The Best Version of Guagamela?

[Nicator]

Hello All,I'm taking a poll on the best version of Guagamela...so far, having read Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, Nicholas Hammond, Peter Green, J.F.C Fuller, A.B. Bosworth, Victor Davis Hanson, Ulrich Wilcken, Agnes Savill, and Mary Renault. I'm leaning towards Hammond (believe it or not!), with Green a close 2nd.
later Nicator

[marcus]

You're way ahead of me there, Nick!I'm busy reviewing all of those on your list for Issus, but I haven't got as far as doing it for Gaugamela. What I do know, though, is that Fuller has a very interesting section on the supposed attack on the Macedonian camp...However, your note will make me take much more notice of Hammond, so thanks!All the bestMarcus

[John.]

I see you left Dodge off the list. In my opinion, he probably gives the best battle descriptions of any modern writer. And he's no dusty scholar, but an actual Colonel who was at the pivotal battle of Gettysburg, fighting with the North.Still, it's probably just as well you left him off the list. You'll think I'm crazy, but I had some strange experiences reading him: On at least a half dozen occasions, I actually had to close the book and put it away, because I thought his ghost was coming out of the book, and trying to attack me. Real spooky, some of these Cival War veterans.John

[John.]

One more plug for Dodge: I think he read most every ancient Greek and Roman author in the original Greek and Latin. So he really knew his stuff.Having said all that, Arrian towers over Dodge (and everyone else), and he doesn't have such a troublesome ghost, either! So chalk one up for Arrian in your poll.John

[maciek]

In my opinion Fuller is best in that matter. He also bases on the ancient writers (mostly on Arrian), and he also was a soldier. Additionally he was one of the best military theoretic in history. His calculations in Gaugamela battle are very interesting. He shows that just after Darius fleeing Alexander couldn't run after him but he had to help first his both wings. It sounds convincing to me. Also Fuller had (if I can say so) open mind for other aspects of Alexander's character. Not only his generalship. His descriptions of Plato and Aristotele ideas is also very interesting. I think he gives very detailed history of Alexander and in the battle scenes I think he's best. I like also Hammond but military aspects are in my opinion better described by Fuller.All the best
Maciek

[John.]

I like Fuller, too. But I remember him making some sort of apology in his introduction that he didn't have the time to read all the ancient sources, and so relied heavily on Dodge, and pretty much only Arrian from the ancients. Whereas Dodge makes no apologies, and read everything from the ancients that he could use.John

[marcus]

Just another quick add - Hammond was also a soldier, and his whole fascination with Alexander etc. came from the time he spent with the Greek guerillas in Northern Greece during the Second World War. He didn't take part in any major battles, but he did take part in 2-3 years of intense guerilla warfare... so that's probably why he comes out high in Nick's list, too.All the bestMarcus

[John.]

That's true. When I speak of the dusty scholars, I'm thinking more of those that Hammond was at war with; i. e. P. A. Brunt, Bosworth, etc... Boy, did Hammond have some harsh things to say about them, things like they get lost in the dustclouds of their own overblown pseudo-logic.And Hammond would proclaim that Philip II's tomb had been discovered. Then the other side would come out with, No, it's Philip's mentally challenged son, Philip III. I always thought they were being ridiculous, and I side with Hammond.John

[Nicator]

Do you know the full name of Dodge and his book so I can request it from the library system?

[Nicator]

...I noticed that as well about the camp. I'm re-reading Fuller on this battle again. It's hard not to like his account, and I'd be hard pressed to pick a favorite between him, Green, and Hammond. I just picked up Robin Lane Fox's "The Search for Alexander the Great". I noticed that he had a book called "Alexander the Great" published earlier. Any opinions on these books would be appreciated.I also picked up Green again. Though he is negative on Alexander the man, his admiration for him militarily speaking is vast. later Nicator

[maciek]

Well I have to admit that I haven't read Dodge's book. Fuller mainly bases on Arrian that's true but I like his conclusions from the battles. I like that he is not searching for revolutionary ideas but simply and honestly he analises the battles and searches the most possible way how could it look then. Maciek

[Nicator]

Apparently, Fuller based his account on Colonel Theodore A. Dodge, Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus, and Tarn. See Fuller's Preface...He based his lectures on Dodge and Arrian alone before writing the book. later Nicator

[marcus]

If I recall correctly, "The Search For Alexander The Great" was a large format book with superb pictures in it, which accompanied an exhibition (or something like that)."Alexander The Great" is Lane Fox's book of 1972 (?) which was the first major biographical book on Alexander I read, and it got me completely hooked. It could do with some revisions, and now, knowing much more about Alexander, I can see there are holes in the book, but it still remains one of my favourites.All the bestMarcus

[Nicator]

That makes sense, as I checked out an exhibition book at the same time that had the same cover as Lane Fox's book. I wasn't sure if they went together though because Lane Fox is not mentioned in the credits or anywhere else that I can see in the exhibition book. Both books have awesome pics, but I haven't had time to read Lane Fox's book yet. I think I've completed the section on Guagamela, and it's really fun to read. Now I'm working on Tyre again to sharpen it up and integrate the sources like I did for Guagamela. Then I'll double back again to sharpen up Issus. I'm sick of re-doing Granicus, so I think for now I'll leave it as Arrian wrote it, though I think Green gives the most compelling explanation in his Appendix, where the first wave is repulsed and the next day down river a dawn crossing is made and then a pitched battle ensues from there. I could probably add it later without too much difficulty, but I think it would require a major re-write to get it the way I think it actually happened. I still haven't incorporated all my changes yet from the Balkan's, but most of it is written down and waiting to get typed in. Then a brief bit on Babylon and Susa which I've already started, and then the Persian Gates will be put together...I actually can't wait for that section, as it's one of my favorite set pieces from Alexander's campaigns. I think for now, I may be getting hired soon, and then I'll run out of time and energy to finish the thing. If I can just get all the major pitched battles, Gedrosia, his death, and maybe a few more little set pieces in such as his taking of Aornus and Sogdiana...then I'll be close to completion. The conclusion is already in place. It's probably the most entertaining part of the entire poem. later Nicator

[marcus]

I'm really looking forward to reading this epic of yours, Nick.I'm in the middle of Issos at the moment, and having a whale of a time. I, too, did Granicus as Arrian describes it - although Green's version makes sense, I really couldn't be bothered to go against Arrian. I think I'll need a long holiday before I attempt Gaugamela, though!All the bestMarcus