Strategic Genius

[dean]

Hello,
Maciej- I want to understand the siege of Tyre a little better.
From your post I get the impression that the Tyrians were trying to trick Alexander or at least he didn't trust them.
From a recent biography on Alexander I have taken the following information which led me to believe that the Tyrians had offered him the city genuinely.
From Sidon Alexander goes to Tyre- he is met by ambassadors from Tyre- the son of the prince Acemilco gives him the info that Tyre is willing to receive him. He gives his thanks and tells him that he is going to the city to offer a sacrifice in the temple to Hercules.
The Tyrian officials say to Alex that their temple is consecrated to their God Baal Melqart or the "Tyrian Hercules" so suggested that he made the sacrifice in the other temple which was dedicated to the Greek deity.
Tyre tried to stay neutral in the war between Macedonia and Persia and therefore denied Alexander access to the inner city with his soldiers.
The impression I have got from the different books I have read is that his action against Tyre was one born out of rage not rational cold thinking.
Please write with your comments- they are appreciated.
Dean.

[David Symes]

Maciej, I agree at the end, he didn't want to show dominance, but that's because he didn't need to anymore. His (and more importantly, Macedonian)dominion was already established, as strategically symbolized by the razing of Persepolis, and he was then (at the end) embarked on diplomacy.

[agesilaos]

From Curtius and Arrian I think it is clear that the straegic reasons for possessing Tyre were paramount in Alexander's mind. It seems possible that a diplomatic fiction was concocted to allow the Tyrians some plausible deniability in the event of Macedonian failure. I would suggest that it is more likely that such a plan stemmed noy from the King but from the more cautious members of his Council. When the Tyrians renege and expect to be allowed to avoid even the semblence of submission Alexander blows his top but in Curtius he later attempts to continue with the diplomatic way but the Tyrians now seal their fate and their destruction is assured , Alexander can allow nothing less. I suspect he was not unhappy with the result though the difficulty of the seige supports the doves on the coucil that a diplomatic solution would have been more economical.

[dean]

Hello,
I am very pleased to have read your post because up to now I had always associated the siege of Tyre with the Temple of Meqart and the apparent problem that was provoked around it and also the sending of Alexander's tutor "Phoenix" Lysimachus as an envoy and his subsequent murder by the Tyrians.This, from what I have read, really brought the rage of Achilles to the surface and made Alexander "blow his top".I realise that Tyre was very important strategically due to the fact that Alexander could not continue his conquest of Asia without it, going onto Gaza and Egypt and thus leaving a very nice place for the Persians to hit back.
As I understand it Tyre was a place that was largely full of traders and their interests in the Persian-Macedonian conflict were limited- they would have prefered to keep out of any trouble.
What most fascinates me about the seven month siege is the mole built to get to Tyre- there is determination for you!
Best wishes, Dean.

[maciek]

Hi Dean!
I give the greater credit to Arrian but we all can base on sources we choose. Arrian makes description of both Heracleses and writes that Alexander wanted to make the sacrifies to Heracles IN Tyre (Arrian II, 16, 7 - II, 17, 4. Denying Alexander's soldiers of enter into the city, and statement that city will be neutral angered Alexander - Tyre was was for him importand point in his securing the Mediterrenian shore. But later, Alexander gathered his companions and showed them the situation - explaing how importand is the Tyre. In this time was no neutral city there and Alex coulden't agree for this. It was obvious to him that it will be the base for the Persians and leaving it will be ruin of all his plan. He agreed the decision of siege with his companions - so it was not the rage.
I had read Rufus and I think he was not too objective. He was the Roman which wanted maybe to show that roman coquerors are better then greek? We have no other his books so we can't say nothing about it but it seems to me something like this. We even have no assurance who Rufus realy was.

[David Symes]

Interesting comments, Karl. If Alexander is only Alexander the Great Captain, does he deserve his place in history? Or really, I am interested in what you think made Alexander great?

[john]

For anyone who feels that Alexander the Great was not a military GENIUS consider this quote from Alexander of Macedon: A Historical Biography by Peter Green on Page 290 c. 1991 by First California Press. "He was in fact making a virtue of necessity. Alone in his lamplit tent, by sheer innovative genius, he had invented a tactical plan that was to be imitated, centuries afterwards by Malborough at Blenheim and Napoleon at Austerlitz..." Also Alexander lead the Companions at the Battle of Cheronea and chased down Demonsthines and captured him. When he faught the Indians he quickly got a genius plan to attack Porus at the rear. His prowess in open battle is to be matched at siege warfare. At the Siege of Tyre he fought back numerouse attacks by a superior navy until reinforcements arrived. He was able to maximise his units strengths very well (sadly you cannot say that about his Macedonian decendents during the Roman invasion at Magnesia).

[marcus]

Of course, I cannot speak for Karl (not least because I don't agree with his comments). However, if Karl (a) wasn't joking and (b) was saying what I think he was saying, I do not see that Alexander should have been denied his place in history even if he were not quite as up to scratch as a general as we have always believed.For a start, anyway, I don't think anyone could fault him as a general - despite some small setbacks, he did not suffer a single defeat until one of his units was massacred at Marakanda in 329/328BC. His execution of his strategy was nothing if not sound!Second, so what if he had a bunch of good advisers. A general is no less a general if he relies on others to come up with the good ideas - the skill is in deciding which piece of advice to follow, and following it in such a way that it works out to your advantage. He might have been the least imaginative general in history, but if it works, it works!All the bestMarcus

[Tre]

Hi Marcus:I would have to say I don't agree with Karl's comments either. I thought the era of the Diadochi made it abudantly clear with whom the true talent rested (in peace). A lot of people can play an instrument well, but not everyone can conduct Regards,Tre

[marcus]

Hi Tre,Good point about the Diadochi. If, and it's a big if, the 'genius' rested with others, then it must have been Parmenion (and, of course, Alexander appears to have decided not to follow his advice on a few occasions... if it's true and not anti-P propaganda, yadda yadda yadda). But, as Alexander's generalship appears not to have suffered after 330, then we can discount that one.Hey, you're full of pithy comments at the moment, aren't you? :-)All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hello Marcus,
First, can you please refresh my memory about the massacre that took place in Marakanda?
There is a Greek word that I have on the tip of my tongue which refers to Alexander's undefeated record- he never lost- do you know what the Greek word is?(Please forgive so many questions)
In my opinion, if you merely take into account the troops on Darius's side and on Alexander's and compare, you become overwhelmed by the difference. I would have thought that it were a mathematical impossibility that Darius could have lost in Issos or Gaugamela. ...Yet Alexander was a great leader and, I believe, unnaturally intuitive and this seems to have always tipped the balance in his favour.
Best wishes,
Dean.