Books Summary

Book 1: Lessons from the Great Empire Builder: Alexander The Great's Art of Strategy
Chapter 1: In the Presence of Greatness

1. Training The Mind to Think.
Applying the Socratic method of teaching, Aristotle taught Alexander and the other Companions to look for facts and patterns among a variety of sources and integrate them in a systematic and insightful manner that was useful for solving the specific problem they were grappling with.

2. The Importance of Character Building

To help them think through the moral implications of their decisions, Aristotle forced Alexander and the others to undergo multiple rounds of self-inquiry and instilled in them a moral purpose that would shape their role as empire builders, generals and political leaders.

3.Lessons For Empire Building


At Mieza an impressive group of students learned how to make decisions that would enable them not only to conquer the entire then-known world, but also using what they had learned to setup great empires such as the Ptolemaic in Egypt and the Seleucid in Asia.

4. A Culture of Risk Taking

By cultivating qualities such as analytical reasoning, self-criticism and intellectual honesty, a culture of critical thinking and risk taking was developed wherein everything and everyone was open to being challenged and questioned.

5. The Art of Asking Good Questions.
Aristotle inculcated taxonomy of questions, which these boys, as commanders and leaders, would use to triangulate information, get new information, and seek exactly the information they were after. As has been taught to teachers of the Harvard Business School, the ark of asking good questions is often the most important element of managerial tasks.


Chapter 2: The Dawn of Strategy

1. End of the Full-Frontal Assault

Philip and Alexander's strategies and tactics demonstrated that wars need not be fought in the Hobbesian, state-of-nature fashion, but they also revealed how a smaller army could defeat a larger competitor.

2. The Application of Strategy, Not Tactics Alone.

After capturing Elatea they sat tight for almost a year, planning, preparing, testing their next set of moves, but not attacking - demonstrating that is war, as in business and politics, 'the essence of strategy' can be about 'choosing what not to do'.

3. The Importance of Choosing Precisely 'Where' to Battle

As with businesses deciding 'where' to compete, the where-to-battle decision is revealed as a key underlying principle of Philip and Alexander's strategies and tactics. Focus on the 'where' propelled Honda in the sixties from a small Japanese manufacture of motorcycles to a position not only as the foremost motorcycle maker but as a prospective leader in the automobile industry.

4. 'When' to Enter and When to exit

When to push and when to pull back - and when to strike offensively and play defensively - are all revealed in the approaches and behaviours of the Macedonians. Honda's strike against Yamaha in the motorbike industry provides a relatively modern application of the Macedonians' insight.

5. The 'How' to Battle or Compete Decision

This pervades every move of the Macedonians from positioning to timing of attack to feints and deceptions and other 'indirect' ploys - all targeted at delivering the maximum damage on the enemy at the least cost to one-self. Alexander also revealed what magnanimity in victory can be all about.

Chapter 3: The Men Who could be King

1. Minimise Ambiguity and Uncertainty.

Despite the number of potential contenders for the throne of Macedonia and treats to Macedonia from within and without, Alexander did everything possible to create the impression of 'business as usual.'

2. Appoint Visible leaders as Managers of the Transition Process

Although he was active behind the scenes, he brought Antipater and Parmenion in to manage the transition process. To everyone outside palace walls it was clear the two people Macedonians respected most were in charge of the process.

3. Seek Clarity in Roles.

Just as Antipater and Parmenion were assigned - and had carried out - clear roles through the transition, it was clear who the boss was. The transition of Elizabeth I to the throne of England, Katharine Graham as CEO of the Washington Post and the hand-over from Welch to Immelt as CEO of GE are remarkable for the clarity with which people played their roles.

4. Make the Succession Process Transparent.

Alexander ensured that the succession process was transparent to everyone, so there would be no questions about back0room, Kremlinesue intrigue in the securing of the throne. GE's recent transparent succession process assured a smooth transfer, while its previous, opaque succession, led many senior managers to rush for the exit door.

5. Immediately Set the Tone of Your Reign

In all the cases of successful transitions, we notice that the leader does not dilly-dally in setting the new vision or objectives of her tenure. Not only that of Alexander the Great, but also the successful tenures of Elizabeth I and Katharine Graham had to do with their setting the tone immediately after taking the top job.


Chapter 4: Setting the Tone of His Reign

1. Position the War against Persia as a New Trojan War

Alexander spun the war as a new Trojan War. By elevating the purpose of the war he ensured that all of Greece got behind the expedition. Lincoln's spin of the Civil War followed a similar pattern.

2. Use of Cavalry as a "Disruptive' Technology at the Granicus

Alexander defeated the much larger Persian army under the command of Memnon of Rhodes by using cavalry as the strike force for the first time in the history of warfare - much like the use of tanks at Cambrai in Word War I and the aircraft carrier at Taranto in World War II.

3. Managing the Mystique of Invincibility

Like Don Bradman in cricket and the New York Yankees in baseball, the Macedonian army created - and managed - a mystique of invincibility about it, which led many opposing armies and garrisons to surrender rather than fight the Macedonians.

4. Creating the Myth of His Role and The Wars as Divinely Ordained.

As with myths contrived for the people of Great Britain about the Highland tradition and World War II being a 'people war'. Alexander created a myth about his divine origins and the role of the Macedonians in battle as divinely ordained.

Chapter 6: Seven Distinct Leadership Styles

1. Trusting Leadership Style

Despite being warned by Parmenion that the medicinal potion he was given by his doctor, Philip, was poison, Alexander put complete faith in his childhood friend and drank the potion - and only after that reveal to Philip the concern that Parmenion had raised. He would place his complete trust in people he had just met - such as the Persian shepherd in whose hands he entrusted the safety of half the Macedonian army.
2. Inspirational Style

Alexander had an uncanny ability to inspire his troops. He reminded them of past battles and victories, talked to them about the higher purpose that they were following beyond winning the battle at hand, and inspired them with stories of past heroes who had succeeded in much rougher conditions.

3. Connective Style

Before any battle he would ride up and down the front, speak to his mean directly, call out to familiar faces by name, and remind them of previous acts of bravery. Not only would that boost morale, but his men also knew that heir contributions were being recognised.

4. Aggressive Style

Alexander always tried to position himself as the attacker - never the defender - because he knew the advantage most attackers enjoy. Surprise was among the most important, followed by an ability to shape the direction of the battle the way he wanted. He also enjoyed the goodwill of people as a 'liberator' rather than an 'aggressor'.

5. Humanistic style

Despite the cruelty demonstrated in battle, Alexander always made sure than even the enemy's troops got a decent burial. Alexander could be valorous and magnanimous off the battlefield. He made sure that Dairus's wife; mother and children were well taken care of and their captive condition never taken advantage of. When Darius's wife died two years after Issus, weary and grief stricken, just before Alexander routed her husband at Gaugamela, Alexander visited the family immediately. He fasted along with them and accompanied her body in the funeral procession.

6. Commanding Style

Alexander knew his place in the world. If someone stepped beyond the boundaries, he was quick to act. Even with Darius he was prompt to point out who the victor was and who the vanquished was, and if the vanquished wanted any forgiveness, he must ask for it in the appropriate fashion. Eventually, he became more paranoid, which led to the sudden killing of several of his close friends and confidants. The deplorable killing of Parmenion as well as his son on rumours of plots, or the killing of Cleitus in a drunken stupor, point to fact that Alexander was a highly insecure, judgemental human being who could often behave like a despot

7. Marauding Style.

The killings of thousands of innocent civilians at Thebes, Gaza, Tyre, Multan and elsewhere have always raised the question about Alexander. Was he a great leader or just another barbaric killer? Many historians have chosen to take extreme positions. Unfortunately, we will never know the truth. What is important, however, is that any position be adopted with a pinch of salt - or a large dose of it, depending on how vociferous the position is. Reality is probably, as with most things, somewhere in between.


Chapter 7 A Global Strategies to Unify the World

1. Map a strategy for Globalisation.

Alexander's expansion style was systematic. The pursuit of Darius was held up during the siege of Tyre and the invasion of Egypt, through Alexander was aware the diversions would provide Darius with the time to bolster the wrecked Persian army after the Battle of Issus. But he was more interested in his broader objective of ruling the world; conquering Tyre and Egypt would provide him with a naval base, enhanced capabilities in naval warfare, and ready access to the timber of Phoenicia and Assyria to build his navy, and prevent those two nations from attacking Greece or Macedonia.

2. Preserve Value.

Alexander always sought to avoid a war of attrition, aware that the longer a war, the less value the geography to him. He positioned himself as a liberator of the people from the harsh rule of the Persians, and citizens of many nations found his appeal persuasive enough to willingly switch to his side.

3. Penalise Those who Refuse to be Ruled.


When Tyre finally fell, eight thousand Tyrians lost their lives and the rest were sold into slavery. Like the destructions of Thebes, his treatment of people after the siege of Tyre, and thereafter Gaza, was a signal to the people not to resist him.

4. Encourage Pluralism to strengthen society.

Alexander allowed 0 indeed encourage - the cultures and social mores of the nations he conquered to flourish alongside the Greek ones. In Egypt, for example, he built Alexandria with wide-open avenues, canals and waterways. Most important, though, he ordered the writing of laws compatible with the existing Egyptian judicial system.

5. Harness Local Talent.

In Egypt he asked the two Egyptian governors who ran Upper and Lower Egypt to stay on in their jobs. He signed up all the naval architects, designers and builders in Tyre for his army.

Chapter 8: "Teeth Versus Tail" - Logistics Strategy

1. Keep it simple.

The underlying principle of Alexander the Great's logistics system was simplicity. Where other armies of the ancient world typically cared as many followers as troops on an expedition, with the followers carrying the rations and other supplies of the troops, both Philip and Alexander trained their troops to carry everything they needed themselves. This reduced the logistical train that went ahead or followed and also allowed the Macedonians to achieve lightning speed.

2. Set Up Forward Supply Bases.

Most ancient armies and indeed most modern ones as well, are tethered to their supply bases. Tactical operations are often lost because the supply chains of the advancing armies don't arrive in time or are cut off by the enemy. The key success factor of the multinational force's quick win over Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War was based on a principle first seen in Alexander the Great's army: forward supply bases, which would be set up in anticipation of the arrival of the troops.

3. Plan Far in Advance.

Because of the subsistence level of agricultural production in ancient could not entirely depend on foraging from the land as Napoleon's could. So before he set out on the next stage of a campaign, Alexander always made sure that an advance team had been sent out to capture supplies from a local magistrate or ruler. Most towns and villages willing surrendered to the advance team, but in those instances where they didn't he arm-twisted them into surrender. In those areas where there were no towns and villages, Alexander made sure he consulted the botanist, zoologists, meteorologists and logisticians in his entourage about climate conditions, and the availability of animals, fruit and vegetables that could be garnered for the large army.

4. Break into Small Units.

If there was no certainty of advance supply bases, Alexander split the army up into smaller units, which set out on different courses to reach the same destination. Each unit was responsible for taking care of its own forage and, if any come across a large enough supply, they requisitioned it for other units. Very often, his advance intelligence team would provide him with accurate estimates of how many people a town or city could sustain given the subsistence level of agricultural production, and Alexander would always take only that many troops, leaving the rest behind at a point where supplies were more plentiful.

5. Establish a Single Point of Contact

Alexander the Great made many decisions on logistical issues. But by and large he delegated logistics-related decisions to one of his senior commanders, such as Parmenion, who was responsible for planning and executing them. Everyone knew with whom the buck stopped when it came to logistics.

Chapter 9: The Art of Deceptive Strategy
1. Disperse to Concentrate.
'The principles of war, not merely one principle,' wrote Basil H.Liddell Hart, the English military strategist and commentator, ' can be condensed into a single word - concentration ... The concentration of strength against weakness.' To be able to concentrate, Liddell Hart continued one must be able to disperse the opponent's strength, which can only be brought about be a dispersion of one's own strengths. 'Your dispersion, his dispersion, your concentration - such in the sequence and each is a sequel.' The entire battle for Mount Aornos is one of calculated dispersions and decisive concentrations.
2. Dislocated and Exploit
Everything that Alexander did on the banks of the Hydapses before launching the attack was designed to throw the enemy off its guard. He didn't attack when was designed to throw the enemy off its guard. He didn't attack when or where they most expected it; he attacked when and where they least expected it. He managed to dislocate the enemy's comfort zone by his element of surprise, but he was also well prepared to exploit that dislocation to its maximum advantage. Execution of strategic and tactical moves in war and business often misses the element of surprise, because everyone is so focused on executing to plan that very few opportunities for surprise ever present themselves; or even when they present themselves, no one has the necessary preparation to exploit them.
3. Erroneous Signals
Signalling is a tactic frequently employed in a strategy by firms to communicate intentions or exchange pricing and other information, which might lead to collusive behaviour. In war, signalling is deployed as a feint to focus the other side's resources at a point where no attack is planned. Such resource diversion strategies, when thoughtfully employed, can lead to competitive advantage, as Ralston proved in the pet food market and Boeing probably has in the commercial jetliner market.
Chapter 10: Alexander's Death - And Legacy

1. No Clear Succession Plan.

One of the fundamental challenges of succession planning in business and political organisations every make contingency plans for the loss of their leader. The history of Alexander the Great's death and the loss of the empire by his successors serve as a telling testimony to the ramification of not being prepared for the loss of a leader

2. Promoting Loyalists over Talent.

Although the Companions were highly capable leaders, Alexander never mentored or developed any as a successor - because to do so would create a challenge to his supremacy. Indeed, towards the end of his rule he frequently selected people for senior positions because of their loyalty or record of service to him, not necessarily for their ability to lead people or win battles. Too often the legacy of a strong leader is an organisation without sufficient leadership capacity to fill the void left behind by the departing leader.

3. Quashing Criticism leads to Conformity.

The Companions, who had started off as colleagues and equals of Alexander, after the assassinations of Parmenion and his son Philotas, stopped challenging Alexander's approaches, plans and decisions. Towards the end of his reign there was reluctance to 'rock the boat', and all the senior generals and governors pretty much went ahead with whatever Alexander said or wanted.

4. Private Values, Public Actions.

Alexander lost the script on those specific qualities that had brought him so much success in the first place. His private values and public actions became one and he never thought about how his private beliefs affected those whom he had led so far, who might not share those same beliefs.

5. Lack of Stewardship.

Everyone associated with Alexander became incredibly wealthy - beyond his or her wildest expectations. On the other hand, his successors never bolstered the political and military institutions, that first Philip and then Alexander had worked so hard to create. Partly, that blames lies whim his successors, but also part of it lies with Alexander himself. He was so focused on integrating and unifying the world that he paid little attention to building those very institutions that had made it possible for the Macedonians to conquer almost the entire known world.