had alexander [great general] been the Great King of persia [crappy army] and had darius [crappy general] been the hegemon of greece [great army], who would have won the macedonian-persian war?
Printable View
had alexander [great general] been the Great King of persia [crappy army] and had darius [crappy general] been the hegemon of greece [great army], who would have won the macedonian-persian war?
Alexander the Greatest!
Woot! 1000 Posts! ~:cheers: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :balloon2: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :balloon2: ~:cheers:
Alexander.
He would surround the phalanx completely from afar, pepper them on their weaker side, conduct continuous night raids, and trick the Macedonian army into some mountain traps, in which phalanxes are... useless.
Or he could, after making sure the entire Macedonian army is too tired to lift their pikes anymore, led a mighty cavalry charge in front of the Median heavy cavalry forces on their flanks.
Darius would tried to charge his companions against Alexander's skirmishing light cavalry (archer/skirmisher) only to be hit by the side, leaving the phalanx' flanks open for Alexander's own charge.
And a thousand other more possibilities.
I think its the general that makes the army, right? ~D
Nothing or anyone will ever be better in war then Alexander. History has proven this.
It was Alexander himself who spoke the maxim "I would not fear a pack of lions led by a sheep, but I would always fear a flock of sheep led by a lion."
In other words: Alexander.
~Wiz
where ? in india ? or afganistan ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
Indeed, history has recorded Alexander's unbeaten battle record, but much of his success was due to his opponents' incompetence in matters of war. Take for example his invasion of the Persian Empire. Darius's army was much superior in mobility to the macedonians they also had plenty of archers and light cavalry,areas in which macedonian army lacked. So they could have just harrassed Alexander's forces and only choose to do battle when their opponents were so exhausted that they no longer constituted a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
The Persian military was by no stretch of the imagination incompetent. They had conqured the whole of the known world! They didn't manage this by incompetence.
Alexander's intuition and logic is what made Macedon and in fact the whole greek nation great on the eve of the hellenistic age.
Well the Persian army wasn't at it's height. And Darius wasn't the best of generals. But the soldiers themselves were quite good. In fact, I would choose a Persian army over a Macedonian one, but I wouldn't try and engage Alexander in a battle until I wanted too.
But I think Darius had to fight Alexander. What sort of Emporer would he be if he allowed Alexander to sack his richest cities, even if it would mean that he evauntually won? He was forced to do so by Persia reliance on cities. If he had been a steppe commander, he would have never have engaged Alex. But he was one of the richest people in the world, and couldn't anyone to run around without engaging him in battle ASAP.
Drag0nUL, by your statement that would mean that he could never beat any of the Iranian or Afgani nomads, as they would never allow him to fight him. But he did beat them.
Disagreed heartily. I vote Genghis Khan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Are you comparing a tiny mongoloid khan with a big head to a son of Zeus. Yeah right. ~;)
Genghis Khan does mean "Oceanic Ruler", and that fatheaded nomad still holds the record for the largest land empire.
Besides, it's not like being a son of Zeus meant much anyway. There were tons of them running around. ~D
Ghengis Khan means great Khan. His real name was Temuchin. I don't know where you are getting this oceanic crap?
Oh and did I mention Alexander was also the son of Amon-Ra? ~D
Lets stop with the name calling before it gets out of hand.
Look it up. One of the nuances of the Mongol language, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I've heard many variations of what Genghis Khan means. His real name was Temujin though... Though I would take a Mongol army over a Macedonian one any day, not as sure about pure leadership between the two.
And Prince, didn't the Egyptians essentially say that Amon-Ra and Zeus were one in the same?
Your post has made me look deeper into this matter. Indeed, I was looking at this matter from a military point of view; thinking more about it I'd say you are right. If Darius had followed my course of action and had withdrawn, he would have probably greatly diminished his army's fighting potential. Think about this: if you were an ordinary persian soldier, fighting for the 'great king' and saw that he kept retreating before a significantly weaker foe, wouldn't you begin to doubt his 'greatness'? maybe even think about returning home...you get the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
You say Persians had to defend their cities.I assume they were fortified, right? If so do you think macedonian would have found suitable to besiege a major city with a hostile army about twice their numbers roaming around?
As for your last statement, I know next to noting about Alexander's battles against the Iranian and Afgans.If you were so kind to ellaborate...
Yes Amon-Ra(or Aton) and Zeus are basically the same thing. The greek culture is remarkably similar to egyptian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Wasn't it Ammon (I think, a Nubian God from Siwa, not that big in egypt) , not Amon Ra that was said to be Zeus (or Zeus Ammon) ?
And the similarities ? Some things were similar, probably because of the large amount of traders in the Mediterranean (like the phoenicians and the Athenians) spreading certain ideas. I think the Greeks (certainly the Romans) looked down upon Egyptian culture because of their far reaching animal worshipping, which seemed rather silly to them.
one thing that has always bothered me about the persian strategy. after issus, alexander went down the levant. he spent months besieging tyre and gaza and the spent months crossing the egyptian desert to get to siwa. all this time darius was building up detachments for the persian grande armee.
couldn't darius have sent 3 to 4 10,000 man armies against antigonus and other macedonian commanders in asia minor? there is no way the macedonian garrisons in asia minor could have even approached those numbers, and perhaps more importantly, they wouldn't have alexander. if alexander had moved his army back up to reinforce asia minor then darius could have sent detachments to retake syria/egypt. alexander couldn't have defended both theatres of war simultaneously, but darius allowed alexander to take his egyptian desert vacation because darius wanted to have the mother of all armies.
Good point. This movement would have great chances of success since Alexander took with him most(if not all) of the phalangites ,hypaspists and heavy cavalry. The Asia minor garrisons would therefore had much less chances to win against a persian army corps.
In the end, we could probably all agree on that it wasn't the Persians that lost to the Macedonians, but Darius lost to Alexander, which also proves another critical point on ancient warfare, your army is only as good as the men that lead them.
The Greek cities in Asia Minor were pro Alexander though, He would have needed large garrisons to keep the them in his control, add to that that siege warfare is particulary difficult if you have capable defenders. Alexander was great at them, partly because he had great engineers, did Darius have anything in their league ? (I don't know).
But given the circumstances, Darius should have won, he had the bigger army and he was fighting on his own land.
He just made more tactical errors than a TW newbie ~D
He couldn't have hoped to send anything worthwhile through Asia Minor to the Greek cities on the western coast of the Anatolian peninsula.Quote:
Originally Posted by nokhor
You see, the only easy way to the cities was through the Cilician Gates, and to get there one had to pass through Macedonian-controlled cities with sizeable garissons, as well as local resistance by the king of Sidon, amongst others. This would have made it hard and tiring to get through to Asia Minor, and if one would bypass the cities altogether, he would find himself isolated and alone with an army smaller than most garissons in the area. If the commanders of those smaller armies had chosen to besiege, they would have either been rebuffed or sufficiently slowed down for Alexander to catch and destroy them.
Besides, a Persian army was large and cumbersome. To choose to go through the Cappadocian mountains would not have been a wise choice either. The hillmen that lived there were never brought under anybody's but their own control until the time of the Roman empire, and sending a lumbering Persian army through would result in massive losses from attrition alone. Also, any army, especially Persian ones which would probably have been put under command of court officials rather than satraps (since the latter were now under Macedonian rule, and besides that not all that loyal in the Western theatre), and since it was Xerxes' court of intrigue and plots that started the downfall of the Persian empire, these would probably not have been all that hard to bribe.
Besides that, attrition would have been suffered just from the fact that Alexander's great stragetical decision to take the port cities, lacking a sufficiently powerful navy to take on the Persian one, had starved out the Persian navy, which was trying to incite Greek, and particularly Spartan rebellion.
No, several relatively small armies, stragetically isolated, would not have been very effective. Especially facing a decisive, aggressive commander like Antigonos Monophthalamos, who would probably have taken them on one by one as they emerged from the Cappadocian wilderness, or as they descended down from the Anatolian plateau.
~Wiz
Besides, it takes a while to recruit troops for armies. And even though Darius probably never had more than twice Alexander's forces, it would still take a while to gather troops from all the corners of his Empire.
To the best of our knowledge, how well informed was Darius of Alexander's actions?