Alexanders moving city

[chris]

I find it astonishing that an army and entourage of ATGs size can be fed and watered, on the move, through the seasons, year after year. Why didn't his enemies capitalise on this more?

[marcus]

Well, Bessus did attempt a scorched-earth policy in Bactria, but Alexander came down from the mountains too quickly. That's really the only tactic that would have worked, and it's a very difficult decision to make. After all, it isn't just your enemy who starves! The only other time I'm aware it was suggested was by Memnon at the Granicus, and he was shouted down.IIRC, Donald Engels makes much of the fact that Al must have had plenty of people going ahead of the army, in many cases, to secure forward supplies. Other than that, Al probably moved just so darned fast that he'd taken over areas before his opponents *could* do anything about it.Have a look at "Al the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army" by D. Engels - it's great for this sort of stuff!All the bestMarcus

[jan]

Bravo, Marcus, I loved that book! Glad you recommend it!

[nick]

As we can see from Xenophon's anabasis, this was not really the way the Persian empire handled invasions (or rebellions). In Xenophon, after the indecisive battle of Cunaxa, Artaxerxes reminds the Greeks that they're now right in the heart of enemy territory, surrounded by enemies. So the strategy is: let them come in, until they realize how awkward their position is. (Of course, this didn't work with Alexander. I have some sympathy for Delbruck's statement that Darius at Issus was bargaining for a similar draw as well.)In other cases, enemies were defeated not by destroying their armies, but by treachery, bribery or whatever else came in handy. The Persian strategy, compared to our modern views, was NOT aimed at "destroying" the enemy army in the sense of total annihilation, but was aimed at "turning" their viewpoints (or the viewpoints of their leader/leaders or elimination of the leaders) and thus winning the conflict.Scorched earth was just no honorable way to win a war. (As we today consider poison gas out of the question in modern warfare.)Regards --Nick

[sam]

They tried this by burning the land in retreat and what could they do about the water? As alexander took more and more cities this prevention tactic was unrealistic as he was now in control! I think the focus shifted to his defeat in battle than by other means.

[alejandro]

Also, I think I remember that Persian kings were very reluctant to use in battle the peasants/farmers that composed the Persian army. Someone in this forum once compared this strategy to a game of chess where you were extremely concerned about the GÇ£well-beingGÇ¥ of your pawns, and would prefer to sacrifice other -usually more valued- pieces (knights, rooks and bishops) rather than them.If they were truly so concerned about peasants when in a tactical game (battle), one can only expect them to be GÇôat least as- concerned when deciding at a strategical level. Hence, a scorched earth strategy is unthinkable from this perspective.Kind regards,Alejandro

[yiannis]

I don't think that the Persian kings and commanders were "concerned about peasants" and thus they would not send them into the frey of battle. It was not because of humanitarian concerns that they made this choice!
The reason was that these units were totally uneffective when faced with heavy infantry due to ineeficient training, equipment and -I'd add- motivation. The only result from their encounter with heavy infantry, would be extreme losses, panic and disarray in the center of the battle line. This has been proven many times, from their encounter with Greek heavy infantry and that is why the Persian kings would employ Greek mercenaries to form the nucleus of their infantry (if you can't win them, buy them!).

[alejandro]

Hi Yiannis,I have to admit that I like your idea much more than the one about concerned-about-peasants Great Kings.However, I was just presenting an argument a person made in this very forum a while ago, and just extending it to the obvious consequence of assuming it (i.e., if Persian Kings were concerned about peasants in a battles, they would be reluctant to employ scorched earth tactics).I just checked the Pothos archive, and found that this idea was forwarded by NickW in a thread called GÇ£Playing chessGÇ¥ (17 Sept 2003). Since Nick is well versed in Achaemenid Persia, I would rather trust his knowledge on this topic.Kind regards,Alejandro

[kenny]

Hail CompanionsThis is one of the most important things that I consider Alexander the Greatest General as I have said about Hannibal the hallmark of the greatest general over a great general is the way, He plans consolidates feeds, protects his logistics and lines of communications.This was Alexander to A t I dont know how he maintained or fed this force,, But he did and did it exelently and which is what makes him the greatest,,, Not only a battle winner,,, But also a win user!
Kenny