Alexander The Great Disadvantages
Alexander the Great came up with affective alternatives to help achieve his plan of winning the Battle of Gaugamela. Effective alternatives stimulate efficiency (Hultman, 2016). Alexander appeared to have more insight on how to make the most of his team. He knew that affective alternatives would be necessary to gain the victory because Darius of Persia had an advantage in the battle. Darius of Persia started the battle with a larger amount of soldiers, as well as, first choice of the battleground. Alexander the Great knew that Darius having this advantage would warrant him to consider all resources and strategies to gain the victory over the skirmish. Alexander organized a methodical game plan for his troops (Nassar, 2007). The writer feels
that Alexander the Great succeeded in the Battle of Gaugamela because his army was efficient in their teamwork strategies.
Alexander used his smaller, yet more structured team to pursue avenues that Darius had not fathomed. He arranged for his troops to use long swords to prevent opponents from an attack. Darius had a team that was large and spread out, which allowed Alexander’s troops to cover more significant areas of the battleground. Alexander’s awareness of equifinality allowed him to come up with simple, yet effective ways to prevail over the enemy. Darius failed to identify opportunities that could have helped his troops be successors of the battle such as empowerment. He could have focused more on being both effective and efficient. He felt that Alexander’s team was smaller and inadequate in relation to his own, and that having more troops in numbers would automatically be an effective way to win. Darius may have benefited from prioritizing his own plan of achievement (Fernbach et al. 2015).
In conclusion, the writer feels that Alexander the Great succeeded in the Battle of Gaugamela because his army was efficient in their teamwork strategies.
that Alexander the Great succeeded in the Battle of Gaugamela because his army was efficient in their teamwork strategies.
Alexander used his smaller, yet more structured team to pursue avenues that Darius had not fathomed. He arranged for his troops to use long swords to prevent opponents from an attack. Darius had a team that was large and spread out, which allowed Alexander’s troops to cover more significant areas of the battleground. Alexander’s awareness of equifinality allowed him to come up with simple, yet effective ways to prevail over the enemy. Darius failed to identify opportunities that could have helped his troops be successors of the battle such as empowerment. He could have focused more on being both effective and efficient. He felt that Alexander’s team was smaller and inadequate in relation to his own, and that having more troops in numbers would automatically be an effective way to win. Darius may have benefited from prioritizing his own plan of achievement (Fernbach et al. 2015).
In conclusion, the writer feels that Alexander the Great succeeded in the Battle of Gaugamela because his army was efficient in their teamwork strategies.