Alexander, Killer of Men: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Art of War

Parameters, Autumn, 2005 by J. Boone Bartholomees

Alexander, Killer of Men: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Art of War. David J. Lonsdale. London: Constable & Robinson, 2004. 230 pages. $25.00.

The author of any new book on the generalship of Alexander the Great must begin by asking himself why the world needs another such work. He faces the fundamental challenge of saying something original about a well-worn topic. There are no new sources, and numerous excellent authors have written on the subject in the centuries since Alexander's death. Most authors solve this challenge by providing an original interpretation of familiar material. That is the approach David Lonsdale chose in dealing with Alexander. Fortunately, the title Alexander, Killer of Men does not hint at the interpretation he presents. Lonsdale, a protege of Colin Gray and currently a lecturer at the University of Reading, uses Alexander in his strategic studies courses. Consequently, he wrote an interpretation that is really an analysis of the Macedonian king's campaigns in terms of modern strategic and operational theory. This is a useful approach for modern students of the strategic art, provided they remember that such an analysis almost certainly bears no resemblance to how Alexander thought and consequently may provide little real insight into why he selected the strategic options he did.

Lonsdale finds that Alexander inherited a good army equipped with good technology. He cautions against overemphasizing the value of the sarissa--a judicious warning since it is not obvious that this extra-long spear was really the decisive advantage of the Macedonian system. Lonsdale also praises the overall loyalty and professionalism (overlooking various assassination plots and revolts) of the Macedonians, their operational mobility and flexibility, and their tactical use of combined arms. Especially in the combined-arms aspects, which he depicts as an innovation, he underestimates the progress the Greeks made during the Peloponnesian War. Because of terrain and culture, Greek city-states would never have adopted heavy cavalry, but they were all using light troops of all kinds and had moved past what Lonsdale calls the "quasi-ritualistic warfare" of earlier periods.

Lonsdale believes Alexander had an effective process through which he exercised command. The heart of the process was Alexander himself, but it included trusted competent subordinates and some system to relay plans and orders. Lonsdale recognizes that this process became less effective as Alexander grew increasingly paranoid and consequently less trusting of his generals. Alexander actually missed Parmenion (not personally but professionally) after he had the old general assassinated. In the end, Lonsdale, like most analysts of Alexander, falls back on the assertion that he was a military genius. This is a frustratingly unsatisfying explanation, but perhaps unavoidable.

This reviewer would have liked a more detailed explanation of how Alexander's campaigns knit together to achieve strategic objectives--what I understood to be the purpose of the book. What did Alexander want to achieve, and how did the campaigns he designed and battles he accepted further the achievement of that objective? Lonsdale addresses those issues; however, most readers would be looking for more in three areas. First, what was Alexander doing? Why was he in Persia, and why did he continue east after defeating the Persians? In other words, what were the strategic objectives? Other than Alexander's paranoia, Lonsdale downplays the strategic impact of his personality. I believe the Macedonian's sense of destiny and his sheer curiosity were critical in determining the strategic objective. Thus, other than the fact it happened, Lonsdale does not discuss the incredibly difficult side trip to Siwa, Egypt, which makes no strategic sense unless you know that Alexander went there to pray at a famous shrine. He received a prophecy, the exact contents of which he never revealed, but which traditional accounts imply reinforced his ambition to conquer the world. If true, that may well have been a critical moment in the campaign--a redefinition of the strategic objective. Similarly, there seem to be two significant reasons Alexander kept pushing his army east after the conquest of Persia. Both rise from Alexander's personality. He was curious and just wanted to know what was out there, and he was ambitious and wanted to subjugate everyone he encountered. If strategy is all about achieving political objectives, and Alexander personally selected those objectives, then a strategic study must necessarily deal with such subjects. An inquiry along those lines leads to the murky realm of myth and legend that Lonsdale tried to avoid, but if understanding the strategic objective is essential, some journey into that realm is unavoidable.

Next, there needed to be a more detailed examination of the enemy. One cannot understand Alexander's strategy without understanding the Persian military system. As one example, the reason Alexander could afford to tramp around the rim of the Mediterranean and spend months besieging ports had to do with how the Persians raised armies. Once Alexander had destroyed the professional core of Persians and mercenary Greeks at Issus, Darius had to rely on levies from outlying satrapies. Those were of poor quality and took time to assemble. That time gave Alexander strategic options that might not otherwise have been available.