|
Chapter I
The Quintessential Leader
“There was at that time no race of mankind, no city, no single individual, to which the name of Alexander had not reached.” 1 Arrian (Roman historian, second century A.D.)
Studied, copied, and admired by leaders of all times—including Roman emperors, Napoleon, and modern leaders such as Ted Turner—worshipped as a god during his own life, Alexander the Great remains the best example of leadership, unmatched after more than 2,000 years. He was the most powerful person who ever lived and ruled the known world without limitations. He built incommensurable power gradually from a precarious base, and we remember him today as the finest conqueror and greatest military genius of all time.
Alexander lived thirty-three years, and he reigned for only twelve years and eight months; but he left a profound and lasting mark on the world. He founded and built dozens of cities, many of which still exist, and he caused others to disappear forever from the face of the earth. He founded the capital of ancient Egypt, Alexandria, considered the “New York” of the ancient world. Alexander produced a cultural exchange between the West and the East that changed the history of the world. His conquest contributed to shape the culture and the world, as we know it today.
His achievements were so marvelous that, almost 900 years after his death, the inhabitants of an oasis close to Siwah (Egypt) were still worshiping Alexander as a god, even though Christianity had been the official religion of their territory (Roman) for 200 years. Even the powerful Roman ruler Julius Caesar was daunted to learn that the Macedonian had conquered the known world—and at a very young age. He was so overwhelmed with frustration when he compared himself to Alexander that he broke down and wept before a statue of Alexander.2 Besides Napoleon, Julius Caesar, and other Roman rulers, almost every major general in history looked up to Alexander.
Alexander possessed a relentless power of endurance and a sharp intellect, which was only surpassed by his courage. Educated by Aristotle, one of the most influential thinkers in the world, he became a warrior at the age of fourteen, a general at eighteen, a king at twenty, and the sovereign of most of mankind at twenty-five. In a fast-changing world, populated by billions of inhabitants, people often do not remember the leaders of five years ago.
Yet, numerous documentaries, movies, and history books still remind us of the insane goals that a young man from Macedonia* accomplished three centuries before Jesus was born. The former President of the University of California and professor of Cornell University, Benjamin Wheeler, wrote, “No single personality, excepting the carpenter’s son of Nazareth, has done so much to make the world of civilization we live in what it is as Alexander of Macedon. He leveled the terrace upon which European history built.”3
The purpose of this book is to analyze the traits, behavior, and strategies of the only person who successfully conquered and ruled the known world, to compare them with modern theories, and to show his similarities with other outstanding leaders.
Throughout history, the destiny of millions of people has depended on the qualities of their leaders. Many people have devoted a good part of their lives to lead their countries, communities, and organizations, but only a few of them have succeeded and emerged as remarkable leaders. Why is leadership so difficult? What did Alexander do differently from the rest? How did he achieve virtual worldwide success in only twelve years, without losing a single battle? These are just a few of the questions that this book will address.
Far from becoming obsolete, most of Alexander’s traits have become increasingly important in our times. Leadership and strategy, which we cannot separate, are not only craved in the political and military arena, but they are also vital for prosperous companies and non-profit organizations. Furthermore, a healthy society depends on the quality of its leaders. While some wise leaders have earned praise for building empires, many incompetent ones should take the blame for the decay of the societies and businesses they have led.
The urgent need for such scarce, wise leaders is apparent in the disproportionate, increasing compensation of CEOs, and in the fierce competition to attract leaders and strategists at different levels of organizations.
It is not a coincidence that so many successful leaders of different times have studied Alexander’s secrets and applied them to their ventures. By learning and mastering the outstanding traits and behaviors of this quintessential leader, they have gained precious, insightful knowledge to succeed in their respective arenas.
Alexander did not conquer the known world by chance, nor did he win every battle he fought by fortune. He had a method—a method that can be learned.
The Day the World Changed
The month of September was coming to an end in the year 331 B.C., and one of the most impressive battles in history, the Battle of Gaugamela, was about to begin.† King Darius III of Persia had chosen a flat ground for the battle to capitalize as much as possible on his great superiority in the number of soldiers. His impressive army was estimated as one million foot soldiers, 40,000 equestrians, 200 scythe-chariots, and some elephants, while Alexander’s force consisted of only 7,000 cavalry and approximately 40,000 foot soldiers.4 This represented more than twenty Persians per Macedonian, in a time of hand-to-hand battles.
Following a long journey and after receiving the information of Darius’ position, Alexander stalled seven miles away from his enemy and remained there for four days to rest his soldiers, check horses, polish weapons, and plan for the battle. He left behind pack animals, baggage, and soldiers unsuited for war. He then resumed the march‡ toward Darius, halting again about four miles away from the Persians the night of September 30. The Persians were already prevised and lined up for fight. Alexander then called for a meeting with his officers to decide on a plan of action. His alternatives were to fight Darius that same night, as the majority of his officers asked him to do, or to follow General Parmenio’s advice and wait until the following day.
Alexander, together with his light infantry and the Companions, one of the finest and best-trained cavalry units in history, performed a careful inspection of the entire battlefield. Then he called a second meeting with his commanders and examined carefully the pros and cons of each alternative. This time the king decided to endorse Parmenio’s suggestion.
These were the main points of Alexander’s rationale for delaying the attack. First, by waiting until the following day, he could keep the Persians waiting another day and night under arms. Meanwhile, his soldiers would lay down their arms and stay rested for the battle.
This would not only have an impact on the soldiers’ fatigue before the fight but would also test the nerves and morale of the Persians. Waiting for the night attack that would never materialize would stress the Persians. Second, waiting until the next day would give Alexander enough time for a minute inspection of the battlefield and the enemy’s dispositions. Third, a night attack would be a risk. Even if Alexander won, the darkness would give Darius an excuse for his defeat. Finally, while the majority of his commanders wanted to advance at once and attack under cover of the darkness—because it would cause confusion—Alexander did not like the idea of “stealing victories like a thief.”
From the top of a hill, he saw the overwhelming number of soldiers whom Darius had put into the field, already under arms and standing in battle order. He decided to halt and keep the gigantic Persian army waiting under arms for another day and night.
During said night, the Persians indeed kept ready for battle, fearing a nighttime attack. Hour after hour, they waited in arms, alert, with their lives at stake. The attack, however, did not materialize during the endless night of September 30 because Alexander had ordered his army to halt, lay down their weapons, refresh themselves, and rest. The last order he gave was probably the most difficult one, as his soldiers had already seen the approximately 100,000 campfires of their enemies, and such a large number of soldiers naturally disturbed them.
The following morning, his troops were understandably more invigorated than their counterparts, who had kept expecting, and stayed armed, stressed, and awake. He had minutely planned the disposition of his forces. On the right wing of his army, he positioned the Companions, led by the Royal Squadron under the command of Cleitus. Next to them and toward the center, Alexander placed squadrons under several officers. The shock infantry (phalanx) of the Guards was located next to the cavalry, and other Guard units led by Nicanor supported its left. Next to them, toward the left, were the units of Coenus, Perdicas, Meleager, Polysperchon, and Simmias. Craterus led the foot unit in the left wing and next to him were the allied cavalry squadrons, supported by the Thessalian cavalry. This last cavalry expanded toward the left wing of the ground forces. Parmenio (also Parmenion) led all the left wing.
Behind the front lines, Alexander located reserve troops to anticipate any attack from the rear and to protect the entire army. These troops had orders to watch for an encircling attack—very likely due to the Persians’ heavy numerical superiority. In the case of such an event, the reserve troops had instructions to meet the endangered attack. In addition, Alexander reinforced both wings with backup troops, so they were ready for a swift defense in case of an encircling maneuver. On the right wing, half of the Agrianes led by Attalus and all of the Macedonian archers were placed forward at an oblique angle, ready to broaden or close the battlefront as needed. The mercenary cavalry, led by Menidas, was located right in the front line with instructions to turn and strike the Persians in the flank—if the latter attempted an encircling maneuver. On the left wing were the Thracians, led by Sitalces, at an angle with the main force and supported by cavalry. The over-all formation was so adaptable that the back troops could roll around the entire army and reach the front line in case of necessity.
Such was the level of detail and perfectionism with which Alexander planned his fights. He forecast his enemies’ chess moves and planned the responses for each alternative as much as possible. His enemies usually surpassed him in numbers, but he would not allow them to be better prepared for a battle than he was. Alexander was brilliant at doing his homework and anticipating dangers.
A memorable battle, still studied after more than two millennia, was about to start on October 1. The fortune of an entire era was decided on that single day. We will come back to this battle towards the end of the book, after we analyze Alexander’s unique qualities in the following chapters.
|
Fig. 2. Courtesy of the Department of History, United States Military Academy.
(Infantry: solid rectangles; cavalry: hollow rectangles)
|
Chapter II
The Speed Advantage
“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” George S. Patton1
Moving fast and being early has numerous advantages, including the benefit of surprise and the possibility of finding one’s adversary unprepared without the time to get organized. As professional chess players know well, the party who moves first has more chances to impose an opening that is convenient for the player, or inconvenient for his or her opponent, and so the first mover gets the upper hand. Nowadays, a leader’s ability to act rapidly and steadily is, at the very least, as important as it was two millennia ago.
This chapter shows one of Alexander’s trademarks: his proverbial speed of movement in reacting and responding to the challenges that fate presented to him. Whether at the beginning of his campaign, when he was only twenty, or as an experienced conqueror, Alexander was always one step ahead of his rivals—even surprising the men who fought by his side.
Alexander inherited a questionable and unstable power as king of the relatively small Macedonian territory* at the young age of twenty. It took him less than thirteen years to consolidate his inherited power and to conquer the known world as no one ever did before or after him.
Early in his campaigns, he acknowledged that he had several disadvantages in comparison to his major enemies. Therefore, he exploited his speed to compensate for his shortcomings.
Promptly Establishing a Power Base
Alexander was only twenty years old when his father, Philip II of Macedon, was murdered in August 336 B.C. Alexander did not have a mentor to guide him. Even though the loyal General Antipater recognized him as Philip’s successor to the throne, General Attalus, a personal enemy of Alexander and his mother Olympia, decided to follow the orders of Prince Amyntas—former childheir to the kingdom. Attalus represented a deadly threat to Alexander’s aspirations. Attalus was then in Asia commanding half of the Macedonian troops.
Alexander’s lack of experience did not prevent him from taking a bold action to hinder his enemies and start building his power base. When the news of Attalus’ rebellion reached Pella, at that time the capital of Macedonia, Alexander made a fast decision: he would send an army to Asia. Hecataeus, one of his supporters, led the army with orders to arrest Attalus and bring him back to Pella, to face judgment and execution for insubordination. Hecataeus had an alternative: he could kill Attalus as soon as possible. History tells us that Hecataeus crossed into Asia and killed Attalus himself or had a third person kill Attalus when he resisted. Prince Amyntas managed to escape for a short time, but he was eventually arrested and killed as well.
Alexander’s rapid and decisive action helped him to gain the respect and support of the Macedonian people, who had followed very closely the humiliations and challenges that he had to overcome. Alexander’s speed established his legitimate power. Legitimate power is one of the five sources of power proposed as categories by French and Rave’s research (1968)3 in a widely used approach to sources of power.
Legitimate power is based on an individual’s formal position in a group or organization. People comply with the leader due to belief in the legitimacy of the possessor of power. This source of power, together with reward and coercive powers, is known as a position power. It is vested in the individual, and that person has access to this power because of the position he or she has in the group or organization. Since the source of these three types of powers relates to the individual’s rank, the most likely reactions from followers are compliance or resistance, instead of commitment and acceptance, as in the case of expert power and referent power.4 Further discussion on power sources will appear in following chapters.
The Time Value
“There is one kind of robber,” said Napoleon Bonaparte, “whom the law does not strike at, and who steals what is most precious to men: time.”5 Alexander was not as extreme in his statements, but he considered time a very scarce resource.
Many Athenians believed that Alexander, unlike his father Philip II of Macedon, was too young and weak and would not dare to cross the borders of Macedonia. Hence, they were impatient to breach the reluctant alliance they had previously made with Philip. During August 336 B.C., about a year after Alexander’s accession to the throne, the Athenian Demosthenes, paid by the Persian king Darius III, initiated a rebellion against Alexander. Darius III, who had celebrated the murder of Philip II as a positive event for Persia, started to get uncomfortable with Alexander’s success. Demosthenes was probably not the only Greek who received payments from the Persian king to rebel against Alexander.
Demosthenes not only advocated a war against Macedonia, but he also presented a false witness who allegedly had fought side by side with Alexander and who asserted that the Macedonian king died in a battle near the Danube, together with half of his army. Demosthenes convinced numerous Thebans living in Athens, exiled by Alexander a year before, to return to Thebes and start a rebellion. Without fighting, Thebes had surrendered to Alexanderabout a year before, and he had sent to Athens those who initiated the rebellion. Demosthenes provided the rebels with money and promised them the support of Athens, in case of misfortune.
The deported Thebans agreed; they arrived secretly at night in Thebes, killed the Macedonians’ guards, and the following morning they proclaimed their uprising against Macedonia. This insurrection encouraged other Greek cities, like Athens, which took advantage of the situation and changed its neutral position. Athens called for a Hellenic crusade against Macedonia. The Athenians went even further and started to negotiate an alliance with the Persian king. At that point, a Greco-Persian alliance against Macedonia was imminent.
Alexander, who had just defeated the Illyrian king at the Illyrian marshes, received the report of the riot by September of that same year, 335 B.C. He decided to eliminate the Greek revolution with remarkable speed. He did not go back to Macedonia from the Illyrian marshes, but instead he headed directly to Thebes. In a tremendous effort, Alexander covered 200 miles mostly through mountains and hills. On the fourteenth day of advance, Alexander and his army, consisting of more than 30,000 warriors, were at the gates of Thebes.
The Thebans were astonished. Not only was Alexander alive, he was standing right at their city walls. They tried to convince themselves this was not Alexander the Great, but his General Antipater leading the Macedonian troops. Alexander expected the Thebans to send him ambassadors to negotiate a peace treaty and to surrender. That, however, did not happen. Though some Thebans wanted to surrender, others were reluctant. Unfortunately, for the future of Thebes, the insubordinate ones had more influence than those who wanted to negotiate and surrender.
The Thebans were successfully defending their city, but then General Antipater brought the reserve army into the battle. Alexander discovered a postern in the city walls and sent his friend Perdicas to seize it. These two new offensives were crucial; the Thebans could not resist the combined attack, and the Macedonians entered the city.
Alexander’s allies voted to punish severely the city because of its betrayal of Macedonia and friendship with the Persians. Alexander agreed and razed the city to the ground, as a lesson to all the other Greek cities that contemplated insurrection. Except for the priests, some friends of the Macedonians, and those who had opposed the war, Alexander either killed the Thebans or sold them into slavery. Therefore, Thebes disappeared from the face of the earth in the second half of 335 B.C. Alexander’s prodigious speed proved decisive.
During that first year of his reign, Alexander punished the assassin of his father. Additionally he eliminated the pretenders to the crown of Macedonia, gained the submission and respect of the Macedonian army, extended the Macedonian kingdom to the Danube, defeated the Illyrian king, eliminated the Theban insurrection, and regained the Hellenic leadership!
|
|
