issus vs gaugamela

Sorry I don't have more time to respond (going out to dinner in a few) but I think I've realized the crux of our disagreement--misunderstanding. You misunderstood me in your response, and I misunderstood you, not realizing what you were getting at.

The point I was trying to make in the first post was that it is ludicrous to contribute Alexander's successes to luck. In addition, I found it amusing to speak of the forces of Macedonia and the Persian Empire as equal. Of course the Greek man is not inherently "better" than the Persian (that sounds like some racist nonsense cooked up by Darwin). One could argue, however, as the Athenians proclaimed after Marathon, that they won because they were free men. But in the case of Alexander, one must take into account that his army had been in the field for ages, first under his Phillip II in the subjugation of the Helles, and then in the trans-Persian conquest under Alexander. It was perhaps the greatest army the world had ever seen, under the greatest commanders the world had ever seen.

We must remember that in every major contest between Greeks or Macedonians and Persian Empire, the Greeks and Macedonians prevailed. From this fact stems my belief in the superiority of the Greek way of warfare (improved upon, or perhaps a better term would be "revolutionized," by the Macedonians).

Let me make clear, however, that I am not one of those anti-eastern classicists. Granted I am more interested in Western history, but we each have our own interests, right? In fact, I am actually quite interested in far Eastern history as well (thanks to an ancient Japanese history professor who is a friend of mine), but that is beside the point.

I did not mean to dumb down the military achievements of the east, merely to give those of the Macedonians their proper recognition. However if I did somehow impart that as an implication, then I apologize.

Quote:

---

You see what I'm getting at? I'm speaking of how to appreciate the military genius of Alexander; He wasn't pitted against an amateur, no matter how much fourteen year old LoTR-crazed nerds would like to think that Darius was probably a king of the orchs. That he brought with himself an incredibly versatile military system, is one thing, but that he was about to tackle a military system, not only complex but host of a vast spectra, lead by a warrior-emperor who was not only a "hero" from quelling the local Cadusian rebellion (During the time when he was no more than a distant relative to the lineage of the Ochos), but also averted a crisis by having Bagoas executed (Not to mention his rapid reforming of the Persian army, not least the heavy cavalry).

---

Yes I see what you mean. The defeats at Gaugamela and Issos were not due to the stupidity of Darius or the cowardice of his men, but to the genius and cunning of Alexander and the experience of his army. Don't let me put words in your mouth though, correct me if I'm inferring incorrectly.

Cheers

Then, there is nothing more to debate :bow:

@O'ETAIPOS:
I'm glad I understood the history of Alexander's conquest quite well.

@mrtwisties:
Use copy and paste if you can't remember my username, or better use the "quote"-function. It's not that I couldn't think of a myriad of variations to your username. One should stay with the facts anyway.

Quote:

---

@mrtwisties:
Use copy and paste if you can't remember my username, or better use the "quote"-function. It's not that I couldn't think of a myriad of variations to your username. One should stay with the facts anyway.

---

Sorry, mate. I certainly didn't want to offend you, I like your posts, I was just working quickly. The quote function takes about ten minutes to load on my connection, I don't know why.

Quote:

---

Sorry I don't have more time to respond (going out to dinner in a few) but I think I've realized the crux of our disagreement--misunderstanding. You misunderstood me in your response, and I misunderstood you, not realizing what you were getting at.

---

I actually think you might have misunderstood my original post, TWFanatic. I only said that it was bad luck for all of Darius' post-Issus counter-attacks to have failed. What I was referring to were those counter-attacks that took place in Asia Minor, Greece and the Aegean. They all pitted Persian and Greek troops against Macedonian garrison forces that manifestly were not commanded by Alexander. Just one success could have forced Alexander home to defend his motherland.

Hope you had a nice dinner.

Quote:

---

We must remember that in every major contest between Greeks or Macedonians and Persian Empire, the Greeks and Macedonians prevailed.

---

Not really. The Greeks lost quite frequently against the Persians; they just conveniently emphasis their successes. The best the Athenians, at the height of their power, managed was a draw--the Persians recognised Athenian dominance in Europe, the Athenians recognised Asia as belonging to Persia. The Ionian poleis, over which the whole war had started, remained, at least nominally, under Persian suzerainty. Later, when Sparta attacked Persia in Asia Minor, it was the beginning of the end for the Spartan hegemony in Greece itself; not only were the Lacedemonians forced to abandon their designs on Asia (and again, the mainland Greeks recognised Ionia as belonging to Persia) but they were also forced to abandon their attempt to unite Greece into a single state ruled by Sparta.