Undefeated in battle, by the age of thirty Alexander the Great has led his Macedonian army and conquered lands stretching from Greece to northwestern India, creating one of the greatest empires in the ancient west. In the 330’s B.C.E. , Alexander and his army conquered the Persian Empire after several major military campaigns. The conquest began with an initial victory of the battle of Granicus, after which Alexander advanced to Lycia and the Pamphylian plains, then south into Egypt. The army then pushed east again, claiming victory in battles along the way, and finally conquering all of Persia.
In addition to King Alexander’s exemplary skills in command, the nature of both the army he led and of the Persian forces seem to be another one of
…show more content…
In the Kingdom of Macedonia, cavalry traditionally appear in battles only with the purpose of pursuing enemy phalanxes or skirmishing. Under King Philip II, the preexisting Companions expanded to include more men and adopted more effective tactics - Philip brought the Macedonian cavalry out of a support role and gave them an offensive role in battle. In most encounters the cavalry would mobilize in solid formations and deliver quick, concentrated attacks to enemy …show more content…
It is evident that speed was a major factor in battles during that period of time.
Ancient battles were typically fast - they would go on only for several hours, and the defeated troops would be pursued by the opposing side. With this in mind it is safe to conclude that slow, inefficient methods of travel are vulnerable against agile attacks.
The populous nature of the Persian forces has in fact led to severe problems. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, traditionally large Persian armies cannot remain settled in one region for long periods of time - resources available in one region usually cannot support so many people for so long. This means that it is possible that the Persian armies had to mobilize frequently - this may potentially lead to morale depletion or simply the pointless consumption of strengths, and is a very inefficient way of defending lands. Since the Persian forces were typically consisted of large numbers of people, it is safe to conclude that they move relatively slowly compared with Alexander’ army. The Macedonian army, on the other hand, were partially composed of Hypaspists, Companions and Agrians. The Agrians, who excel at skirmishes and versatile encounters, can provide great tactical flexibility against Persian forces, while the Hypaspists and the royal cavalry deliver quick, decisive