Everyone is angling for power and aiming to realise their ambitions and goals. Sometimes this might even be at your expense.
In the pursuit of these goals, people all turn into strategists as they grind through their constant daily battles. But in doing so, one often loses sight of what really matters: ultimate victory.
This is where grand strategy comes in. It is the ability to look far into the future at what you really want to achieve – this focuses you on your ultimate goal and helps you plan to each it.
Rather than short-shortsightedly look to the next battle, you consider the political consequences, and the ramifications of your actions.
By keeping this frame of mind, you are able to keep emotions out and make your moves more subtle and effective. While others delight in their small wins, you’ll get the last laugh.
The Birth of Grand Strategy
As he grew up in the Macedonian royal court, Alexander (later given the epithet ‘the Great’) was considered to be a most unusual young man. He enjoyed all the boyish pursuits, such as hunting and warring – he had even fought with his father King Philip II in several battles with distinction.
However, he also enjoyed philosophy and literature. Under the influence of his tutor, the illustrious thinker Aristotle, he learned to look at the world as dispassionately as possible, and loved to debate matters of politics and science.
Then there was the influence of his mother, Olympias. She had inculcated him from the moment he was born that he would one day rule the known world, and that he was the decedent of Achilles, from whom her family claimed decent.
As a result, Alexander from a young age walked as though he was meant for something special.
Before he ascended to the throne, Macedonia had seen its power and prestige grow exponentially under his brilliant father, Philip. He had managed to defeat the largest Greek powers such as Thebes and Athens, then formed a league encompassing all of Greece (except Sparta) under his leadership.
But his astonishing reign came to an end when an unhappy nobleman assassinated him, and soon the city-states of Greece, one-by-one, starting with Athens, declared their independence. It seemed that overnight Philip’s fledgling empire would come to an end.
It must be said: when Alexander took the throne at just twenty years of age, it really was not a great time to learn on the job. He would have to be guided by Macedon’s experienced politicians and generals.
They all advised a gradual approach that involved consolidating his position, then rebuilding the league with a combination of cunning and coercion. To put it simply, Alexander refused.
Not wanting to give his enemies any time to organize, he marched south, reconquered and razed Thebes to the ground. He then moved onto Athens.
By now the Athenians were so shocked at Thebes’ fate that they begged and pleaded to be readmitted into the league. Alexander granted them their wish.
The young king had proven himself unpredictable – when he was advised to be cautious, he was impetuous and bold; when expected to be harsh, he was merciful. Hard to read as he was, he was undeniably winning admirers with his first few moves, and his next would be even more audacious.
Rather than spending time to consolidate his position, he proposed a crusade against the Greeks’ hated enemy, the Persians. 150 years ago the Persians had unsuccessfully invaded Greece and had been earnestly trying ever since.
With this expedition, the Greeks could finally put this constant threat to bed by eliminating the Persians and their navy which cramped their maritime trade.
It was in 334 BC when Alexander crossed the Hellespont (now the Dardanelle Straits) into Asia Minor with an army of 35,000. He met the enemy at Granicus where he routed the Persians.
Alexander’s generals were filled with admiration for boldness and ambition of the young king. They also saw that the Persians were weaker than they had thought and so urged him to press on east.
But no – again Alexander mystified their expectations by deciding to take his time. Rather than head straight east, he went south.
He moved along the Mediterranean coast of Asia Minor, liberating local cites as he marched, moved through Phoenicia, and finally reached the object of his advance: Egypt. When he defeated the weak Persian army there, his reasoning became apparent.
Egypt was Persia’s breadbasket. By cutting Egypt off from Persia, he could deny them valuable resources, feed his army, and keep the Greek economy stable in the meantime.
As the Greeks ventured further from home, the Persian navy had been a constant threat that endangered their supply lines. To deal with this, Alexander had been advised to build up his own navy before the invasion, but he had again refused.
Instead, he moved along the coast of Asia Minor and Phoenicia and took all the principal ports. With nowhere to anchor, the Persian navy was rendered useless.
It is clear then that such small victories and manoeuvres had wider strategic goals. At the same time, Alexander seemed to be avoiding battle – Persia’s king Darius III was amassing a huge army east of the Tigris River and had the strength of position and numbers to wait for Alexander at his leisure.
Had Alexander grown soft by the small pleasures he had found in Persia and Egypt? It was certainly plausible: he had adopted Perian customs and clothing and began worshiping Persian and Egyptian gods.
After the Persians retreated east of the Tigris, Alexander had spent less time on warfare and more on politics and consolidation. During this process, he decided to keep the Persian system rather than starting anew by keeping the same names for government jobs, taking the same tribute Darius had done, etc.
Simultaneously he kept the popular policies and got rid of the harsher, less popular aspects of the Persian system. Hearing of this, town after town surrendered to Alexander without a fight. They were only too glad to join Alexander’s growing project.
In 331 BC Alexander finally met the Persians at Arbela. What most of his generals had failed to understand was that all of his manoeuvring – the disabling of Persia’s naval threat, the taking of almost all Darius’ tribute, denying him the resources of Egypt – had led to the end of the Persian Empire in all but name.
Arbela merely made Persia’s end a military formality. Months before the foundations had been laid, and with this victory, Alexander was confirmed as the ruler of most of the known world.
Analysis
At first, Alexander the Great’s maneuvers befuddled one and all. It was only later on that they could really see just how great his achievement was.
He had essentially invented a whole new way of thinking and maneuvering in the world: the art of grand strategy. When planning a grand strategy, the aim is to look past immediate concerns and situations.
Instead, you look at what you wish to achieve down the line. That means stopping the temptation to react to events happening in the now and only acting if it benefits the ultimate design. Rather than thinking in terms of a battle, you think of the entire war.
Alexander owed much of this novel way of strategizing to his teacher, Aristotle. He was the one who taught him to control his emotions, to view the situation as dispassionately as possible, to look at the world not how he wanted but for what it really was, and to think forward to the consequences of his actions.
One simply needs to trace through Alexander’s movements to see the grand strategy baked within. From the destruction of Thebes to the invasion Persia, it is clear that the aim was first to make the other Greek states cower, then unite them in a new crusade.
Once in Persia, speed was the wrong policy: he took his time to win hearts and minds, to disable the Persian navy rather then fight it head on, and to secure Egypt’s vast resources. Had he quickly taken large swathes of land, he would just as quickly lose it due to a lack of supplies and the hostility of the subjugated peoples.
This is why those who could not comprehend and plan as far as he could settled on the explanation that he was a god or at least was more godlike than human. Now we know that it is a skill very much within our reach.
To become a grand strategist, learn to take a look at the big picture first. Ask yourself “what is it I am trying to achieve?”
When you construct this full picture, and you have clarified exactly what you are aiming for, then you can determine which actions bring the goal closer, and which will lead you nowhere. By guiding yourself in this way, you’ll be able to stay on course.
Do not worry yourself with following conventional paths others are taking. For others, that may may sense, but that has no bearing on your goals.
You need to have the patience and resilience to wage a war, not fight a single battle. Your actions may not be understandable to people, but that is not your problem.
By following this path, you will truly separate yourself from all others, whether they are dreamers who think big but do nothing, or unimaginative, practical people who achieve only small things.
Footnotes & Further Reading
Greene, Robert. The 33 Strategies of War. Millionaire, 2006
