Alexander himself was coming...

[Nicator]

Hello all,It is mentioned many times throughout the histories that when the enemy heard about an attack with Alexander where he was there in person that they gave up and ran for their lives. My feeling at first on reading these comments was that it didn't make sense, but after a little deliberation it seems likely that those people knew something that we didn't. More than likely, they did run for cover, because his personal guard would likely be along for the ride, and these men would be very highly trained and capable of inflicting massive damage to any who opposed them. later Nicator

[chris]

HiAnd who could blame them? Many battles throughout history ended quickly, with one side realizing very quickly that it's better option was to retreat(run away). I don't know if Alexander's men took a drink before a battle to "bolster their spirits"? Perhaps they didn't need it.Chris

[nick]

Hi Nick -I think you are 100% correct. Up to Alexander many (of course, not all) decisive actions during Persian battles were depending on the "personal" exploits and bravery of leaders. It really isn't that hard to find some clues about that style of warfare in our histories: many Persian satraps dead at Granicus; Darius' direct relatives defending the King's chariot at Issus.My favorite comes from Xenophon's history about the campaign of Cyrus the Younger. It is written that as soon as Cyrus spotted his brother Artaxerxes the King at Cunaxa he shouted "I see the man!" and dived into the enemy line attempting a personal attack on his foe. (With disastrous results.)I would be happy to defend the viewpoint that Alexander did roughly the same thing (hunting down Darius at Issus and Gaugamela) but with one major difference: always attacking in the company of, well, the Companions. From one viewpoint this could be seen as cheating: breaking the rules of 'noblesse oblige' in ancient warfare. From another viewpoint Alexander's tactics were an inevitable 'innovation' - clever, effective, efficient. Someone had to change the code of conduct on the battlefield sooner or later - and Alexander did it.(To get some more evidence about the persistance of 'noblesse oblige' during battles, we could just look at the disasters of World War I. In the early 20th century it took millions of human lives before
army commanders were finally convinced it was time to adapt a different style of warfare tactics that would suit the new conditions. Even, still, in WWI an army commander had a ten or twenty factor higher risk of being killed than the ordinary soldier.)Regards -
Nick

[H]

Nick
I can't believe that you wrote the above post - is someone pretending to be you? How is it cheating for Alexander to attack at the very forefront of his Companions (many of whom were kinsmen of his) and not cheating for Darius to be *surrounded* by his kinsmen and companions? I really am puzzled as to your method of arriving at this conclusion.
Yours in extreme puzzlement
Halil

[nick]

Hi Halil -How nice to get a reply from you.I didn't say that Alexander was 'cheating' from our point of view. I only argued that he might have broken one of the rules of 'noblesse oblige' of his time - or maybe only the Persian rules of 'noblesse oblige' of that era.Innovations (economic, military) are almost always connected to breaking the rules.I'm sorry if I have upset you. That was not my intention. I am an admirer of Alexander - but I respect his Persian foe too. That is why I am here. I am trying to learn lessons for our future by examining that great confrontation of styles and cultures that happened some 2330 years ago.Regards -
NickP.S. And - no one is pretending to be posting as me - as far as I know of. It were my posts.

[agesilaos]

Surely it is an expression of the terror he had inspired by his ruthlessness a la Attilla or Ghengis Khan; for this phrase occurs with reference to rebellions rather than in the set battles. To resist was to write your own death warrant; he was implacable.

[Tre]

Hello Nick:I would have to disagree. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Alexander changed the way battles were fought by his personal conduct on the field save for one instance and it wasn't against the Persian army proper. He fought the way Macedonian Kings were expected to fight. As he was the aggressor, he charged at the head of his army, but was unable to engage Darius in hand to hand combat because naturally, Darius was well defended by his own guard. Anyone who went charging at the Persian King all by himself would have been a fool, not to mention it would have been impossible for a Macedonian King to do anything of the sort - the men would not have stood for it. Darius would have had him killed, or even better captured alive before he got anywhere near his chariot. Like his father before him who went to Chaironea with slightly less men than the other side so that the Greeks could not cry 'no fair, we lost because they had more men,' Alexander gave the Persians no excuse for their loss. Although strongly outnumbered in the field battles with Darius, he prevailed proving himself the better general with the better army. That cannot be interpreted in any other way, then or now, and 'cheating' had absolutely nothing to do with it.Regards,Tre

[H]

Nick
Slightly off this thread, just wanted to thank you for acting as moderator - a tedious and often thankless task.Re: your postings in this thread...well, I still can't believe you're being totally serious so in that vein, I will reply (I've added in your comments, to make it easier to understand my replies):N: I would be happy to defend the viewpoint that Alexander did roughly the same thing (hunting down Darius at Issus and Gaugamela) but with one major difference: always attacking in the company of, well, the Companions.H: I still can't believe you are being serious here. You *are* joking, aren't you? N: From one viewpoint this could be seen as cheating: breaking the rules of 'noblesse oblige' in ancient warfare. From another viewpoint Alexander's tactics were an inevitable 'innovation' - clever, effective, efficient. Someone had to change the code of conduct on the battlefield sooner or later - and Alexander did it.H: 'noblesse oblige' meaning "benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank."? Or are you using a different definition?
Are you suggesting that a king going to war against another king is cheating because he brings companions with him? Why did Darius have so many with him if he expected Alexander to turn up alone? ("Dang! The little cheat has brought an army with him!") Darius is in a chariot surrounded by his toughest fighters at both battles. Alexander rides, at the head of his Companions, to do battle with Darius. But you say you could argue that Alexander is "cheating" by having men with him, so you must also be able to argue that Darius is also cheating. And since Darius has so many *more* men than Alexander has, then he must be the bigger cheat, ten times over probably.Even, still, in WWI an army commander had a ten or twenty factor higher risk of being killed than the ordinary soldier.H: I have not studied WWI in all arenas, so I'll take your word that this is the case, but to follow from your ideas above about what constitutes noblesse oblige and cheating, I could see how it would easily be the case since the officers who were following what I think your idea of what constitutes "noblesse oblige" is, were going out to do battle alone and so got picked off quite easily by the other side. It's a wonder any officers survived at all - I *am* joking.N: I didn't say that Alexander was 'cheating' from our point of view. I only argued that he might hav

[H]

I didn't say that Alexander was 'cheating' from our point of view. I only argued that he might have broken one of the rules of 'noblesse oblige' of his time - or maybe only the Persian rules of 'noblesse oblige' of that era.H: I am wondering what would happen if you could go back in time, travel to Alexander's tent, go inside, look him in the eye and tell *him* that? I still can't believe you are being serious. But if you are, I'd really like to know just exactly which "rule" of 'noblesse oblige', Persian or otherwise, it was that Alexander broke?Innovations (economic, military) are almost always connected to breaking the rules.H: Sorry, Nick, but you haven't convinced me that Alexander was "innovative" in this instance, nor have you convinced me that he broke any Persian rule of behaviour on the battlefield.I'm sorry if I have upset you. That was not my intention. I am an admirer of Alexander - but I respect his Persian foe too. That is why I am here. I am trying to learn lessons for our future by examining that great confrontation of styles and cultures that happened some 2330 years ago.H: No need to apologise to me, Nick. But you might want to extend an apology to Alexander . You're right, it is not necessary to disrespect his foes in order to admire Alexander, but the reverse is also true.Regards (in amused puzzlement still)
Halil

[nick]

Hi Halil -I never expected my posting to inspire so much debate. Still... I think it is funny to have this conversation. Very amusing.About noblesse oblige. I used that in a very broad sense. Methods that one could apply in a war, but refrains from because of some written or unwritten "gentlemen's agreement" about what is tolerable in warfare and what is not. In our modern times, the use of poison gas and chemical weapons is one. It is true this is included in international agreements, but those were signed voluntarily (!) by those states participating in those agreements. And then, when a sovereign state decides to use poison gas after all - there is no one that can make you stop from doing so (see: Mussolini's warfare in 1936 Ethiopia).In the initial stages of World War I some or many French troops entered battle with bright red trousers or flashing blue coats. It was considered 'noblesse oblige' to be clearly visible to your enemy, and not to wear uniforms designed for camouflage. (See also: Darius' dashing Persian army as described in Curtius - for totally other reasons perhaps, but still the same phenomena: an army needs to be visible.)I think that not using nuclear weapons is one of the major examples of 'noblesse oblige' in modern times. Of course, here there are international agreements too. Still, if one decides to press the button, there is no one there to stop you.About 'cheating'.I think I used the wrong word. I wasn't aware of the negative implications of 'cheating' in the English language. I meant cheating in the sense of "changing the rules" or "not obeying the rules" in a neutral aspect. I did not imply the negative connotations of 'treachery' or 'criminal actions'.You are right. I would never enter Alexander's tent to tell him he was "cheating". I would say: "You have changed the rules of warfare." Not as a complaint, but as a compliment or as a neutral observation.There is more to come. I will talk about playing chess in the next posting.Regards -
Nick

[nick]

Hi Halil - here's part IIAfter reading so much about Persian battles I have come to see the game of chess as an allegory of Persian warfare. The word "Chess" comes from "Shah" which in Persian of course points towards the ruler or king. Our Dutch word "Schaak" sounds even more close to the Persian "Shah".When I see a chessboard, I see a Persian army.I have been thinking about entering a new posting about this - which I might do sooner or later - but here is a quick overview.The pawns represent the masses of anonymous levies. The player could sacrifice pawns if necessary - but in general one wants to save and protect the pawns. Although their usefulness is rather limited.In chess, the "King" is the center piece of the board - just like Darius was the center player in the Persian army. If the King dies, the battle is lost. Save the King, and you win (or draw).The "Queen" is equal to the King - occupying a center position too. Losing a Queen is a major blow to the player's overall confidence in victory. See: the loss of the Persian queens at Issus.The other pieces - Tower, Squire, Horse - represent the Persian satraps & their units - whose role is very difficult: they need to protect their own king and at the same time they need to decide the outcome of the game/battle through their personal exploits by 'killing' the enemy king. Mission impossible?The chessboard is my symbol for what the Persians expected an army to be like.If you accept my allegory, Alexander's army certainly wasn't obeying the rules of the chessboard. (To make this funnier: I would say that Alexander moved both King and Horse to the same field of the chessboard and would operate them simultaneously.)My humble research for gaugamela.com pointed me towards the conclusion that it was expected from satraps (Towers, Squires, Horses) to conduct their actions in such manners that it would spare the lives of as many (untrained) levies (pawns) as possible.If one would say Alexander just had the better army, one does not take into account the fact that the rules of warfare might have differed from era to era, from nation to nation, from culture to culture. Alexander's army was much less effective against Poros. The Indians didn't share the same concept of battle as the Persians.Regards -
Nick

[smittysmitty]

hmmmmmm!

[Nicator]

"If one would say Alexander just had the better army, one does not take into account the fact that the rules of warfare might have differed from era to era, from nation to nation, from culture to culture. Alexander's army was much less effective against Poros. The Indians didn't share the same concept of battle as the Persians."
I like your usage of the king (Alexander) and the horse, etc...being used on the same field at the same time, very elegant. This segway's nicely into the technology advantage that Alexander enjoyed over his opponents until the battle against Poros and his elephants. But still, Alexander's genius won the day, showing that a technology advantage is not enough. The scythed chariots also were debunked by better planning and tactics of the great one. A move which was not lost on Alexander's successors. The scythed chariot fell into disuse quickly because of the relative ease with which it was thwarted, but the elephants were used time and time again becaue of the effectiveness they enjoyed at Hydaspes. In this way, Poros changed battle (in the west at least) by his "unfair" technological advantage over Alexander. Just trying to use your "cheat" in respect to Poros in the same way you showed it for Alexander.
When I posted this post I didn't envision the discussion expanding into the pitched battle, only in the skirmishing actions leading up to battle or between battles...interesting how the thread moved in that direction, and stayed there.
later Nicator

[H]

Hello Nick
We did wander somewhat from the idea behind your original post. Not intentional on my part, I understood what you were saying and thought it was a fair enough point. I don't usually post when this is the case .
There was, of course, another reason why people ran when they heard that Alexander himself was going to be fighting them and that was the reputation that he had gained along the way, of being invincible. It stands to reason, that if you are not set on becoming a hero yourself, and if you have a desire for self-preservation, you are going to run away from a fight you can't win. (I didn't post this earlier as I thought you'd probably already considered it, but I'll add it here for those who may not have thought about this as much as the "old hands".)
Regards
Halil

[H]

NickYou have an interesting view of the Persian idea of battle strategies. I may be misreading you, but you seem to be saying that the point of "noblesse oblige" to them, was to fight in a way that spared the "pawns"? Isn't that the very opposite of chess where the pawns are sacrificed to save the more important pieces?And I'd still be interested to know what you think it was that Alexander did in attacking in the company of his companions that made it an innovation that the Persians weren't prepared for?Regards - HalilPS Do you really think it's likely that anyone could stand before Alexander and say something like that in a "neutral" way or without explanation? If he had time, you'd be in there arguing it for days with him.