pothos.org

I just started a WCD entry on Termessus:http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/TermessusIn it I undermine the guidebook-notion that Termessus was the "one city Alexander couldn't take." I point to SylliumGÇöback a page in ArrianGÇöwhich Alexander was "unable" to take. And I point out that Alexander didn't really WANT to take Termessus. My Pothos question is: What if any other places could semi-plausibly claim to have successfully resisted Alexander?

Halicarnassus, more or less. He took the part where the people lived, but the citadel itself, which was situated on an island, was never captured by Alexander. It fell after a year or two. Laura

Celaenae falls into that category tooGÇödelayed
conquests.

The wars against the Scythians and king Abisares were "postponed", and Alexander was happy to conclude a treaty with the Chorasmians. If I recall correctly, "the bad Poros" managed to escape.HM

Well, of course, according to the legend of 'Invincibility' no city Alexander besieged successfully resisted him!?I suppose with Halicarnassus it depends on interpretation; he had largely taken the city and had the remaining enemy forces besieged in the citadel. He left a force behind to continue the siege. The enemy was denied control of the city, so did this count as a successful siege or not?I do remember mention of some cities that Alexander decided to by-pass- so again, would this be considered successfully resisting him if he made no attempt to take them!?Sounds like this could all be open to interpretation and debate?regards,Kit.