Why was Alexander the Great able to conquer so much territory with a relatively small Army?

Why was Alexander the Great able to conquer so much territory with a relatively small Army?

Because Alexander the Great’s Army was leagues ahead of every other Army on earth. There was no close second. Alexander himself gets the credit but I don’t think this is fair. I honestly think Alexander was “meh” and won thanks to his great Army.

Let’s start by breaking it down.

1: Foot Companions

The regular infantry was called “foot companions”. These guys wielded a very long spear/pike and a small shield. Now at this time, everyone fought with a shield and spear however most spears were rather small.

It took years of training for the soldiers to learn to use the pikes. Additionally, these guys were all trained in small unit tactics, hand-to-hand combat, and all sorts of special stuff.

2: Companion Cavalry

The Companion Cavalry was the greatest unit of cavalry ever (arguably) and certainly the best at the time. Cavalry at this time were mostly scouts and fast-moving infantry. They couldn’t really charge into enemy lines given stirrups were not around.

Alexander’s cavalry was unique. These guys were trained for years and years on fighting on horseback. They could charge an enemy head-on, flank around them, or dismount and fight as infantry. They were the elite of the elite.

3: Shield Bearers

The Shield bearers were the “SpecOps” of the Macedonian Army. These guys fought like standard infantry with shorter spears, swords, and shields. They were hyper-flexible, extremely well trained, and capable of nearly anything.

Alexander’s Army was capable of things NOBODY else could do. They could fight in the trenches, outmaneuver an enemy, perform complex tactical actions, and do it all with ease. These guys were the most experienced, best-trained, and most elite soldiers on planet earth.

In a time when armies were civilian-based militia with a small core of trained troops, Alexander had a professional Army at his back.

A stack of bricks isn’t a house as much as a mob of men is an Army. Make sense?

Now, most give credit to Alexander and his brilliance but I disagree with this.

Alexander made mistakes. At the Battle of Granicus Alexander recklessly charged across a river with a waiting enemy Army on the other side. This would have been a disaster for any other Army in history except Alexander’s and even Alexander’s Army took way too many losses.

Alexander was overconfident. In engineering, there is an acronym called “KISS” which stands for keep it simple stupid. Warfare is much the same. If tactics are overly complex then it creates situations where things could go wrong. No plan survives contact with the enemy so plans need to be simple and flexible.

Alexander didn’t create anything. This great Army Alexander had- it was created by his dad. 

These guys also gained experience fighting for Alexander’s father. Alexander didn’t unite Greece nor was attacking Persia his idea. Sure Alexander did conquer Persia however his Empire immediately fell apart because he was a terrible King and a terrible State-builder.

Alexander was wreckless personally. Alexander’s job was the lead the men, not fight with them. Yet Alexander led every battle from the front. Sure this is brave and all but this is the wrong place for a General. In an Army of 50,000 there are lots of fighters but only 1 leader. Caesar for instance would place himself behind the crux of the battle, issuing orders and watching as things develop.

Alexander the Great’s father was Phillip the 2nd. This guy fought and won dozens of Battles and conquered all of Greece for the first and only time. Was Phillip the greatest General ever? No. Like Alexander, Phillip benefited from a highly experienced, highly trained, and uber-expensive professional Army.