pothos.org

agesilaos wrote:As for our first foray into Afganistan, we went in at the invitation of one warlord and so not on a war footing;

Not strictly true. Shah Shujah was the 'legitimate' ruler of Afghanistan but had been kicked out by Dost Mohammed, who was a much better ruler, far more capable. The British invaded Afghanistan to put Shujah back on the throne, and to kick Dost Mohammed off it, because they were worried that the Dost was becoming too friendly with the Russian delegations. Had the British actually been polite to Dost Mohammed, and trusted him, he would almost certainly have remained a loyal friend. Instead they put Shujah back on the throne, but Shujah was universally hated, and had no backbone. The "Army of the Indus" was a massive affair, most definitely on a war footing ... although they didn't exactly intend to have to fight a war.

... the commander was a truly British ass, however and failed to suppress trouble when it started; he famously threw the 48th, I think into square to resist sniping!

Ah, poor Elphinstone. He argued that he wasn't the right man to command the army of occupation, and he wasn't ... but the British wouldn't listen. He made just about every mistake there was to make, and was incredibly indecisive as well, which was even worse than making a wrong decision.

Naturally there was a political fudge to make Peace but there are only two givens in Strategy - Don't attack moscow and no one gets out of Afganistan with a win.

Of course, Montgomery's adage was "never attack Moscow, and never engage in a land-war in Asia". I suppose Afghanistan would count as a land-war in Asia ...

As for 60 camels for cigars, Spitamenes, I believe you are out there, do you know where a chap can get a decent cheroot? Dash it all! how can a man civilise the Fuzzies if he's forced to live like a barbarian?

Absolutely. And I believe that's pretty much what the afore-mentioned officer said! There was also at least one officer who brought a whole pack of hunting hounds with him ... presumably they were eaten at some point ...

ATB

spitamenes wrote:Is it that hard to believe that an arrogant General of that time period would have 60 beasts to carry his personal belongings? Well, either way... Everything I have stated about the British in Afghanistan came from Holts book, Into The Land of Bones; Alexander the Great in Afghanistan.(chapter1) I did not quote or relay the source at the time because I was writing from memory. But it was from very recent memory so I do know the numbers are correct. From the quality of Holts book, and the details involved, I believe he did his homework before writing his book. Unless hes "out there" too.

Oh, he definitely had 60 camels, but they weren't all for his cigars. I can't remember the chap's name at the moment, but I could look it up.

He wasn't even a general - a major at the most, if I recall correctly.

ATB

spitamenes wrote: An officer of one regiment even required two camels just to carry his cigars. And a brigadier needed 60 camels for his personal belongings alone.

I wasn't saying 60 camels for cigars alone. It was 60 for personal supplies, excessive yes, unbelievable no. (Imo)

Marcus,
The dogs were eaten, along with the camels. One officer said the only use the army had for the camels was burial practice.

spitamenes wrote:

spitamenes wrote: An officer of one regiment even required two camels just to carry his cigars. And a brigadier needed 60 camels for his personal belongings alone.

I wasn't saying 60 camels for cigars alone. It was 60 for personal supplies, excessive yes, unbelievable no. (Imo)

Yes, I realise that I misread your post - apologies. Although I thought that that was what Agesilaos thought you were saying, rather than thinking that you were saying it yourself ... if you see what I mean. Anyway, my fault for reading things too quickly ...

ATB

spitamenes wrote:

spitamenes wrote: An officer of one regiment even required two camels just to carry his cigars. And a brigadier needed 60 camels for his personal belongings alone.

I wasn't saying 60 camels for cigars alone. It was 60 for personal supplies, excessive yes, unbelievable no. (Imo)

I've just checked (Kabul Catastrophe, by Patrick McRory) - the two camels were for the carriage of cigars for the officers' mess - so not just personal consumption.

I don't have the name of the chap with the 60 camels, but he was a brigadier; but General Keane was said to have appropriated 260 camels for use of himself and his staff!

Makes Philotas' hunting nets rather tame by comparison!

ATB

marcus wrote:
Makes Philotas' hunting nets rather tame by comparison!

ATB

What about the sand transported for Craterus and Perdiccas?

Aelian – Varia Historia 9.3
Note that Alexander spoiled his friends by allowing them excessive luxury, if it is true that Hagnon had gold nails in his boots, and Cleitus when about to transact business walked on purple cloth to receive petitioners. Perdiccas and Craterus were keen on exercise, and were equipped with tents of leather a stade in length, and with these they took over a substantial area in the camp in order to perform their exercises.* A great deal of sand, useful for gymnastics, was transported for them by pack animals. Leonnatus and Menelaus, who enjoyed hunting, had nets a hundred stades long.
*It may be that the skins were used to make a kind of fence, to ensure some privacy, rather than a complete tent.

Best regards,

And history just keeps repeating itself...I.m aware we are off topic with Alexander,,,But realistically we are not...Alexander got out of there and blamed his troops mitiny...I have always credited Alexanders inteligence and history has shown ever since that no one gets out of Afghanistan as a victor.

Were even there now and the withdrawall today has a further adornment...Bin Laden is dead so another reason to get the hell out of there...I have always kind of understood underlying reasons for invasions and conquest...Basically to get something off some one else through forceof Arms...Empires are findamentally expeditions of wealth and resources dressed up in some humaritarian or just war.

I understand why to Invade Iraq,,,What Rome and Macedonian empires even Easter Empires were...But for the hell of me have never understood why anyone recently would have a go in Afganistan..

Any suggestions as geerally I have good answers regarding history for my kids...But this one I'm stuck?

One thing that is rarely noted in the death of Philip II is not who killed him but rather, who allowed it to happen. If he was not assassinated/murdered (whichever it was) Alexander could not get in the saddle and finish the job that Philip started. And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.

Uh-Oh...there I go again with another extrapolated supposition that is a certain 'leap' from the source material...

Nicator wrote:One thing that is rarely noted in the death of Philip II is not who killed him but rather, who allowed it to happen. If he was not assassinated/murdered (whichever it was) Alexander could not get in the saddle and finish the job that Philip started. And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.

Uh-Oh...there I go again with another extrapolated supposition that is a certain 'leap' from the source material...

That "hobbled, one-eyed drunk" was the man who 2 years before had accomplished what the Persians at the height of their power had failed to accomplish: the conquest of Greece. He was the man without
whom there'd have been no Macedonian empire and thus no conquest of Persia and no hellenistic age. He was by far the most successful and popular king in Macedonian history and the greatest leader the
western world had ever produced. Your theory is nonsense.

Alexander's "greatness" on the other hand is entirely illusory. The plan to conquer Persia was Philip's, the generals who executed that plan were Philip's, the army used to execute it was created
by Philip. Replace Alexander with someone else and the end result would have been the same, and today that person would have been known as "the great". To believe otherwise one must believe that the greatest army in the world and its numerous world class generals could not have defeated Persia had it not been for the firm leadership and wise guidance of an inexperienced 20-year old.

Accursed

Indeed your exactly correct without Philip none of it were in the pipe line.

But remember those very same generals you mention were more than hesitant in the comming battles..His Generals didn't want to disband the fleet.His generals wanted to Garrison Tyre and go round letting it remain active in the Macedonian Rear.

The Macedonian Generals wanted to accept Dariuses few bribes.The Generals didnt want to go past Gaugamella.

Many of Alexanders bormations and battles became far more varied that Philip...Alexander took a tool that Philip made and used it supremely...We dont read much of Philips battle craft. Alexander was different in many ways skilled clever and ingenious...He was above all inspirational as said of Napolion worth 10 000 men on the field.

People Always get accused of ripping the past off...More recent Presley was always accused of stealing off the Blacks where its just a case of taking bits and pieces and making your own original style.

Romans had great Armies and leaders yet they also had incompetent fools that led great Roman armies to anhialation.

A branch of Alexanders Army was anhialated under a commander in Bactria. Alexander deserves all credit for what he achieved .

The Paul AQnker Song My way was a good song...But singers like Sinatra and Presley made it a great song.

Accursed just because you do hate Alexander you should ease off the knocking and give credit where credit due

the_accursed wrote: He was by far the most successful and popular king in Macedonian history and the greatest leader the
western world had ever produced. Your theory is nonsense...

Are you saying Philip was the most successful and poular king in Macedonian history before Alexander? Or just flat out the most successful and popular period? I would say in a relative arguement that "most successful" is debateable, but "most popular" is nonsense. People read of Philip because of Alexander, not the other way around. Philip is a player in the field of Alexander.

bessusww wrote:Accursed

Indeed your exactly correct without Philip none of it were in the pipe line.

But remember those very same generals you mention were more than hesitant in the comming battles..His Generals didn't want to disband the fleet.His generals wanted to Garrison Tyre and go round letting it remain active in the Macedonian Rear.

The Macedonian Generals wanted to accept Dariuses few bribes.The Generals didnt want to go past Gaugamella.

Many of Alexanders bormations and battles became far more varied that Philip...Alexander took a tool that Philip made and used it supremely...We dont read much of Philips battle craft. Alexander was different in many ways skilled clever and ingenious...He was above all inspirational as said of Napolion worth 10 000 men on the field.

People Always get accused of ripping the past off...More recent Presley was always accused of stealing off the Blacks where its just a case of taking bits and pieces and making your own original style.

Romans had great Armies and leaders yet they also had incompetent fools that led great Roman armies to anhialation.

A branch of Alexanders Army was anhialated under a commander in Bactria. Alexander deserves all credit for what he achieved .

The Paul AQnker Song My way was a good song...But singers like Sinatra and Presley made it a great song.

Accursed just because you do hate Alexander you should ease off the knocking and give credit where credit due

Hatred is the wrong word. I just think he was a very bad king and at best a mediocre general. "Alexander the great" is what you get when you take the greatest army in the world, add a number of world class generals to command it, make an inexperienced 20-year old their king and put them up against a large and rich but militarily weak empire. Replace Alexander III with a generic contemporary Macedonian male, and today pothosians would insist "generic contemporary Macedonian male" must have been not only a great general, but surely also incredibly charismatic, good looking and intelligent. Some (women) would even light little candles every year to commemorate the death of this "great man". Alexander was a mediocre man who became king at a time when his mediocrity most of the time (but unfortunately, for the Macedonians, not all of the time) didn't matter.

Regarding credit I'll give Alexander credit for having been pretty good at cheering the Macedonians up in tough situations. Had he been alive today, he'd probably have been a moderately successful sales coach for a telemarketing firm, provided his alcoholism wouldn't have dragged him down. Alexander's failure to go after Darius after Issus gave Darius 2 years to raise another army against him. If that doesn't seem like a foolish decision to pothosians today, it's only because Philip's army and generals once again came through for Alexander at Gaugamela, just as they did at Tyre and everywhere else.

spitamenes wrote:

the_accursed wrote: He was by far the most successful and popular king in Macedonian history and the greatest leader the
western world had ever produced. Your theory is nonsense...

Are you saying Philip was the most successful and poular king in Macedonian history before Alexander? Or just flat out the most successful and popular period? I would say in a relative arguement that "most successful" is debateable, but "most popular" is nonsense. People read of Philip because of Alexander, not the other way around. Philip is a player in the field of Alexander.

I'm saying Philip was the most successful king in Macedonian history, and nearly universally loved by the Macedonians. I'm saying that the claim that the Macedonians would have thought the greatest king their country had ever produced, the man who'd turned their bullied little nation into a superpower, a mere "hobbled, one-eyed drunk" who had to be replaced with his inexperienced son, is, let's just say unrealistic.

inexperiences son?

is that the same inexperienced son,who crushed the thebans at cheronaia