With only 40,000 men, Alexander the Great invaded the kingdom of Persia. One after another, larger Persian armies fell before him.. Alexander’s army seized Anatolia, Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Bactria, and even to the edge of India. As king of Macedon, he conquered the ancient world, campaigning outside of Greece for nearly 13 years. Prior to Alexander, Macedon was merely a backwater territory north of Greece. Warring neighbors to the south, and internal strife and raids, left them weak. All of this made their rise to power, ability to subdue and unite the Greek city states, and conquest of Persia all the more incredible. What changed in so short a time to fully upset the balance of power?
This is the second in a series of essays devoted to examining ancient warfare and its relevance to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of today. Click HERE to read Part I. The historical events examined here are necessarily simplified in order to better serve the discussion and to make them more accessible. The historical background serves as context for the corresponding discussion at hand; it is not the focus of discussion. Readers should use the questions at the end for personal reflection or to fuel discussion within their own formations.
Alexander’s father, Phillip, is one of the largest factors in Macedon’s rise to power. The son of the king in a weak and divided kingdom, Phillip spent most of his youth as a hostage of other Greek city states in order to guarantee Macedon’s compliance. Importantly, he witnessed the rise of Thebes as they defeated the supposedly invincible Spartan army. They did so by increasing the depth of their formation, and therefore the power of their phalanx in order to punch through and break the Spartan lines. In Athens, he watched the Athenians experiment with much longer spears for use in naval warfare. They scrapped these spears because its length made it too unwieldy with a shield, and limited the wear of heavy armor.
Develop through Doing
He was also about to meet inventors and tinkerers as he moved from town to town. These men were experimenting with large weapons and variations on tools of warfare. When he ascended the throne, Phillip invested heavily into recruiting many of these leaders and thinkers. As he adapted the way his army fought, he rigorously tested everything, using these designers to perfect his new weapons. Note that these advancements were often modifications of current designs as envisioned by Phillip. Likewise, he instituted changes to the army through drills and endless training. In other words, the army conceived, developed, and matured in and through field experience, rather than in a controlled laboratory.
Formations
At the time, the standard Greek warrior fought in a phalanx: A square formation of heavily armored infantry, armed with a spear and a shield. They would stand shoulder to shoulder, and press into one another. The phalanx was a powerful formation that emphasized unity and defense, and it was incredibly difficult to break through a frontal assault. It proved especially effective against the lightly armored soldiers of the Persian army in the narrow battlefields of Greece. Many wars started with the phalanx, and ended with it. Armies often constructed siege weapons, such as battering rams and ladders, on-site. They lacked protection and power, and assaults on major fortifications were often impractical. Far more often, an opposing army would attempt to starve out the inhabitants for months, a risky move in the ever changing politics of Greece.
The oft-defeated Macedonian army reflected this mindset in their composition and organization. They had the same design and tactics as their neighbors, only the armor was weaker and their numbers were fewer. The constant raiding and encroaching Greek colonies further eroded their strength. Macedon did have a proud warrior culture, and their nobles formed the Companion Cavalry. Well-equipped and motivated, they were an effective force, but they lacked spurs to keep them on their horses in a heavy charge. Soldiers used spears for jabbing rather than as lances. They were ineffective against a phalanx.
Tools
Philip’s first change took advantage of his two major resources: quality wood and bronze. Recognizing the power of Thebes’ formation, and the potential Athens’ idea showed, Philip created the sarissa. It was an incredibly long spear somewhere between 15-20 feet long. Standing in close order, the fourth rank was able to extend his spearhead in front of the first man in the formation. Macedonian wood and the bronze butt made for a strong, balanced, and flexible tool of war that could survive the rigors of combat.
Due to the length of the spear, soldiers had to use both hands. Its weight made it difficult to use with the standard heavy armor. So, Philip reduced the size of the shield, hanging it on the neck, and reduced the weight and size of the armor. In short, he traded protection for lethality. In a direct confrontation, it was a four vs one fight and produced one-sided victories for Macedon. However, the phalanx was always inflexible, and the sarissa exacerbated the problem.
Rather than alter his designs, and reduce his strengths to cover a weakness, Philip did two things: First, he put special care into developing light infantry with slings and shorter spears. More importantly, he used his cavalry on his flanks. They wielded a shorter version of the sarissa that was still much longer than the spears used by standard infantry, let alone enemy cavalry. Both elements were highly mobile and often worked together as “wings” to the army, defeating opposing light infantry and cavalry before flanking the enemy formation or exploiting opportunities. In addition, the long spears of the cavalry made them a shock force that could effectively hit the sides and rear of an exposed phalanx.
Profession
Finally, Philip adopted a new idea for who his soldiers would be. Abandoning the concept of conscription, he opted instead to use professional soldiers. Rather than forcing farmers and tradesman into his army, he paid them full-time and drilled them endlessly. Peacetime meant long marches and maneuvers to keep them strong and disciplined in combat. Furthermore, it provided him a testbed for his ideas and ensured he could coordinate the various elements of his army effectively. Together, his newly reformed army overwhelmed the armies of Phillipi, Colossae, Athens, and Sparta in open battle.
However, Greece had long been plagued by incessant and indecisive warfare. Battles decided the bargaining power for peace talks, but they did not decide the fate of cities. The cost and difficulty in assaulting a major fortification traditionally made it an impractical endeavor. The most advanced siege engines were essentially large crossbows that were worthless against the walls themselves. Phillip’s engineers produced new, stronger weapons, including catapults strong enough to destroy walls and protection for battering rams and siege towers. They also devised ways of packing and transporting their equipment, creating the world’s first siege train. This allowed them to build and perfect advanced weapons, then transport them, rather than creating what they needed on the spot.
Phillip’s power became unchallenged. Armies could no longer retreat behind walls and negotiate. After several cities were razed, and a last alliance failed, all of Greece acknowledged his power and preeminence. Furthermore, they gave him a new title: Hegemon. The various cities would never again go to war with each other for dominance, and Phillip had the unity he needed to invade Persia.
–
Recent years have seen the same sorts of innovation that were being tried at the time that Phillip was a youth in Thebes. America’s dominance as the sole superpower is being challenged. The use of drones, long range artillery, and cyber warfare is still being experimented with by various nations. The next war will be won by the first military that is able to master the use and synchronization of these techniques in warfare. We, like Phillip, need to identify what our strengths are, and lean heavily into them. This requires us to acknowledge that strengths also come with weaknesses and account for such things. We must be sober-minded, and willing to adapt how we use, train, and equip our military. Ultimately, we must recognize the value in seemingly strange ideas, never accepting new technology until it has been rigorously tested in the field.
Here are some questions for discussion or personal reflection:
- What new techniques are affecting the war in Ukraine and Syria right now?
- What are the capabilities of Cyber Warfare as you understand it? How does that affect the way the U.S. Military operates?
- What can drones do? What do you think drones could be used to do? How can we use that at the strategic level to fight our wars?
- What is the difference between technology and innovation? Examples?
- What actions can a tactical formation take to mitigate the effects of these new ways of warfare?Will there ever be a technological substitute for discipline and leadership? Why?
Recommended Reading
Subscribe to The Company Leader!