and Curtius books but have been only skipping around. As I said in another thread, I need to sit down and read each from cover to cover without any other distractions. I've been drawn to the more recent books as there seems to be no shortage of them out there!

[alejandro]

Yes, West Point does teach Alexander tactics and has done for a long time, although obviously he's not the only great military leader whose battles and tactics are taught there. [...] but it's good to see that Cyrus is also there.

Hi Amyntoros,

Of course Alexander is not the only leader whose tactics are taught there, I never meant it otherwise. What I wanted to highlight is that Caesar, Napoleon and Washington had the benefit of being born after Alexander´s time, so they didn´t need to invent by themselves the tactics invented by Alexander. Their contribution was the creation of new/improvement of old tactics or their adaptation to new technologies. The usual "standing on the shoulders of giants" remark applies (and is stronger the later the leader appeared in the history of mankind, Alexander may have been blessed by having lived at an "early" time, when still many things were up for discovery ).

Of course, for the same reason, Alexander learned from older leaders (and Cyros is certainly one that he would have looked up for advice). The tents filled with straw used to cross a river (Cyros?) and the "stealing a march" (Xenophon?) are obvious examples. And of course he learned from his father, who in turn learned from the Thebans (who in turn learned from ...

I guess Alexander´s superiority over other leaders is clear when compared to generals that lived after him. The comparison to those who lived before him are much more intersting: Alexander is in a disadvantageous position, and proving his value is more of an up-hill task. I still believe he manages to come first, but I must admit I´m rather biased!

All the best,
Alejandro

[amyntoros]

Yes, West Point does teach Alexander tactics and has done for a long time, although obviously he's not the only great military leader whose battles and tactics are taught there. [...] but it's good to see that Cyrus is also there.

Hi Amyntoros,

Of course Alexander is not the only leader whose tactics are taught there, I never meant it otherwise. What I wanted to highlight is that Caesar, Napoleon and Washington had the benefit of being born after Alexander´s time, so they didn´t need to invent by themselves the tactics invented by Alexander. Their contribution was the creation of new/improvement of old tactics or their adaptation to new technologies. The usual "standing on the shoulders of giants" remark applies (and is stronger the later the leader appeared in the history of mankind, Alexander may have been blessed by having lived at an "early" time, when still many things were up for discovery ).

Alejandro, I apologize for any misunderstanding because I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were unaware that West Point gives lessons on historical military leaders other than Alexander. And, yes, I agree with your standing on the shoulders of giants remark. All the army schools in the US (not just West Point) seem to appreciate the lessons in the art of warfare that can be learned from Alexander. For instance, the United States Army Armor School at Fort Knox has a bibliography of books on The Philosophy of War and Strategic Thought. which begins with Alexander and ends with Xenophon!

And here's an interesting quote from the Chaplain and instructor of the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA

Alexander the Great, son of Philip II of Macedon, subdued the largest tract of the earth’s surface ever to be conquered by a single individual — Genghis Khan’s short-lived empire excepted. In 42 months he marched an army of 45,000 Greeks and Macedonians more than 3,500 miles, defeated three armies numbering 180,000 total soldiers, crushed the Persian Empire and inaugurated a new era in world history.20 The army of Alexander the Great was an ancient "Desert Storm" unto itself. Yet in June, 323 B.C.E., Alexander died at age 32 from fever and too much wine.

Alexander of Macedon had led his troops successfully with all of the skills modern leadership doctrine encapsulates. He tamed his wild horse, motivated his soldiers, unified his country, and defeated his enemies, but he could not tame the wild passions of his own nature. For leaders at every level, in the present as well as in the future, Alexander’s challenge remains — we must teach, motivate, develop and lead, but we must not forget also to learn and to take care of ourselves and each other.

Good to see that the army is using fairly realistic enemy numbers when they teach about Alexander.

Best regards,

[jan]

I have studied both Genghis Khan and Alexander in recent months, so this topic is intriguing to read now. Several things stand out to me in both histories. The collar that is used by his enemies to perhaps defeat him when Genghis is only a very young man, a teenager, who is responsible for the well being of his family, and the collar that was inflicted by Alexander upon Bessus for having been a traitor. There is a link there that simply makes me ponder the importance of collars for punishment.

The fact that Genghis Khan had no serious military training versus the immersion that Alexander had had.

The fact that both Genghis Khan and Alexander are divinely inspired to believe in their own destinies. With Genghis, it is Heaven's Will that he be the Ruler, and with Alexander, it is his divine destiny.

more later...

[Phalanx Pursos]

the Mongol empire was around 5 times the size of Alexander's.

Hi, I'm Alex.

The time when you when you will judge military commanders for their humanitarian missions will change your entire views on military history, in my personal views; Genghis Khan was a leader of greatness but the things he did not always were so excellent. In the time of Alexander the great, Humanitarian missions maybe were not known or in use. Can you tell me about the history of Humanitarian military missions before the birth of Christ, because there were some outstanding commanders who were known for this.

It's best to judge a military supreme army commander for their humanitarian missions.

Jochi.

[Theseus]

I guess it a matter of opinion of what you think makes a great leader. I consider Alexander the most outstanding leader/conqueror above all others for many reasons. A lot of times Alexander and his army were outnumbered yet they were still victorious.When things weren't going his way in battle he was able to think things through and turn the battle to his favor. He was a military genius and yes had a bit of luck along the way as well. He accomplished more that any other leader/conqueror in the 12 years of his campaign. To have been able to have his men follow him so far for those 12 years was an accomplishment in itself. To have done all he did at such a young age was not just something that was taught and learned, it was something from within him, a part of who he was and no others have been able to touch Alexander's greatness.

I forgot to add that most of the other conquerors I have studied have been Egyptian, such as Tutmosis III Rameses II ect... I have read about Caeser, Augustus,Napolian and Kahn, but they really didn't intrique me as much as Alexander.