WHAT MADE ALEXANDER SUCH A GOOD GENERAL?

Alexander understood the importance of strategy which is the plans you make before a battle or even a whole campaign. For example, when he had choices about what kind of action to take, he saw the bigger picture and made all of his engagements subordinate to it. An example would be his two main actions before he went east: he secured his northern frontier and annihilated Thebes, thus securing his position in Greece. He was supremely good at battle tactics which are the plans you make for the actual running of the battle itself. Here, he understood that there are several crucial factors in the winning of a battle, especially when the odds are against you.

Alexander and Philip used a unique combination of the traditional infantry phalanx (pezhetairoi) and the irresistible hetairoi (Cavalry Companions) along with other cavalry and infantry units (some carrying the sarissa and some bows and arrows). Another elite group were the hypaspists (Shield Bearers) who probably protected the exposed flanks of the phalanx. He relied heavily on some specialist regional units (eg. the Agrianian light armed infantry who were fantastic javelin throwers and moved very fast; the Thessalian Cavalry usually under Parmenios command). He probably had about 35,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry with him when he left Greece in 334 BC. How did he manage to defeat the biggest armed power in the world with those numbers?

 Some of the factors which he took into account in his planning and execution of battles were: 1. The element of surprise and speed where he saw that if you could take the enemy unawares by the speed of your approach, they were often wrong-footed (eg. Thebes; Issus) 2. The combination of cavalry and infantry into highly choreographed units against ill trained and ill equipped troops (Granicus; Gaugamela) 3. The use of the phalanx to break down the enemy or to force them to break ranks and then the charge of the Cavalry Companions in a devastating hammer blow at the enemys one crucial point(Issus; Gaugamela). 4. The ability to adapt the troops according to varied conditions and circumstances as they arose (the hollow square at Gaugamela; the use of the phalanx as the key to success at the Hydaspes). 5. The knowledge that a victory was no good if one did not follow it up (Issus; Gaugamela) 6. Psyching out the enemy beforehand (Gaugamela; Hydaspes) 7. Personal acts of outrageous courage (Granicus; Issus; Mallian Fortress) 8. Willingness to sacrifice some aspects of the battle in the interests of overall success (Issus; Gaugamela) 9. Never put off by seemingly impossible odds (Sieges of Tyre; Aornos and Sogdiana; numbers at Gaugamela) 10.Personal rewards and individual encouragement of his men for undying loyalty (Granicus; Tyre) 11.He was the first commander to recognise that artillery could be used in the field as well as in a siege. 12.He understood that it was always better to have the momentum and psychological advantage of attack, rather than the uncertainty of the defensive position (Granicus; Gaugamela and all his battles). 13.Crucial use of the staggered or echeloned attack (Issus & Gaugamela)
The Macedonian phalanx will always remain in history as the ideal of shock tacticsits impact in good order was irresistible Only great individual strength supplied by constant practice and drill (could make possible the use of the sarissa by the phalanx) No one has ever surpassed his cavalry tactics Alexanders army was taught before all things to attack, never to wait attack. (Dodge)