Termessus and "unconquered" cities

[ancientlibrary]

I just started a WCD entry on Termessus:http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/TermessusIn it I undermine the guidebook-notion that Termessus was the "one city Alexander couldn't take." I point to SylliumGÇöback a page in ArrianGÇöwhich Alexander was "unable" to take. And I point out that Alexander didn't really WANT to take Termessus. My Pothos question is: What if any other places could semi-plausibly claim to have successfully resisted Alexander?

[Laura Casimir]

Halicarnassus, more or less. He took the part where the people lived, but the citadel itself, which was situated on an island, was never captured by Alexander. It fell after a year or two. Laura

[editor@isidore-of-seville]

Celaenae falls into that category tooGÇödelayed
conquests.

[heinrich]

The wars against the Scythians and king Abisares were "postponed", and Alexander was happy to conclude a treaty with the Chorasmians. If I recall correctly, "the bad Poros" managed to escape.HM

[Kit]

Well, of course, according to the legend of 'Invincibility' no city Alexander besieged successfully resisted him!?I suppose with Halicarnassus it depends on interpretation; he had largely taken the city and had the remaining enemy forces besieged in the citadel. He left a force behind to continue the siege. The enemy was denied control of the city, so did this count as a successful siege or not?I do remember mention of some cities that Alexander decided to by-pass- so again, would this be considered successfully resisting him if he made no attempt to take them!?Sounds like this could all be open to interpretation and debate?regards,Kit.