pothos.org

Hello All,
One of the things that has always interested me was Alexander's insistence on suppressing all resistance, no matter how insignificant. Most notably in this arena was his incursions into Bactria with the constant harrassment of Spitamenes and his guerilla tactics. This type of warfare was probably so successful because of the army's severely over-stretched supply line and the lack of knowledge of the enemey terrain. The enemy could, and did, wreak havoc on Alexander's lines by hitting him in a weak spot, running off with critical supplies and waiting for another opportunity to do the same. This had the double edged advantage of both strengthening the rebels and weakening the Macedonians simultaneously. Alexander was put into a bit of a quandary. He could not move on until the guerilla tactic was adequately addressed. To do so would have invited a much larger revolt and may have even cost him the war. Confounding this problem were injuries that he incurred while engaged in constant fighting. It was during this phase of the war that he was stricken with a terrible bout of dysentary, knocked almost senseless in the throat and head with a rock pelting that left him almost blind and inaudible for several weeks with a severe concussion, and suffered a terrible wound to his leg which shattered his fibula?. One thing that seems to stand out is just how successful this tactic was until the tables were turned (by Coenus) with his ambush. Force an upstart, poorly trained militant into open combat and watch him flail around helplessly. Of course, the strategy was put into play by Alexander with his earshot sentry posts dotting the landscape. Craterus, was entrusted to facilitate its imposition. It was only a matter of time before matters became desparate for the rebels, with the corresponding lack of horses, supply depots, and hiding places for refuge after an assault. Here we find, 2300 years ago, a man named Alexander providing yet another object lesson in the fine art of war, gift wrapped, for future generations. later Nicator

Nick HailCompliments on your analogy and description on Alexanders campaigns against the Guerrila Tactics.To Be honest we can sometimes get imersed in the grandious scales of Alexanders pitched Battles. And following the great battles the Eastern Campaigns at one time seemed to me Alexander chasing all over the place chasing rebels and hit and run merchants. It was when I read David Lonsdales Alexander Killer of Men. That this whole startegy and chore Alexander was doing here. According To Lonsdale the campaign was a procedure of Anhialting what he called insergent, By methods of seek destroy and anhialate to its core. He even expalins the theory of Alexanders terror tactics of wiping out sympathisers to the rebel cause which included poplace anhialation. Not pretty stuff but Lonsdale argued Alexander was trying to cut off bases and support for rebel to the point of ancient terrorism. Not really nice but Alexander was in the field of war and conquest and I doubt any conflict before or since hasnt had its share of atrocities. But one thing that this shows us is that Alexander was definately not a one trick pony and his tactics and inovation as Lonsdale says has never been bettered and I would agree.Also the drive and tenacity Disintry and getting out of his sick bed to charge across a river. Broken bones wounds and the guy still klept comming. Only a bullet or somethibg straight through the ears I feel would stop this guy. And to be honest would it have been a less daubting thought were Alexander comming against you or the Khan. Maybe not the Khan showed no mercy maybe Alexanders mercya t times would seem a weeknesss?Kenny

G'day Nicator.It actually was an area of the "Empire" that never could be described as "secured". In fact, I often wonder why he bothered. In other terms it might be described as "high maintenance". Indeed the Persian satraps of both this area and the Hindu Kush were essentially independent "pseudo kings" GÇô a fact that was brought home to both Darius and Alexander by Bessus and Spitamemes in rather bloody fashion. Unlike Media and Babylon, Persian control over this are was somewhat laissez faire for a large extent of the time.A part of the reason that Alexander so desperately wanted Darius GÇô apart from the homeric hero pretensions GÇô was to legitimise his claim to the Achaemenid Empire. Which empire was, in large part at this stage, in decay. To Bessus (who had Achaemenid bloodlines) and Spitamenes, the overthrow of Darius provided opportunity to legitimise their "kingdoms'" independence. In Bessus' case, his claim to the throne. It explains a large part of the resistance in this area to being brought back to "heel" as it were.That said, Alexander's reaction and change of tactics (lighter armed infantry, cavalry of "lighter horse" and much use of the Agriannes) speaks to his unrivalled battlefield and tactical acuity. The results these tactics occasioned, bloody elimination of entire groups of resistance and utter reduction of citadels and towns that provided harbour to these "insurgents", were to be perfected in what can only be described as an orgy of bloodletting in India.I doubt that he would ever have been able to leave the area to itself for any stretch of time without the inevitable occurring yet again. By the time he'd reached the end in India, he seems to have understood this. Hence the "appointment" of Porus to essentially go back and run his own kingdom.Paralus.