pothos.org

I just like to point out some major inconsistancies in Ian Worthington's article "How 'great' was Alexander?" in his recently published book "A Reader".Worthington writes that after Issus Alexander "did not pursue Darius, as he surely ought to have done and thus consolidate his gains" (page 308). First, this remark is obviously an interpretation or judgement by Worthington, not an historical fact as such. Second, this remark denies and understanding of the concepts of strategy, as explained in the article by Fuller in the same "Reader". Pursuit of Darius after Issus would have violated the principles of "security" and "maintenance of the aim" (pages 187-188). (It makes me wonder: has Worthington read his own "Reader"?)Above that, look at it this way. Egypt was a major prize to be won. It was a rich country, in many aspects the economic, scientific and argricultural 'heart' of the Ancient world. The Ptolemaic dynasty established itself as a world power, just by ruling Egypt. Egypt also had a tradition - since Cambyses - to revolt and break away from Achaemenid rule. Since its last revolt, Egypt was only reclaimed by Darius a few years prior to Issus.Ruling the Persian empire without Egypt, is like ruling the United States without California. Or ruling Europe without Germany. Alexander's strategy was to become Pharaoh of Egypt first, then King of Persia. In his way the Egyptians saw 'their' Pharaoh claim the throne of Persia, instead of a distant 'foreign' monarch from Babylon and Susa claiming to be Pharaoh of Egypt.(Just for fun. Imagine: after Issus Alexander pursues and defeats Darius and claims Babylon and Susa. Persian nobles rise in revolt in the East / Bactria. (Let's not forget the importance of Bactria: it was by tradition ruled by the Great King's brother). At the same time - in the West - Egypt revolts against Alexander's rule. That's two of the most vital provinces of the empire. What a mess!)Worthington questions Alexander's decision to march against Sangala after the difficult victory over Porus: "Rather than to return to Taxila to recuperate and more importantly sit out the monsoon" (page 307). Again: interpretation and judgement. But: after such a difficult and terrifying battle as Hydaspes, every army needs distraction: quick easy success, enjoying the spoils of war. Alexander's army had lost some of its self-confidence at Hydaspes and can never have been in the mood to 'sit out'...I agree with Worthington's conclusi

[Posting too long! This is the first time this happens to me! But here is the rest...]I agree with Worthington's conclusion that "greatness must be questioned in the interests of historical accuracy". But Worthington points forwards the wrong evidence. He treats some of Alexander's soundest decisions as errors. I believe that Worthington is a worthy scholar and scientist. I would argue that he lacks the empathy to truly understand what he is writing about.Best regards -
NickP.S. Can someone explain to me why Worthington says the Malli stole Bucephalas in late 326 (page 313). I thought the horse died after Hydaspes?

Hi Nick,
Bucephalas was captured by the Mardians according to Diodorus and Curtius, and in Hycarnia according to Plutarch and Arrian,; in either case the horse was returned to Alexander and died some time later during the battle of the Hydaspes or more likely some time after the battle.
cheers!

Glad I never read Worthington he would have had my goat through the first chapter but I can't read anyway, the only thing that kept me out of college was high school.
Alexander was a soldier in the purist form his army came first and as you know when he caught wind that Parminio was having problems, being heavily out numbered and trying desperately to hold their own, It was an easy decision to quickly break from the pursuit of Darius and reinforce Parminio and what a glorious slaughter that part of the battle became.
Egypt was always in Alexander's main scope for the exact reasons you mentioned.
You're right Bucephalus did die after Hydaspes but haven't your heard it wasn't from old age and battle wounds, it was from that dang west Nile virus!! Damm them mosquitoes.

Having read Worthington's article in the AHB same subject, I was amazed at the lack of good logical deduction and the supposition that Alexander had Coneus killed. Frank Holt as they say in the wrestling biz "took him to school" in a two article series and fairly well trounced him good. I could just see the smile on Heckel's face...Regards,Tre