Fed Up With The Arguments For Persian Displacements

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,It's difficult to know of Parmenion's influence. He was probably 15-20 years older than Philip, and so, whatever Philip learned in Thebes, Parmenion might himself have influenced Philip's thinking. It's a shame we don't know more about him.Personally, I don't think Philip would have taken any bribes from Darius; then again, I don't think it would have got to the stage where Darius tried to bribe him.While I believe that Philip could, had he wanted to, gone for much more of Persia, I don't think he would have done. It appears apparent that his intention for the campaign was to do no more than to take the Ionian seaboard under his control. Philip would have stopped there (having succeeded) for the time being, and worked on his plans for further conquest later on (and I completely believe that he would have looked for more, in time). Where Alexander differentiated himself largely from Philip was in his powering onwards without a break. Philip would have entered into diplomacy with the Persians to consolidate his winnings; Alexander merely rolled them back with more victories.All the bestMarcus

[kenny]

Marcus HailOf coarse I agree Philipo would score success, Maybe longer and more scheming.Had you thought if philip did take his time this would give the Persians more oportunity to regroup and undermine Philip as much as Philip would try.Darius would have time and resources to payroll wider plots in Greece.Maybe to potter about with the Persians would help the monster,rather than Alexanders straight for the kill.Gaugamela I wonder if philip would yield Parmenio and maybe his fellow officers and gone for a night attack which as Alexander would know would cause confusion to his own battle plans at great risk.We aught to remember that had Philip gone to Asai the whole chain of command would differ.I for one doubt Philip would have achieved anywhere near,,, It took him 18 years to subdue Greece,,, Were he to mess about with Persia for so long im sure it would cost him.Kenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,Yes, you're probably right. If Philip had lived and taken Ionia, any subsequent delay would have given Darius time to marshal the rest of the empire. There would have been plenty of diplomacy; but had Philip wished to conquer more I've no doubt he could have done. Whether it would have led to the downfall of the entire Persian empire I don't know - I'm not really very good at speculative history. While I have the greatest respect for Philip, I also don't think that he would have thought outside the box enough to leave Macedonia behind in the way Alexander did. It would not have occurred to Philip that his capital could be anywhere other than Pella; which in itself would have put a check on his expansionism.However, to be fair to Philip, it didn't take him 18 years to subdue Greece. Much of the early part of his reign was putting Macedonia in order, and expanding its influence in Thrace. He only really turned his attention to Greece itself in the 340s, when he became involved in the Amphictyonic League. At that time he wanted to achieve what he could by diplomacy, which led to many years of wrangling - had he just decided to use brute force it might have happened a lot earlier than 338 ... perhaps in the same situation Alexander would have chosen that path ... but with what result?All the bestMarcus

[luisfc1972]

only two things might have stopped alexander.1. A scumbag traitor "Ephialtes" informing the persians when they were crossing the Hellespont. im confused about this one though, how could the persians not have known when alexander planned to invade? did they just underestimate him? anyhow,if the great persian fleet would have intercepted alexanders fleet and there was a naval battle?
game over2. scorch and burn policy. but the pompous and pretentious persian leadership did not listen to Memnon and called Alexander a young boy and an "adventurer". they believed they could handle him. they had no idea who they were dealing with.i believe this would be a very different world had alexander been defeated. ONE MAN. remember what napoleon said, he was right on. "Men are nothing, One man is everything".alexander removed many obstacles that rome would have had to face. look at how many countries owe their language, architecture, law, government, and even faith to rome.i guess my point is alexander is easily my favorite historical figure. he had extraordinary parents. he was the great son of a great man and achieved more than phillip ever considered. this one man really did change the course of history and people need to recognize that instead of putting him down. stop making him out to be "a bad guy" or "lucky". people who have nothing positive to say about him need to put themselves in his shoes and see how far they would go vs. the so called "weak Persian Empire".
"Remember, he said, to preserve discipline in the hour of danger.......
To advance in utter silence........
And when the moment comes to ROAR out and put the Fear of GOD into the enemy's hearts......
Remember, upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all.....Our enemies are men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives.....
We of Macedonia have been trained in the hard school of danger and war....And what of the two in Supreme Command?They have Darius, You have ALEXANDER.........

[marcus]

Hi Luis,One of the great mysteries is why the Persians didnGÇÖt prevent the crossing of the Hellespont. ItGÇÖs one of those things that we might have to put down to sheer luck. ItGÇÖs possible that, with the bulk of the navy being made up of Phoenician ships, there simply werenGÇÖt enough ships in the northern Aegean to stop him (he had 160-odd transports, which must have included some warships for protection). As the march from Macedonia to Sestos took 20 days, itGÇÖs conceivable that the Persians just couldnGÇÖt get their act together in time.YouGÇÖre probably right, that if MemnonGÇÖs proposal had been accepted, the expedition would have come to nothing. All they had to do was ensure that he couldnGÇÖt move beyond the scorched lands before his own supplies ran out, and then he would have been forced to retire. I donGÇÖt think you should worry too much about people saying Alexander was lucky GÇô itGÇÖs one of the greatest qualities of leadership! Remember the other Napoleon quote, when he was asked what qualities he looked for in his commanders GÇô GÇ£'just one GÇô that they be lucky.GÇ¥ NapoleonGÇÖs own GÇÿluckGÇÖ was legendary. ThatGÇÖs not to say that itGÇÖs fair to ascribe all of AlexanderGÇÖs success to luck (of course not); but no-one, as far as I know, has ever made that assertion.As far as his being a GÇ£bad guyGÇ¥, well, thatGÇÖs as one-dimensional as calling him a GÇ£good guyGÇ¥. He was human (it was blood, not ichor, in his veins, after all), and all humans have human weaknesses GÇô itGÇÖs hardly surprising that he couldnGÇÖt remain pure as snow when you consider his extraordinary achievements. He was more GÇÿMan With No NameGÇÖ than GÇÿShaneGÇÖ, which is far more attractive!All the bestMarcus