Q.

1 What was the outstanding and good qualities of character of Alexander, which stood
out given so much success which must be accumulated by generals and kings?
Alexander the Great was the best leader in his age, and possibly of all time. Alexander was born
in 356BC in Pella, Macedonia as the son of Philip II, King of Macedonia, and Olympias, and the
Princess of Epirus. His legacy involves one of the most celebrated conquerors of the ancient
world, one of the greatest warriors and military strategists of all time and has shaped civilization
not only of the past, but also of the future. He was a natural born leader whose qualities to lead
and conquer came at ease for him. He displayed the greatest leadership skills compared to any
leader of the past and used these skills to build a legacy. He may have lacked the skills to
manage his empire, but the empire itself existed due to his accomplishments. The period of 336-
323BC was designated as the age of Alexander as it marks the expansion of the Macedon
imperial boundaries. If you look at his overall reign and his accomplishments, he is far greater
than any other leader due to his impeccable leadership skills. His reign consisted of thirteen years
where he succeeded in creating a new world, which resulted in a radical cultural change in the
Near East. At a glance, some of his biggest accomplishments include an untainted battle record,
becoming king of Macedonia, he unified mankind and conquered. His life accomplishments and
military achievements make him one of the ancient world’s greatest figures. Even in the modern
day, he remains to be a household name, which in my opinion is yet another reason why he is the
most renowned leader of all time. The guy is simply a great. Because of that he is called as
Alexander ‘the Great’.
Alexander’s skills began to develop and grow at a young age. He underwent warrior skill
training by Leonidas at age seven, schooling from Aristotle at age thirteen and studied culture
comprehension from Lysimachus. Overall, he learned the ideals of Greek civilization, which
eventually led to domination. During his first years as the successor of Macedonia, Alexander
followed in his father’s footsteps until he began to rule and lead in his own ways. Alexander may
have inherited his father’s genius military gene when it came to strategy and attack in battles,
which is seen in Alexander’s undefeated battle record. Good leadership reflects the efficient
relationship between the leader and the followers, as power and leadership cannot exist without
followers11. Alexander did have loyal followers and therefor was a good leader. Leadership
must make use of power, in a non-coercive manner, and used in combination with admirable
leadership skills. Alexander did not just possess or use his power; he used it wisely throughout
his reign. A truly great leader changes the world around them through the context of unified
identity and a clear purpose of leadership. Alexander the Great is the context of great leadership.
First off, a great leader must have a captivating vision. It is critical for a leader to have a clear
vision in conveying their goals and achieving these goals in a way to make a vision a reality.
Alexander is proof of what can be accomplished when focused, which is seen throughout his
infinite achievements. Secondly, a necessary leadership characteristic is needed in order to
encourage improvements. This capability came to Alexander naturally and is seen in his
advancements of military actions and fighting at the forefront of battles. Thirdly, the ability to
develop a strategy in response to enemy’s strengths is needed. Alexander was an excellent
military strategist. He comprehended the tactics of how to win, he was good at coordinating and
he used his variety of military skills, which are all seen in his undefeated battle record. Fourthly,
a solid leader must model excellence. Alexander set examples through the use of his leadership
style. He did not just dictate orders; he followed them in order to lead by example and treated
himself as he did others. Finally, a vital quality of a leader is the ability to encourage followers.
Alexander encouraged his followers in a way that made his people loyal by recognizing his
people’s contributions. A significant task for a leader is to create a reality from a vision.
Alexander succeeded in this as he followed through with his vision. He did so through
conquering and exploration, fulfilling his vision for his people and territory. Alexander the Great
grasped the concept of how to build a loyal empire that would aid in conquering the world. He
demonstrated his impressive leadership skills as he was at the forefront of battles, showing
characteristics of courage and bravery. His empire was worldwide and his achievements were
super-human. Leadership lessons learned from Alexander’s accomplishments include strategic
innovation, management of development, and a well-structured system of organizational
governance. Even though he ruled a vast majority of land with differing cultures, he integrated
these different cultures into a unified empire. An example of this was keeping each region’s
individualized form of rule and allowing regions to keep their indigenous administrative systems.
Overall, he ruled with fairness and was not self-precedential in his rulings. Other examples of his
fairness as the great leader include replacing officials if they were ruling unjustly and
encouraging his men to marry local women, making his population and army multi-cultural.
Alexander has many accomplishments under his belt throughout his reign as the King of
Macedonia. At large, he expanded his empire, founded many cities through exploration and
unified mankind all done without abusing his power as a leader and remaining fair to his allies.
He ascended to the throne of Macedonia in 336BC. He quickly stepped up to the plate,
displaying his talent and preventing his people from rebelling. Alexander expanded his empire
by exploring and discovering new territory. He established his first city, Alexandro polis, at the
age of sixteen and was the first conqueror to reach Greece, Egypt, Asia, Minor and western India
and did so within twelve years. He had conquered territory that now spans modern Turkey,
Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and part of India. His military skills were
impeccable and he exhibited many great conquests. Unlike most military leaders, Alexander did
not need extensive logistic planning as the tendency of defeat came as an automatic sequence. He
was not striking in stature but his excellent physical co-ordination, speed and stamina allowed
him and his army military success. He changed the way of civilization in his time and remains
one of the most famous leaders of all times. Alexander the Great died from unknown causes in
323 BC at the age of thirty-two. Since his death, his name has been a symbol of world glory as a
great conqueror and noble tyrant. He was a legend during his own lifetime and remains to be one
even to this very day. His reign as King of Macedonia included many accomplishments, made
possible by his immaculate leadership skills. These accomplishments varied from military
defeats to unifying his people. Alexander is an example of limitless ambition and the relentless
dedication to achieving that ambition. His death makes one wonder if he had not died at such a
young age, how many more accomplishments would he have made. How much stronger would
his empire be. Those are the qualities of alexander that can be accumulated by any king or
general.
Q.2 What was the good points about Alexander’s operational campaign and negative point
about his conduct of operations which could be consider by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
when conducting his own operation?
Alexander the great is unquestionably one of the most famous military commanders in the world.
Alexander continued King Philip’s legacy and using his tactics conquered 3,000 miles across the
globe just in a span of 13 years. He expanded the once unknown Macedonian kingdom into a vast
empire that occupied land from Macedonia to Egypt and from Greece to part of Pakistan in the
Chitral region.
Military Tactics That Made Alexander, the Great which could be considered by Chhatrapati
Shivaji Maharaj:
Management of his campaign cavalry -It was the cavalry at the vanguard striking offensive forces
towards the opponent army. They were the army’s main strike force. They were responsible for
charging the enemy flanks with swords and spears or holding them in place so that the tactic
called the hammer and the anvil could be applied. Their main weapon was the spears which were
quite distinct from the Greek weapon and if the spears broke, they had swords as a backup. What
made the Macedonian Companion Cavalry distinct from the rest of the cavalries of the world of
that time was its Flying-Wedge shape or the V-shape. He had an advantage of V-shape like the
order by the leader in the front could be easily received even by the last soldier non-verbally,
Mobility is quite easy as compared to the linear order of the opponent's cavalry. The reason for
the formation of this shape is that if the cavalry charges in a line, it has a tendency to spread out
and become unstable while the Flying Wedge shape can charge right in the middle of the
opponent's straight-line causing them to break and destabilize causing chaos.

Management of his infantry: The strength of his Companion Cavalry was great. The Companions
could easily win the battle single-handedly. But the opportunities the cavalry created needed to be
followed up by the infantry. To understand infantry, one must first understand the Phalanx.
Phalanx is a unit of highly trained soldiers that would form a square shape and carried spears and
a round shield as their weapons. Because of their compact and definite shape, the phalanxes could
create a fierce forward momentum. The Macedonian Phalanx would become unstoppable against
the uncondensed and less disciplined troops of the opponent.

His Foot Companions: The Macedonian Phalanx was called The Foot Companions. They were
modelled after the Greek Phalanx. But what made the Foot Companions distinguished was their
arms-the sarissa. They were twice as long as the spears that the Greek army used. They were so
long that the soldiers even in the 4th or 5th rows could still reach their enemies with their spears.
Since they were so long that they required using both hands so, their shield was designed to be
relatively shorter and easily tied to one arm.

His Shield Bearers: The shield bearers are introduced by King Philip. When multiple units of
phalanxes were lined up their sides were exposed to the enemy. To cope up with that problem
new form of infantry is introduced called as shield bearers. They carried spears, large shields, and
swords. They had a lot of flexibility. The Shield-Bearers could either form a regular phalanx,
change directions, or break the formation and charge. They could fight either with a spear or with
a sword. The Shield-Bearers were actually the veteran soldiers chosen up from the Foot
Companions. They were used as the reserve force.

Constant Motivation: Being constantly on a battlefield can no doubt cause the loss of motivation
that results in becoming an army’s weakness. And it requires the leader to constantly remind them
of their final goal and maintain the level of enthusiasm and encouragement within the army.
Alexander the Great was one of the best examples in this regard as well. It was his speeches that
made them feel energetic and motivated to win the war. He himself simply didn't know the word
failure. From the Campaigns of Alexander:
“…we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war.
[The king compared the two armies — that of Macedon and that of Persia] …and what, finally, of
the two men in supreme command? You have Alexander, they Darius.”

The quality of his leadership can also be known by his famous quote:

“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.”

Reliance on Spying: Alexander heavily relied on spies. He would often also spy on his own men by
intercepting their forms of communication.

Expeditious Form of Attack: One of the other great military tactics of Alexander the Great was his
rapid charge. This caused fear and chaos to occur among the opponent’s army. Since the
Macedonian army attacked them from both sides using The Hammer and Anvil tactic and did it
quite suddenly, it was definite that they would win. This is the most famous Macedonian Army
tactic that made the win every single war. The Anvil would be formed by the Foot Companions
who engaged the enemy all from one side. Then the Hammer would come into play. The Hammer
was formed by the Cavalry. While the enemy was held in place by the Anvil, the cavalry would
swing around and attack in the middle. The advantage of this tactic is to rapidly surround the
enemy and make them fight from two directions at once. The success of the Macedonians was
always obvious.

This states that unique planning, backup planning, inventions of new weapons, different tactics
and exact execution are main factors of alexanders operational campaign which was very useful to
other generals.

Negative points about alexanders conduct of operations: Alexander the Great may have gone
down in history as one the greatest ancient kings of all time. but, Afterall he was not as great as
history remembers. Many of the lands that Alexander conquered were more or less given to him
without much resistance.

He was an egotistical maniac. Alexander thought that since he was so successful, it must mean
that he was the son of Zeus. When he was forced to take his first and last break from conquest
after his troops mutinied in 326 BC, he declared that he should receive the honors of a god. Many
of his city states obliged and sent him religious delegations. Alexander was so full of himself he
thought he wasn’t just better than the mythical war heroes, such as Achilles, who motivated him
but that he was the infallible son of God. On top of this, he thought himself so important that he
founded more than just one or two cities named after him. According to the Roman historian
Plutarch, Alexander founded no less than 70 cities after himself, calling them all Alexandria.

He Didn’t Govern His Empire. his empire wasn’t even necessarily governed by him. When he
conquered a new land, he would leave the traditional administrative system in place. He spent his
time leading military expeditions; his political ability and experience was zero.

He Didn’t Plan for The Future. Alexander simply did not care about its future, either. He didn’t
bother to father an heir to his throne or to set up any sort of government, and on his deathbed, he
claimed that his kingdom would belong to “the strongest.” His last words were, “I foresee a great
funeral contest over me.” To Alexander, all that mattered was his own power. When he died, his
entire kingdom collapsed, and his land was divided into new kingdoms. These kingdoms were at
constant war with each other for power.
He Was Greedy. Even though he was handed most of his accomplishments, and he was the worst
ruler ever, Alexander’s real downfall was his greed. He wasn’t content with his title of king of
Macedon, pharaoh of Egypt, king of Persia, and ruler of the Greeks. Instead, he wanted to continue
until he was king of the world. He wanted not just to outdo every leader before him but even to best
Greek mythology. He wanted to be more famous than Achilles, and as previously discussed, he
considered himself a god. Reasons for believing he was not the best leader include conquering for
the sake of conquering, not attending to the management of what he had already conquered and just
not knowing when to stop. Alexander was not satisfied with his accomplishments and desired to
explore more and to extend borders of known civilization.
The king didn’t have any ego on himself of his winning and his glory. The king always has to make
his future plan, he always has to think about his people and their future and heir to his kingdom. He
didn’t have get overwhelmed by his power. The negative point of other kingdoms is they have easily
back off and handed land to alexander without defending their land. Those are the negative qualities
that the king should not do when conducting his own operations.

Q.3 What are the negative characteristics of character of Alexander which must be avoided
by all generals?
Every person has two sides the one and the other. One is prime part and other is evil. Like that
many historians see Alexander the Great in a different light. Although Alexander was both
intelligent and handsome, he also had a darker side. He possessed a ferocious temper and from
time to time would arbitrarily murder close advisors and even friends. Also, toward the end of
his many campaigns, he senselessly slaughtered thousands whose only crime was being in his
way. He was bloodthirsty and ruthless. He conquered for the sake of conquest, and was willing to
murder thousands just to spread his name. Despite the mythos he established about himself, he
was no “great bastion of Greek culture” — he was willing to wipe out Thebes and kill his own
fellow Greeks. He killed his father’s greatest general, Parmenion, for the sole reason that he felt
slighted by the elderly general.
However, despite his more progressive beliefs and even some good that came of his conquests he
wasn't a saint. Alexander was known to lose his temper, when sieging Thebes and attempting to
find a more peaceful solution he was insulted which led to him becoming extremely furious and
ordering his men to sack the city, he then elected officials from neighboring towns and cities that
hated Thebes as he knew that the Greeks would support him in destroying the city of their
oppressors. He also destroyed the Persepolis which led to the deaths of countless innocents, with
the only known reason being as “Avenge the Greeks" which isn't the strongest justification. His
fragile ego and rage were more apparent when Alexander was drunk as when Cleitus called the
King into question, Alexander responded in a drunken rage and killed his friend. It's also
believed he marched his men through the Gedrosian Desert to his men surrounding that or
another legendary feat to his long list of accomplishments, either way it was selfish and led to the
death of thousands of his troops. He was also egotistical, aside from naming over 70 cities after
himself he also believed himself to be a descendant of Zeus after visiting the Oracle of Siwa,
something he was rather proud of showcasing to his Non-Greek subjects as he accepted offerings
as Zeus-Amon along with allowing imagery associating him Zeus and heroes of old be
published.
Alexander is characterized by the Persians as a destroyer, a reckless and somewhat feckless
youth, the evidence suggests that he retained a healthy respect for the Persians themselves. He
razed Persepolis to the ground following a night of drunken excess at the goading of a Greek
courtesan, ostensibly in revenge for the burning of the Acropolis by the Persian ruler Xerxes.
Persians also condemn him for the widespread destruction he is thought to have encouraged to
cultural and religious sites throughout the empire. The emblems of Zoroastrianism - the ancient
religion of the Iranians - were attacked and destroyed. For the Zoroastrian priesthood in
particular - the Magi - the destruction of their temples was nothing short of a calamity.
Alexander murdered Cleitus, the friend who had saved his life, when Cleitus reminded him that
his victories belonged to his father because he had left Alexander with a formidable army.
Alexander’s management style alternated between cruelty and generosity: he destroyed Thebes
and pardoned Athens, maybe as a result of the respect he had for the city acquired from his
studies.
Acclaimed by the Greek states, they provided him with the troops and resources to undertake a
triumphant military expedition against the Persian army. Aware of the precarious loyalty of
Athens, Alexander left one-third of his troops in Greece and set out on his crusade. He had no
idea what he would find in Asia. If he had known, he wouldn’t have tried to conquer it with just
23,000 men. Alexander focused intently on what was ahead, never looking back. His leadership
style was that of a heroic general more than a statesman. He had prodigious hardware, but
tempestuous software. Those behavior of alexander like lost of self-control, recklessness, self-
indulgent, inconsistent, trust issues on friends, violent temper, impulsive, stubborn, lot of
drinking are those qualities which never ever have acquired by any general or king.