pothos.org

Persia was a great Empire, and it is amazing that he managed to conquer it so quickly. It seems a bit quick to me - it can't of just been military genius, how did he do it so quickly??Did he bribe some of Darius' generals or something like that?

There was a crisis of succession in Persia that is almost ignored in the western sources. Artaxerxes III had died (of natural courses - according to an astronomical tablet) and his son Arses became king, accepting the name Artaxerxes IV (according to the so-called Xanthus Trilingue and a recently discovered cuneiform text that I have not read yet).As was often the case, the new Achamenid king faced rebellions. We know of the revolt of one Khababash in Egypt (mentioned in the so-called Satrap's Stele) and a man named Nidin-Bel in Babylonia. Evidence for the last rebellion is scarce (only _one_ reference in the Uruk King List). The third rebel was Artashata, the satrap of Armenia. At the same time, the Macedonians invaded Asia Minor, commanded by Parmenio.The text of the Dynastic Prophecy implies that Artashata marched to the south. The right-hand man of king Artaxerxes IV Arses, an important courtier named Bagoas, killed his master, only to be killed by the victorious Artashata, who accepted the name of Darius III. (Like Darius I and Darius II, he had become king after a civil war.)It took some time to restore order. The rebels in Babylonia (if it had revolted at all) and Egypt were crushed, but when the Persians were able to tackle the Macedonians, they were too late. Alexander had already defeated the satraps of Asia Minor near the Granicus and had occupied wealthy Sardes and Miletus.Persia's fortunes might have improved during the battles near Issus and Gaugamela. At Issus, the Persian army had to fight on unsuitable land, and this was decisive. The battle of Gaugamela could have been won by the Persians, but evil omens served as self-fulfilling prophecy (see http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html
).In one sentence, and with some exaggeration: Alexander did not conquer Persia, but benefitted from the civil war.Jona

Jona Here we go againAlexander just pickede the Persian Empire from Rebelion?Not to say he spent months hard toil and battle to subdue the coast Of Asia Minor the Persian Empire could not have been in such bad shape that Tyre Fought tooth and nail for 7 Months to stop Alexander and be buddies with the Persians the Same at Gaza.Persia was willing and able to put up obstacles and armies against Alexander,,, Lets face it they were well able to cotrol and maintain Egypt Etc and the resources and power of the Persians was as Darius said in the Burton movie as abundant as the son,,, Jona u seem to think Persia was in a mess,, Im sure had Alexander not spoild the Party thgey would still be extremely powerful rich and in control.Alexander beat the Persians through foresight, logistics,planning and a military genius unequaled before,oh and the help of about 400000 of his buddies trained and armed to the teeth.Maybe Persia was in a little disaray,,, But who else would take the chance,,, I doubt Philip would have been so bold.Fortune favours the bold.Maybe one day this guy Jona would give our guy some credit other than to belittle on each turn.Kenny

i dont like to hear excuses myself kenny. even if persia was in disarray the threat of an invading force hungry to conquer persia had to unite the empire. hell, alexander even had to fight greeks not just persians. its not fair for people to try and take things away from that awesome Macedonian general. persian empire weak, superior greek army, unsuitable land at issus, yadda yadda yadda those are all weak excuses. alexander crushed persia whether people like it or not.

There is an old saying that when the apple is ripe enough it will fall off the tree. It appears that this over-ripened apple was easy plucking.

give him some respect jona. its obvious youre another jealous alexander hater, and to quote the movie "his failures will tower over all your successes"

Greetings Kenny & LuisHear hear to both of you knowledgeable gentlemen!

Okay, it seems everybody disagrees. I've mentioned my sources. Just tell me where I am wrong.J

400,000 buddies? I am sorry: not even in India did our man command so many people. This is simply exaggerated.Jona

"alexander crushed persia whether people like it or not"No one denies that, but the question is WHY Alexander defeated his opponents. Like it or not, my answer that Persia was weakened by civil war is founded on sources. If you have a better explanation, just mention it.Jona

No, I don't hate Alexander. That's something I deny. He simply seized an opportunity - there's nothing wrong with that, I guess.Jona

I completely agree,Andrew

I'll say you favor conservative sources, how can you go wrong.Again, thanks for your web site.A

Hi Jona,I'm on your side in this. As the original question was how Alexander could conquer the empire so quickly, on the face of it the fact is that it's simply incredible that, having crossed the Hellespont with only 40,000 (I'm sure it was a typo on Kenny's part) he did it *at all*. There's no indication that Alexander recruited many soldiers from conquered/'liberated' lands before Bactria, as he made up his losses by recruiting from Macedonia and Greece.Military genius he might have been, but even that can't explain his rapid successes without considering a whole load of other factors.And I don't think this (nor your original reply) detracts in any way from Alexander's genius - it still takes an exceptional character to see the weaknesses and possibilities and to exploit them.All the bestMarcus

Sorry AndrewIll apologise and make my point,I accidently hit one too many noughts i did mean forty thousand, But Im not getting into an argument or wasting any more posts with a guy I aint got time for.Hail Andrew.Kenny