The Modern Art of War

Lessons from Arbela, 331 B.C.

February 26, 2003

by David A. Roberts

Those who know little about history have a hard time learning from history. Those who know more history often see current events as deja vu all over again, with little changing but the names, to protect both the innocent and the guilty. There was a situation in Iraq in ancient times that has useful lessons that apply to the current situation, namely the battle of Arbela in 331 B.C., where Alexander the Great defeated the far larger army of a Middle-Eastern despot named Darius III (who was not much different than Saddam Hussein), and ended the tyranny of the Persian Empire.

Arbela is near the modern Iraqi town of Irbil. The Persian Empire has been established when the Persians (modern day Iranians) had overthrown the previous Assyrian Empire that had controlled the entire Middle East from Turkey and Egypt to Afghanistan. Like nearly all Middle-Eastern governments from ancient times to Saddam Hussein, the Persian Empire was a military dictatorship, and the tyrant that Alexander the Great defeated at Arbela was not a particularly nice guy.

The polyglot Persian army at Arbela was not much different than the polyglot army that Saddam Hussein has now assembled.

Most of the army of Darius was composed of levies from various parts of his empire who had no personal loyalty to Darius, served only under compulsion, and would probably just as soon have seen Darius dead, as fight for him. Like the army of Saddam Hussein today, ancient sources say that Darius had assembled an army of a million men at Arbela. Most modern writers don't believe that Darius could have had an army of a million men at Arbela, but considering the far larger area from which Darius drew levies than Saddam Hussein can draw from, I think it's entirely possible that Darius had an army of close to a million men, about the same size as the army Saddam Hussein has today. Another reason to believe that Darius had a very large army is that one of the things he had done to prepare for the battle was to have his army level an area of serveral square miles in front of his army, across which Darius expected to charge with some 200 war chariots that he had.

In any case, historical sources are probably quite accurate in saying that Alexander the Great had an army of about 40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry. On the surface it would appear to be highly imprudent to attack an army of a million men with only 40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry. But Alexander knew what we know today about the army of Saddam Hussein, that most of the men in the army of a Middle-Eastern despot have little personal loyalty to the despot, serve only under compulsion, and would probably be more willing to surrender to a TV camera crew, than risk their lives for a egomanical murderous tyrant. Alexander knew that the vast numbers of the Persian host wouldn't really matter much when it came to close quarters combat. The only serious opposition that he would face on the battlefield would be from a few units that had personal loyalty to Darius, much like the Special Republican Guard are the only troops that Saddam Hussein can have any real reliance on today.

Alexander's infantry was composed mostly of what were called phalanxes. A phalanx was a highly trained and disciplined force that had evolved over hundreds of years of close quarter combat in the narrow passageways of the mountainous terrain of Greece.

The traditional Greek phalanx was composed of four ranks of men who fought in full body armor with shields and eight foot spears. Alexander's father Philip had improved on the traditional Greek phalanx by introducing the 16 foot spear with a phalanx 8 ranks deep. This was called the Macedonian phalanx because Philip and Alexander where Macedonian. With this formation, Philip had conquered and united all of Greece, with the intention of then defeating the Persian Empire with the forces of a united Greece. When Philip was assassinated in 336 B.C. by an Greek patriot apparently resentful of the Macedonian conquest, Alexander inherited his father's army, and proceeded to carry out his father's plan to destroy the Persian Empire, so that the Persians would never invade Greece again, as they had done three times in the previous two hundred years. The key point as far as the battle of Arbela is that the Macedonian phalanx was essentially a modern armored infantry battalion armed with 16 foot precision guided smart spears that Alexander knew that none of the Persian host could possibly resist in close quarter combat. The Macedonian phalanx was essentially the technological marvel of it's age.

Alexander also had a force called his Companion cavalry; the elite of Alexander's army. As it happened, the Companions proved to be the decisive force in the battle. Darius deployed his army lined up behind the leveled field over which he planned to charge with his war chariots, with his best troops in the center, and levies on both flanks. Alexander had his phalanxes in the center, with his Companions on the right and another force of cavalry on the left. As the battle unfolded, Alexander advanced rapidly over the leveled field, bearing to the right to try to secure his right flank on rough ground that hadn't been leveled. When Darius realized what Alexander was doing, he ordered his chariots on his left (Alexander's right) to charge, but it was too late. Alexander was already into the rough ground, and light troops and cavalry quickly dispatched the chariots. Realizing that Alexander's left was open, Darius ordered all his troops on his right and right center (Alexander's left) to charge. When they did, a hole opened in the center of Darius' lines. Alexander immediately charged through this hole with his Companions, heading straight for Darius, who was on a war elephant with advisors, and with his chariot beside him. Alexander led this charge personally, right out in front where Alexander always believed that a real general should be.

History doesn't record what was said between Darius and his advisors on the war elephant, but it doesn't take much imagination to guess that Darius asked his advisors, "Who is that guy out in front on the big white horse in golden armor with his sword pointed straight at my heart?" History doesn't record what his advisors said, but it doesn't take much imagination to guess that they said something like, "That's Alexander. He always leads from the front like that, and when it comes to a battle, he's a pretty serious guy." Whatever was said, history does record that Darius leapt from his war elephant to his chariot, and fled from the field as fast as he could.

As far as the rest of the battle, the situation was difficult for the Greeks on their left flank for a while as most of the Persian army continued its charge. But as soon as that part of the Persian army learned that Darius had fled the field, most of the Persian army turned and fled too. It is said that total Greek losses at Arbela were about 100. Alexander spent a day clearing the battlefield, and then began a pursuit of Darius, who was eventually murdered by his own bodyguard and left by the road for Alexander to find. That was the end of the Persian Empire. Serious fighting only lasted ONE DAY, with mop-up taking a few more weeks.

There are many lessons of history to learn from Arbela, but here are a few obvious lessons. Saddam is no different that tin-horn military dictators who have ruled Middle-Eastern countries for thousands of years. Most of Saddam's army are little more than the farmers with pitchforks who made up the army of Darius. They may show up on a battlefield, but if confronted with a force like a Macedonian phalanx, or an American armored infantry battalion, they have no intention of doing anything but surrendering or running for their lives. It is said that Alexander took about 300,000 prisoners at Arbela, and similar numbers of prisoners could be expected in an invasion of Iraq today. But the key lesson is that Saddam himself is the only real opposition in Iraq today. The best way to deal with him, is to open up a hole in his lines, and head straight for him, just like Alexander did at the battle of Arbela. I'm just a country boy, but where I come from we always said that every bully is also a damn coward, and my guess is that as soon as an American armored infantry battalion or air mobile assault force arrives at a compound where Saddam is holed up, that he will flee from Iraq as fast as he can (if he can flee, and if he is not murdered by his own bodyguard first). And once that happens, the rest of the Iraqi army will collapse as quickly as the army of Darius did at Arbela.

But perhaps the most important lesson from Arbela is this. One of the worst mistakes that American military planners could make would be to try to inflict heavy Iraqi military casualties as a way of defeating Saddam, because most of the Iraqi military who would be killed by unnecessary "shock and awe" tactics, probably don't like Saddam any more than Americans do. And by far the worst mistake that American military planners could make, would be to inflict heavy Iraqi civilian casualties as collateral damage while trying to inflict heavy Iraqi military casualties. Some American military planners are trying to build a case that Iraqi officers would be charged with war crimes if they use civilians as human shields, and heavy civilian casualties result.

My humble opinion is that if American forces deliberately inflict heavy and unnecessary civilian casualties and try to blame it on Iraqi officers, it will not only be a lame excuse, but American military officers who deliberately cause civilian casualties in such a situation would also be committing war crimes that are completely unnecessary in this situation. The most serious problem with American military officers committing war crimes is not whether the perpetrators are charged and convicted before the International War Crime Tribunal. With extremely rare exceptions, the victors of a war are seldom charged with war crimes because of the way they conducted themselves. The most serious problem is that even if the perpetrators aren't charged, the population of Iraq will certainly know that America had conducted itself like Atilla the Hun, and the population of Iraq will remember this with resentment for a thousand years. Aside from that, if America inflicts large numbers of unnecessary civilian casualties, it will inflame extremists in the Islamic world to a degree that terrorism could spiral out of control, and could bring Western Civilization itself to its knees. American military officers who are not prepared to conduct themselves with the highest degree of military professionalism, self-discipline and restraint in the use of force, would be well advised to resign rather than participate in an invasion of Iraq, and should be transferred out of an Iraqi invasion force if they do not resign.

In this regard, American military planners might heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu at the beginning of Book III of the Art of War. Book III is aptly titled "The Sheathed Sword" and states, "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's will to fight without fighting. In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is NOT SO GOOD" (emphasis is my own). In the case of Iraq, supreme excellence will consist in taking the enemy's country with an absolute minimum of death and destruction to both the civilian population, as well as to the Iraqi military, because the Iraqi military will still be needed to establish peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region after Saddam is gone. Let up hope that American military planners are capable of supreme excellence in military professionalism, self-discipline and restraint in the use of force in the way they handle the Iraq situation, because anything less than supreme excellence will be NOT SO GOOD.