Undeserved credit

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-16-2006, 15:21

Spino, yes, thats a very good point about Alexander, Philip had the Macedonians and the Greeks revved up and ready to go when he died.

**AntiochusIII** · 02-19-2006, 06:51

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Spino, yes, thats a very good point about Alexander, Philip had the Macedonians and the Greeks revved up and ready to go when he died.

Well, wasn't he planning to go to Persia himself when he died?

I also second your notion that Pompey's true genius is administrative. Look at what he did with the pirates: it's much more a management feat than a tactical one, anyway, even with the "unlimited resources" given to him.

**ShadesPanther** · 02-19-2006, 21:58

Yeah, Philip was planning to carry it out himself. Whether he could of achieved as much as his son is debateable (He really was as great a general as his son, but I don't think he had Alexander's personality)

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 02-20-2006, 01:27

Wellington. Took Blücher's credit for Waterloo. Bloody shoemaker.

**ajaxfetish** · 02-20-2006, 07:41

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Wellington. Took Blücher's credit for Waterloo. Bloody shoemaker.

Wellington fought a lot more battles than Waterloo.

Ajax

**Ianofsmeg16** · 02-20-2006, 20:59

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Wellington. Took Blücher's credit for Waterloo. Bloody shoemaker.

Thems Fighting words boy!

Bloody Prussians, late for every battle, COWARDS!!!

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-20-2006, 22:50

Originally Posted by ShadesPanther

Yeah, Philip was planning to carry it out himself. Whether he could of achieved as much as his son is debateable (He really was as great a general as his son, but I don't think he had Alexander's personality)

I think he wouldn't have got as far but the Empire would have lasted longer and he's wouldn't have written his will while chewing Lotus leaves.

Back to Pompey, he was also very charismatic and his men would fight for him as hard as Caesar's fought for him.

**Kraxis** · 02-21-2006, 02:35

If we include foresight of social structures and reformation then of course Alexander can never apply to the top. Why? Because those things were already done.

I mean, even if Alexander would have done everything his father did, and then his own achievements, we would never know as Phillip did it and Alexander didn't. I'm not certain that the person of Alexander couldn't have revolutionized the military world with a new army. It is unfair to judge him like that.

We have to talk about logistics, strategy and tactics. And in all three Alexander seems to have excelled. He took his time in Asia Minor when faced with an enemy who was willing to avoid combat directly but strike at logistic bases and lines, he did so again in Bactria when the situation was similar.
He laid out the plans prior to battle, as did all generals of the day. That he lead from the front of cavalry charging ahead should not be used against him, for what more could he have achieved standing behind the phalanx? It wasn't as if he would have had some kind of TW styled speed of orders. He would have been equally troubled in both cases, so why not use his own ferocity and image to spur the men on? It seems he knew how to play on his own advantages if we are to talk about his position in battle.
Also in small scale tactics he seems to have been superior, routing an enemy and then holding back has as much to do with the commander as the troops. And he was able to almost TW style control the Companions in battle, few commanders have been able to copy that since.

Tactically I think he might have his weakest hand. While it is obviously here we see the most clear causes for the victories we cannot be sure how much of it was Alexander's work. But the sheer diversity of setups preceeding and postceeding (does that word even exist?) the death of Parminion indicates that at least it was not Parminion who called the shots of tactics. And we all have to agree that he was the best candidate for that as the others were simply too unitoriented, rather than armyoriented.
I'm very much willing to say that Alexander didn't per se 'invent' each tactic (though his battles against the Illyrians, Thracians, at Grannicus and against the Schythians seems to have been his own), but rather listened to his unitcommanders talk about their strengths in the coming battle, as well as their weaknesses (Gaugamela was very much about weakness rather than strength), then adding them together and coming up with a plan that fitted each arm perfectly. With good unitcommanders he would not need to be a genius of everything.