Question about Alexander's battles

[toddtreadway]

I've heard somewhere that commanders in Alexander's time would usually set up their armies so that one flank (the right??) was much stronger than the other.

Is this correct? If so, why was this done, if the other commander always knew what your disposition was going to be?

[koiosworks]

ORIGINAL: toddtreadway

I've heard somewhere that commanders in Alexander's time would usually set up their armies so that one flank (the right??) was much stronger than the other.

Is this correct? If so, why was this done, if the other commander always knew what your disposition was going to be?

In Greek and Macedonian battle tactics, there was a tendency for the right flank to outflank the enemy left. This was because spears were wielded in the right hand causing the man on the extreme right to edge outwards to gain elbow room. Those who fought beside him on his left inevitably followed his outward move causing a general drift in this direction. So they sort of naturally enveloped the left flank of the enemy. But, this also caused the danger that the enveloping force might leave a gap between units. So, the long spears/pikes they used caused the Greeks to overload the right side and strike there.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: toddtreadway

I've heard somewhere that commanders in Alexander's time would usually set up their armies so that one flank (the right??) was much stronger than the other.

Is this correct? If so, why was this done, if the other commander always knew what your disposition was going to be?

The right was historically viewed as the position of honour, and so the most "honoured" troops could usually be found there. That didn't necessarily mean "best", but it did tend to work out that way in practice. It could on occasion (although not in Alexander's battles) quite literally result in armies turning through 180 degrees as two strong rights pushed back too weak lefts.

Was is militarily smart ? Probably not, but any advantage that might have been gained by (say) posting the Companions on the left would have caused so much offence and trouble it wouldn't even have been considered.

[ancient doctor]

Greek ancient warfare wasnt as rigid as the term "right wing strong,left wing weak" or "Loxi Phalanga"might look like.Infact Greek generals did use a huge variety of tactics depending on their troops and the enemy.For example in Marathon battle Athenians made a weak center and the 2 wings strong in order to encircle the Persians by luring them to the center and then hit them form the left-right and indeed produced a result that was to be copied by many generals after.
In any case most classical Greek armies had as its core the Hoplites heavy infantry.So the main purpose of an hoplite army was to break the enemy's hoplite formation.Therefore the more rows of hoplites you had at the critical point and by that i mean the deeper your hoplite group was the more chances they had to puss and eventually break the enemy front.
Since Macedonian tactic was based on the above as much as the other Greeks did it was also with some unique symptoms.Phillip father of Alexander was a a young man send to Thebes which by that time had the best army and generals in Greece(Epaminontas and Pelopidas).The 1st one usually was basing his tactics on the 1 wing stronger that the other so it is really possible that Phillip was heavily influenced by that and when he returned to his kingdom by applying the phalanx,he also used this wings treak.Alexander was also infuenced by his father indeed been commander in his army before Phillip's death so it pasted to the next generation.
As i said in the beggining however generals were rather eligible to make their own decisions in the battlefield no matter what the usual tactics might be.