pothos.org

Companions HiThrough many readings and writers... Quite often I hear arguments and weak excuses for Alexanders victories at Issus and Gaugamella. For example Persian conscripts,Levies of nomark slaves and half minded volunteered.Lets look at Alexanders forces, Thousands of unreliable Greek that would bolt as soon as they could,,, Mercenaries that couldnt give a rats ass for alexandrer and on the turn of a coin would easily have fought fos Darius. Thracians very god troops akin to the Vikings Booze and plunder.So of all Alexanders troops at Issus and Gaugamella. Maybe half were totally reliable and proven for Alexander.So can we remind future writers the next time they try to beliitle ar make of the Persian disadvantage maybe they can outline Alexanders as well.WE get no end of Alexander knockers the biased against him that hate to give our guy any credit, Just pisses me off.THey come out that Alexander had an Army of totally reliable forces and fantastic fighters of 40000, Let them for once try measure and put it into context.
Kenny

Alexander's army was a crack army and it was better than Darius' because it was for the most part a standing army in constant training under an extremely gifted general who knew how to inspire men. His only disadvantage was his enemy outnumbered him and three times his enemy chose the field of battle int he big ones. There is not the slightest hint that any of Alexander's troops would have deserted him at any moment at the beginning. That's because in addition to his charisma, he always won and the treasures of battle were aplenty. The problems arose between him and his men only after he defeated the Persian Empire and not before. When his 'campaign' took on the character of what it really was - his opportunity to explore the world and go farther than any man ever had before him, they did not want to join him in that adventure and the jig was up in India. He had gone to far and by that time his men had realized that they had leading them a 'monster' Macedonian King who would not stop unless they made him. There is such a thing as too much success. I will however agree that Alexander's contributions to his victories against the Persians are sometimes ignored and become the victim of apologia for the Persians. The losing side naturally has a different story to tell, it's just not necessarily any more believable than the stories of the victors. It is valuable however, to see a victory from both sides, and to use ones own good judgement as to what is believable, what is not, and what is myth-making for the losers and the winners. No two people are likely to come to the same conclusion.Regards,Tre

Tre HailYes you are right with the points you make about Alexanders army.But I disagree they were all reliable and more of a bloody hindrence checking for kinives in there backs.I am sure Alexander would have felt much easier had the Greeks been there in heart as in body,, But Id argue they were not and believe they were there solely as a measure of Athens behaving themselves.Macedonians,Thassalians, and to an ectent the Mercenaries. I think the northern States moire reliable than the South.So All respect Tre his entire force was not toally on the ball as far as loyalty and fighting for there king.The Greeks in there own eyes were press ganged into fighting for a Semi Barbrian Macedonian Despot.RegradsKenny

Hi Kenny --Thanks for your input. Indeed, suggesting that Alexander's army was an example of loyalty, while the Persian army had to cope with nothing but unreliable levies and mercenaries, is a gross simplification. Thank you for writing your bold posting, putting things in the right perspective.Come to think of it, both armies probably had equally weak points in regard to 'loyalty'. In Alexander's army, the Thracians were there for the looting, and the Greeks were there reluctantly (and Alexander never trusted any major operation to his Greek allies, remember). On the other hand the Companions and Agrianians were probably the most loyal troops imaginable. But the same might be said about Darius' Immortals (Applebearers) and his elite Mardian bowman and the Kinsmen Cavalry and the specially trained and raised Cardaces. The great problem with loyalty in the Persian army was not so much the dedication of the levies, but the personal ambitions of their commanders (like Nabarzanes, Bessus, Mazeus).If we agree that Alexander and Darius both had their fair share of reliable and unreliable troops, that only proves the superiority of Alexander's tactics, doesn't it?Regards --Nick

nick exactly my pointsurely you have read boods or articles from the Alexander bashers.Indeed I try to put in in context with all the aspects,,, Its Always Alexander this Alexander that
Wether its atrocities or the so called disadvantages of the Persians some people just dont give Alexander an inch.There are people so called brain boxes that cant see the wood for the trees, THey will knock Alexander just for the hell of it or to make a name for themselves.Similalt,,, A;lthough Presley a different ball game entertainer so called experts dismiss or try to dismis,,, But as with Alexander facts and the record speak for themselves.Both were at the top of there trees.
Kenny

alexander bashers are obvious. this next point may seem petty but to me it is a given. notice the nationalities and ethnicities of those who try and belittle the great macedonian general. excuse after excuse after excuse is all i read.
before anyone sais anything, i am mexican.alexander, like darius, had to fight his own countrymen, civil wars, omens, etc. etc.alexander is the greatest commander in human history.i say this to all alexander enthusiasts, dont let the bastards grind you down.

I was going to say that being a 'basher' (whatever that means) doesn't prevent one from being enthusiastic about the period, and indeed about the character of Alexander himself; but it's probably asking for trouble.However, to be fair to the 'bashers' (whoever you consider them to be), I'm not aware of anyone who has denied that Alexander was a military genius.Whatever arguments might be put forward for the Persian empire being weak, or whatever, no-one I think would seek to deny his strategic and tactical genius.All the bestMarcus

Excuse me? I'd like to point out that whatever your own ethnic background, your attempt to correlate a person's nationality or ethnicity with his or her opinion is a prejudicial statement and has no place here. Your remark is discriminatory rather than "petty."

Amyntoros, you're excused.anyway, people concentrate on whether the persian empire was weak and miss the whole point. would the macedonians have conquered persia without alexander? i highly doubt it. take alexander out of the equation and the macedonians would have been routed at issus, if not stopped at granicus.

'would the macedonians have conquered persia without alexander'?
yes they would have! if that was their intent!

I agree, Smitty. It's very possible that Philip wouldn't have been interested in going as far as, say, Issus (although I reckon that, seeing the chance, he would have done). How he would have fared against Tyre, or even Halicarnassus (But, then, his approach would have been different and he might not even have had to besiege them), we can only speculate about; but I have no doubt that he could have sorted out quite a few Persian commanders before he called a halt.With a lesser general than Philip ... I don't know. All the bestMarcus

Marcus HailWith regard to Philip and what he would have done,,, Im pretty sure Parmenio took a lot of his thinking from Philip and or Tactics as they were of the same era,,, I just wonder that the advice Parmenio offered Alexander would be similar to Philip.If so Alexander totally ignored it and won with his own thinking.As you said Marcus Philip would sooner or later stopped very much in the way Parmenio tried to Persuade Alexander,,, Even Philip would have accepted the bribes Alexander turned down.As far As Issus and Gaugamella, Philips tactics would differ from Alexander and am pretty sure he would have rather bartered than fight those huge battles.As Andrew Bucephalus said, when god made Alexander he broke the mould no one but Alexander would have met the Persians so head on and dramatically as he did.So i very much doubt that without Alexander they would not have had the will or tesire to take out the Persians so completely.Kenny

oh please, would phillip have charged accross the river at issus? dont give me any excuses about his age or what not. it gave the army great confidence that alexander himself lead from the front. they knew he took the same risks as they did and knew he was one of the finest soldiers in the army. people keep taking things away from this man and it just doesnt make sense to me. it is almost sickening and it has gone way too far. this man's charisma and self confidence was just unbelievable. i would follow him into hell.ive been a fan of alexander for years. ive pretty much had it with people making excuses for his incredible accomplishments. theyre everywhere now a days. why do i bother coming here? for a good Laugh. for an alexander website there sure is a lot of negativity towards the great one.

As great as a commander that Alexander was, Philip was no less. One may say that Parmenio mimicked Philip's tactics, but Alexander, who must have served side by side with his father years prior to Chaeronia, is the more likely recipient of Philip's art. I cannot imagine that Philip would not have been able to accomplish what his son did should he have desired it. He may have even done it at less material cost as he may have managed more devious strategems.

Hi Luis,Why wouldn't Philip have charged across the river at Issus? The fact is, we just can't say, because he wouldn't necessarily have had the same battle plan, he wouldn't necessarily have led the Companions; and he wouldn't necessarily have met Darius in the same place - for all that Alexander was brilliant as a strategist and tactician, Issus turned out the way it did because he made a mistake.All the bestMarcus