Alexander the Great’s vast empire was built upon his keen battle tactics that continuously changed depending on the enemy and terrain.
There is a widespread belief that Alexander’s victories, as well as those of his father, Philip II of Macedon, were mostly due to the fearsome Macedonian phalanx, but that was, in fact, not the case. The phalanx was useful for Alexander and was always there, but it was not consistently used in the same way.
The Macedonian phalanx was a little variation of the Greek hoplites’ phalanx. While the Greeks used the spear (Greek: δόρυ), the Macedonians used the sarissa, a very long spear, about 5 to 7 meters (16 to 23 feet) long. The sarissa’s advantage was that it could pierce the enemy from a distance.
As a general, Alexander exhibited flexibility, innovation, and efficiency. His Asia campaign brought him against armies of various cultures with different weapons and on diverse battlefields. Along with his great ambition and fearlessness, he managed to come out victorious in all his endeavors.
Alexander learned a lot about strategy and battle tactics from his father, Philip II, who had subjugated a large part of mainland Greece. He was barely eighteen when he first went to battle—in a truly crucial one, too. That is when he fought alongside his father in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.
It was the battle of the Macedonian army against the allied forces of Athens and Thebes. Young Alexander led a cavalry charge that broke the line of the famous Theban Sacred Band. Philip’s victory secured Macedonian dominance over most of Greece. It also boosted his confidence and fueled his grand ambition.
When Philip was assassinated two years later, Alexander took the throne, determined to do right by his father’s expansive aspirations. He had a hardened and skilled army ready to reach his goals.
Alexander the Great had the charisma to become a great warfare innovator. He combined his army units and assigned them specific roles prior to and during the battle. The infantry, cavalry, archers, and siege engines operated in unison, adapting to the enemy’s strategy, terrain, and changes during battle.
The coordination of the roles between the infantry phalanx and cavalry was central to his tactics. The phalanx with the long sarissas would keep the enemy in place while the cavalry would maneuver to attack from the weaker flank or the rear. The Companion Cavalry, led by Alexander himself, would charge with relentless force, breaking the enemy troops’ formation and destroying their vulnerable side and morale.
In the Battle of Granicus (334 BC), his Companion Cavalry directly assaulted the Persian satraps’ positions as the phalanx held the enemy center and the regular cavalry attacked the flanks.
Likewise, in Gaugamela (331 BC), the cavalry opened gaps in the Persian lines, and the infantry advanced and broke through. His decision to attack Darius directly again led to another crucial victory.
Alexander was also a master at working the terrain to his advantage. He was the one who often chose the battlefield to fight his enemies, and he would select it depending on whether or not it would assist his tactics. He also used the mountains and rivers to serve his strategy. His well-trained cavalry could easily fight in a river or rocky terrain. Much like Leonidas in Thermopylae, he could also choose narrow mountain passes to protect his flanks or trap the opponent.
In the Battle of Issus (333 BC), his army was seriously outnumbered by the Persians, who were led by Darius III. Alexander utilized the narrow battlefield to neutralize the enemy’s numbers. His phalanx held the Persians pinned while he led a momentous cavalry charge that targeted Darius, causing panic in their ranks and leading to their defeat.
Alexander the Great’s military tactics were ones of exceptional flexibility and innovation. He is the first recorded general to have applied psychological warfare methods to demoralize and/or spread false information about his army. Occasionally, the fame of his invincible Macedonian warrior army was enough for enemy forces to avoid battle altogether.
In Asia, where he fought against unfamiliar enemies, he proved to be quite clever and capable of adapting. Whether he had to face the imposing Indian elephants, the fast Scythian horse archers, or the Persian Immortals, his army was ready to respond accordingly.
In the siege of Tyre, he adapted by using innovative siege constructions. He had his soldiers build a causeway and place siege towers with catapults constructed on top, which eventually breached the walls and stormed the city.
Furthermore, during the Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC) against King Porus of the Paruavas, Alexander’s army faced the challenge of war elephants. The general used feints and diversions that allowed him to cross the river under challenging conditions. He divided his forces to mislead Porus and then had the phalanx engage the Indian infantry while his cavalry outflanked and countered the elephants.
Speed and the element of surprise were also a regular part of Alexander the Great’s battle tactics, as his men often struck unexpectedly, attacking the enemy before they could stand in formation and hitting hard while in disarray. He regularly caught the enemy off guard.
The Macedonian general employed scouts and spies to gather information on enemy movements and terrain. In this way, he could make informed strategic decisions and anticipate the enemy’s respective actions.
Last but not least, the great general was well aware of the significance of logistics. He emphasized the importance of a good supply chain. Hence, his army possessed all the necessary provisions, especially in faraway, unknown lands or hostile territories, which were vital for the long-lasting Asia campaign.
Alexander the Great’s military acumen, grand ambition, and the sarissa were the building blocks of a mighty empire that covered a significant part of the known world at the time. His campaign of conquests from Greece on out spanned across Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greater Iran, Afghanistan, and India. It was hard to believe this man achieved all that by the time of his death at only 32 years old.
Due to their genius and efficacy, the great general’s military strategies and tactics remain a topic of discussion and study to this day.
