Alexander The Great Military Tactics

Secondly, Alexander wasn’t great because he was ruthless. In Document E it states, “Estimated enemy soldiers and civilians killed in four major battles was 100,000” (Doc. E). The documents proves that Alexander wasn’t great because that was only the number of enemies of Alexander, and it didn’t include his own soldiers he forced to go into 4 major battles, probably killing thousands of soldiers each battle. He also went and killed innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the fighting, but were still killed in the battle. In addition, Document B stays, “...Alexander then threw his calvary in a circle around the entire force, and ordered the infantry to lock shields, to group tightly and to advance as a phalanx…” (Doc. B). This fact proves

Alexander the Great primary reason for defeating Darius in battle is the fact that he knew that his small army could not defeat Darius enormous army. He had to spread Darius army wide therefore weakening him in numbers and was able to send his stronger elite soldiers to Darius weakest point which was in the middle. It is very apparent that Alexander had victory on his mind but his strategy seemed to be both effective and efficient. Although, Alexander the great and Darius were in battle, it seemed that Alexander used fewer soldiers but he was able to. Take working at the bank for instance, in most loan departments the bank would employ normally around thirty people.

Alexander was great because he had good strategy when it came to his military. In Document B it shows Alexander using his cleverness with his military strategy. Alexander had confused Porus by moving his troops on one side of the river, and then Porus started to mirror Alexander’s movement on the other side of the river. Porus was expecting an attack every time Alexander moved his troops.

Alexander altered his followers with his military skills. “Alexander crossed from Macedonia to Asia with an army of about 40,000.” (Doc.A). He had pushed his army so they would beat their rivals. He trained them, and forced hard work on the group. Even though it sounded challenging, it did bring his army to the top. “At night he would take most of his cavalry to various points along the river bank where he would create a clamour.” (Doc. B). As alexander lead his army, he also took part in sneaky

This definition perfectly depicts the battle strategies that Alexander the ‘Great’ used in war. Peter Green’s research out of UCLA is useful in illustrating Alexander’s homicidal tendencies (Document C). Green’s work describes the terrible effect Alexander had on the citizens of Tyre, mercilessly taking the lives of 7,000 people through the burning of their buildings, selling 30,000 citizens into slavery, and crucifying 2,000 men. This terrible act even alarmed the Sidonians, who were allies to Alexander and enemies to the citizens of Tyre. Also, according to the records of the philosopher and historian Lucius Flavius Arrianus written in the year 130, Alexander used the strategy of confusing the elephants of a prince named Porus to win his last major battle, however, though Porus’s army was trampled and killed by the elephants, the same fate was bestowed upon Alexander’s men.

Alexander the Great was able to defeat King Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela because of his advanced battle strategies. These included upgrading the phalanx position. Instead of the spears either being straight forward or directly up, he had the back rows' spears point at a 75º angle to deflect arrows and javelins while the front row has their spears straight forward. On both sides of his phalanx, Alexander had set up cavalry. Alexander also had a second phalanx to prevent defeat. Alex first decided to lead the Persians away from the middle ground where the king was. After King Darius III had noticed what was happening, he ordered part of his cavalry to attack from the side. To avoid being surrounded, Alexandre charged straight into the

Alexander the Great was undoubtedly one of the greatest military leaders of all time. Alexander’s strategy was to use terror and kindness to conquer an empire. The towns and cities that resisted him would burn to the ground and their people sold into slavery. The towns and cities that surrendered would keep their government officials, and Alexander would help them rebuild damaged property. This strategy allowed him to never lose a battle.

One point of evidence that Alexander was great was he was a military strategist. For example, “When Alexander saw this, he moved his troops in all different directions so that porus would keep puzzled.¨(Doc. B) He used different strategy to keep his

Alexander killed thousands of people, taking over cities with violence for power you don’t need is not something you would do if you were great. In document C it says “The remaining survivors, some 30,000 in number, he sold into slavery. Two thousand men of the military age were crucified.” This shows that Alexander was not great. He used violence against people, to overcome cities he did not need just for more power. He destroyed homes and took away lifes. So many people were caused to have a painful and violent death because of Alexander. In document E it gives the estimated amount of enemy soldiers and civilians killed in just four major battles, 100,00.

Alexander never lost a battle. He conquered much of the Ancient world, and only surrendered his goals when his army was not ready to fight. As seen in document A, his empire was huge and unmatched by any in history. He also achieved what many thought was impossible; he defeated the robust Persian army. Alexander's remarkable achievements are a result of his courage and determination, leading him to his outstanding battle record.

The fact that Alexander was able to travel far and conquer land shows that he understands what he is doing in order to achieve a favorable result. The ability to understand a concept this advanced is a clear indication that he had a strong strategy. The map and key shown in Document A is the first indication that Alexander was great because of his strategy. Document B highlights a battle in which Alexander is

A final reason Alexander is great is his military. Alexander moved his troops in different directions. The enemy wouldn’t expect it. Alexander moved his troops to the river bank, and he took most of his cavalry. “ He would create a clamour, raise the war cry and produce all other such noises as would come from men preparing to cross the river” (Doc B).

Evidence of this is that many of his enemies would surrender before the war began if they heard rumors about a possible attack on their empire (Doc C). Next, Alexander had one of the biggest empires ever as it stretched across 2,000,000 square feet of land! His empire also continued to grow as he went along his conquest, it took 11 years to reach full potential in size and strength (Doc E). The intense and well taught warriors are on last reason he had a very strong empire, Alexander recruited and highly endured his men to their full capability (Doc D). This evidence clearly states that Alexander the Great lived up to his name. These reasons also show that he was a smart leader and general, had a great and feared reputation from enemies and allies, and Alexander strived for full

One reason that Alexander was not as great as he sounds is because he killed 100,000 people in only 4 major battles. As said in document E, Alexander killed many, many people in order to take over their land. That shows how rude he can be, killing people for what he only really cares about, their land. According to document C, “Alexander ordered that all except those who sought sanctuary (safety in temple) were to be slain.” Document C also stated “Seven thousand Tyrians died… and the number would have been far higher had it

“Darius's army greatly outnumbered the Macedonians, but the Battle of Issus ended in a big victory for Alexander. Tens of thousands of Persians, Greeks, and other Asiatic soldiers were killed and king Darius fled” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). In all the Persians lost “one hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand cavalry while Alexander only lost twelve hundred. These numbers are Greek estimates” (Web, necromatics). The number of murdered infantry in the Battle of Issus and Alexander’s determination to kill, kill,