Scorched Earth Policy.

[iskander_32]

Companions.From time to time I visit a group on Yahoo called Warfare and Tacticians,the group seems full of hannibal fans who they put at the top of their tree.There was a subject which I have read often regarding Memnons scorched earth policy, they and some people believe it would have stopped Alexander in his tracks.I feel it would have only held him up,maybe not., I feel he was astrategical genius and knew his game, he knew it was far more important to secure the whole coast towards Egypt, I feel that was more important than a token battle at Granicus.Alexander could have taken the coast consolidated his hold and encreased his power on the aegian basin.Once consolidated and safe he would at his own coosing headed for the Persians I dont feel he was stupid enough to chase them all over burned out terrain,, to think he would is in insult to his genius and his thinking.regardskenny

[yiannis]

On the other hand, emperor Julian the Apostate was stopped and eventually defeated by Shapur's policy of scorced earth some centuries later...

[marcus]

The point about a scorched earth policy is that, irrespective of Alexander's skill as a general, he couldn't proceed if there was no forage for his army. He had limited financial resources at the beginning of the campaign, and he *had* to rely on forage for a significant part of his army's supplies (especially for the horses). Therefore, if the Persians had burned everything, Alexander would have had no choice but to turn back. The question is then whether he would have been able to delay the campaign and start again the following year (or a couple of years later). In truth, probably not - not only would he have run out of money, but without the campaign there was a greater chance that the League of Corinth would have broken down irrevocably ... and even Alexander probably wouldn't have been able to recover from that.All the bestMarcus

[lucinos]

I dont think emperor Julian the Apostate was defeated. He just was unlucky and killed
(maybe assasinated) in the battle.

[marcus]

Is that not a personal defeat? :-)I'm no great expert on Julian, but my understanding is that his army was surrounded and worn down by the Parthian horse archers - at best it must have been a stalemate, but with hundreds of miles of Parthian desert still to cross before they were safe in Byzantine territory, I would imagine it was unlikely to be anything *but* a defeat.All the bestMarcus

[beausefaless]

Hello Marcus,Maybe yes or probably not, that is the question for me.*If* the scorched earth policy was in affect there still would have been supplies in cities but I believe Alexander would have controlled the coast and enough country side to replenish grass hay for the next season in addition he could have imported hay and supplies from Macedonia which was rich with these recourses. I think the League of Corinth would have no effect on Alexander for he was the League of Corinth. When it came to logistics Alexander (and company) was a genius. Remember Tyre held him up for at least seven months and then another few with Gaza. Arbela (Gaugamela) was the big prize, winner take all.Is this another one of those frogs with wings things? My hypocrisy has now bounds.All the best,Andrew

[lucinos]

you are right that it looks like a stalemate.but I realy think if luck would not abandon him there he would succeed. ATG is the greatest military genius af all epochs proven by his strategy, his battles, his sieges and his speed (which proves he was extremely well prepared). but I dont think Darius really had choises. He had to face Alexander straight or else it would seem like weekness to the nations subdued. Now think this: if Alexander was killed in Granicus (in my view it was very probable) what would you say about Alexander? Back to Julian, Persians point was exactly to worn down his army but in fact their casualities were greater. They just managed to spread panic for a moment and Julian was very unlucky he was killed at this time.ok in your point of view it is a defeat, but in my point of view luck was decisive.I saw that many people (voting for top 10 of generals) set Wellington above Napoleon. Wellington was a good general but no way I would compare him With the genius Napoleon was. Napoleon was just unlucky at Vaterloo.

[marcus]

I do like your turns of phrase, Andrew! :-)You might be right about the League of Corinth, but the other thing to bear in mind was that Alexander in 334 was not the same as Alexander in 332/331. His personal credibility when he crossed the Hellespont was improved (since his actions in 336/335), but it wasn't anything like it was when he took Tyre, Gaza, and won at Gaugamela. That's why I'm less sure that he would have survived the knockback.All th ebestMarcus

[marcus]

And of course Napoleon's main criterion for whether a man would be a good commander was whether he was lucky.I'm always in two minds about Wellington and Napoleon. Napoleon fought more pitched battles than Wellington, but also lost more. His march on Moscow was over-ambitious and, even though there were good reasons for attacking Russia, he should have foreseen the disaster.Wellington, on the other hand, fought far fewer pitched battles, but his successes in Spain must surely place him high on the list. A masterful strategy of guerrilla warfare and attrition.(I'll stop there - that's pretty much all my knowledge of Wellington and Napoleon used up )All the bestMarcus