Military strategy can be broken down to core concepts that have been used for thousands of years and are still relevant. These concepts include flanking manoeuvres, bluffs, flank protection, spearheads, encirclements, force concentration, holding manoeuvres, surprise, and so on.

Alexander, for example, often concentrated his best and most mobile forces on his right wing (himself in command) with his left wing in oblique order. He would either attempt to smash through the enemy's left wing or create an opening while his own left wing, held slightly back, would protect his flank in a holding manoeuvre. Once he had broken the enemy's lines he could circle around and outflank key positions in the enemy's defense and hopefully force them to retreat through panic or route them.

These concepts have been used continuously throughout history. Even in something like The Gulf War, you could say that these tactics were used but in reverse and on a much larger scale during Operation Desert Storm. The right flank held the Iraqi forces in check while mobile armoured elements broke through on the left flank and circle around on the enemy.

The scale may be different (across an entire country rather than a large open area) and the technology different (tanks instead of cavalry) but the general concepts remain.

Arrian - The Campaigns of Alexander
Keegan, John - History of Warfare

This is a great question that challenges many military leaders. Many advanced degrees in strategy or politics still study the Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Thucydides (general/historian) of the Peloponnesian war. I could write a book on this topic but mainly it is a matter of opinion. If technological or material superiority trumped all, why then did:

*The British lose the American War of Independence?

*The French lose the French Algerian War?

*The Americans lose in Vietnam and fail to accomplish their objectives in Korea, Iraq, (twice), and Afghanistan?

Strategists don't just study tactics. Study of tactics is most enlightening in an effort to understand the mind of the leaders in any given conflict. How does one assess risk, employ Clausewitz's fog and friction, account for the unknown, perform strategic assessments, adapt then re-adapt to new information, and turn military victory into gain of political objectives - that's the primary reason modern military strategists study older masters. I'm not going to tell you something as trite as "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" or say that nothing can be learned from the past about tactics - history is full of repeated lessons. But I think you are asking the wrong question if you want to study military strategy. If you are in to this, I highly recommend starting with a fun, but insightful book - Washington's Crossing by David Fischer then Kaigun by David Evans and Mark Peattie, and A Savage War of Peace by Alastair Horne, followed by the Strategy trinity (for me) of Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Mao. Pm me if you'd like more info. Source: student earning MA in Military Strategy Studies.

Many key concepts in military tactics have survived throughout the different generations of warfare, but I'd say today, with asymmetric 4th generation warfare a military leader today would get less out of studying the tactics of Alexander the Great, or Napoleon than would a Military Leader of WW2 or earlier.

Tactics like a "Pincer Offensive" was succesfully used by the Athenians at Marathon, and by the Soviets at Stalingrad nearly 2,500 years later.

There's a book written by David Chandler who was a pre-eminent historian specializing in the Napoleonic Era who taught at Sandhurst.

Its called "military maxims of napoleon".

Essentially it's filled with maxims like "Maxim I. The frontiers of states are either large rivers, or chains of mountains, or deserts. Of all these obstacles to the march of an army, the most difficult to overcome is the desert; mountains come next, and broad rivers occupy the third place."

or "Maxim XIX. The transition from the defensive to the offensive is one of the most delicate operations in war."

or "Maxim XLIX. The practice of mixing small bodies of infantry and cavalry together is a bad one, and attended with many inconveniences. The cavalry loses its power of action. It becomes fettered in all its movements. Its energy is destroyed; even the infantry itself is compromised, for on the first movement of the cavalry its left without support. The best mode of protecting cavalry is to cover its flank."

and most importantly is the quote by Napoleon himself "Maxim LXXVIII. Peruse again and again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Engene, and Frederick. Model yourself upon them. This is the only means of becoming a great captain, and of acquiring the secret of the art of war. Your own genius will be enlightened and improved by this study, and you will learn to reject all maxiums foreign to the principles of these great commanders."

The principle is this - tactics will change according to the materiel, men, machines, objectives etc of the time and place. The big principles however is repeated again and again by Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, etc on the subject. Defining objectives, Knowing the opposition, Usage of tools, evaluating the scenarios and the environment. I think these principles are consistent in many facets of not just warfare but modern life.

Source: David G Chandler, "Military Maxims of Napoleon" (duh)

Htm ji