The Battle of Gaugamela - Alexander's Improvement on "Decisive Battle"

In 331 B.C. Alexander of Macedonia, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, led an army of around 45,000 outnumbered troops into battle against the army of the Persian Emperor, Darius III. The battle that took place on the 1^st of October, known as the Battle of Gaugamela, was the third and final major battle between Alexander the Great and King Darius III's troops. Though heavily outnumbered, Alexander's troops obliterated Darius III army and effectively destroyed the Persian Empire. Though not the first example of such a technique, Alexander's army incorporates the Greek polis tactic of a "decisive battle", which would serve as the Western example of how to fight wars and even has an impact on the Western view of warfare today.

Where the Persian army of slaves often ventured west into European territory, instead Alexander took his troops westward and, after destroying the Western half of the Persian Empire and fragmenting Darius III's rule, Alexander looked to capture the ancient city of Babylon in the Eastern half of the empire and destroy the Persians altogether. During the last of the three battles between these armies, in which the troops of King Darius III attempted to hold up at a defensive position believed to give them the edge, the Macedonian war machine looked to completely destroy the Persian army, as in kill every troop and capture every possible resource.

During the battle, the multicultural Persian slave army attempted to outflank Alexander's by encircling him. Once the line became bent, Alexander led the charge of his troops, who were vastly superior in fighting, by breaking through the Persian line in an attempt to kill King Darius himself. Alexander believed that he could not win a battle, or a war for that matter, until he annihilated every enemy troop and completely crippled an army. Borrowed from the Greek hoplites, Alexander always chose to fight on an open terrain where there was nothing but military strategy. He was appalled at the Persian troops fighting during night or attempting to engage in sneak attacks, as Alexander considered this to be an uncivilized way of fighting.

Alexander's improvement on the tactic of "decisive battle", or the open face-to-face combat of troops using primarily shock weapons (generally sword and shield), has a large impact on the way wars had been fought in Western culture from then on. British and French troops would engage in wars by standing in properly formed lines and shooting volley after volley into enemy flesh until the less-skilled was forced to retreat. Guerilla warfare was generally frowned upon and not seen much outside of the American Revolution. World War I was fought in trench warfare, where there was little strategic maneuvering allowed in no-man's land. Alexander's criticism on the cowardly fighting style of the Persians, in which many times Alexander was unable to coerce the enemy troops into open "fair" combat, is seen in western culture today as well. Terrorism and sneak attacks are deemed cowardly by Western culture, and often guerilla attacks result in drastically less deaths than open combat where hundreds or even thousands can die in one day under "fair terms". With a rise in modern Eastern "cowardice", that is the lack of an Eastern army that would meet face to face in "shock combat" with the West, is it possible that militarism could possibly lead to West on West fighting in the future?

Source:
Carnage and Culture by Victor D. Hanson