Page 2 of 2

Re: Alexander a violater

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:29 am
by yiannis
Right on Marcus!
That was my point as well. Darius had no other option. And lets also remember that since Alexander was close enough to him, to attack him personally, that means that all the Persian soldiers in frond of Darius were already eliminated.
The Persian regime was highly interlocked to the persona of the king. That meant that if there was no king, there was no state!
Under this scope, life to fight another day is a good saying!

Re: Alexander a violater

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:16 am
by Nicator
To retreat as Issus was to live another day...to retreat at Guagamela was to surrender the kingdom. This much is obvious by the fact that Alexander was considered the great king after the battle. Darius knew that there was no chance of arranging another battle...he was aready backed up almost to Babylon. He knew that if Alexander broke through at Guagamela Persipolis was as good as gone. Either way, let's not get to philosophical here, Darius freaked out and took to his heals to save himself. In so doing this, he left his multitudes of soldiers to the wolves. It was his retreat which signaled a general rout...well before the battle was in fact decided. One look at the mosaic and Darius' eyes tells the whole story. Call it what you like, I call it cowardice. later Nicator

Re: Alexander a violater

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:10 pm
by jennifer arispe
alexander the great was a good man he cared
for people aand loved them and he was a good
good person in general