Alexander Rated Too Good

[Nicator]

Talking to a guy at work today, he mentioned Alexander was a good general, but he seemed better than he probably was because his opponents were so bad. At first I took a little offense to this, but quickly realized the foolishness of this comment. Sure, many of his opponents were not very good by todays standards, but a few of them were more than worthy adversaries. Darius conceived an excellent plan at Guagamela, Spitamenes on the hit and run, and Poros with his elephants. True, none of these men were as good as Alexander, but then again, no general in world history was either. One of the dangers for a general in Alexanders position would be to become lazy in the face of inferior opposition. The mark of a truly excellent commander lies in his ability to maintain a high level of readiness and capability regardless of the level of competition. Alexander showed himself to be up to the task for the occasional great pitched battle as well as the day to day skirmishing action. Importantly, he did not allow himself, or his troops, to become complacent and play down to the level of the enemy even when it was warrented. In short, he was called "the Great" for good reason...because he was.later Nicator

[davej]

I agree with most of what you have said but would like ot add. Don't forget the quality of the army Alexander inherited from Philip. It was kick arse. The Greeks ahd been kicking crap of the Persians since Marathon. Obviously not on the same scale and not on Persian soil. Nonetheless it is important to remember Darius, Spithradates and Porus had serious limitations as far as whattheir conscripts could do. Obviously Darius had a professional army corpe in the form of the immortals but the could only ensure his personal safety and could not really be expected to turn a battle in the same way the companions could.I think it was Hugh Pike in the Alexander "the great commander series" who said "if it were down to luck you would expect other generals in history to have accomplished the same". Dj

[beausefaless]

The only army besides Philip and Alexander were pro's was the earlier Spartans but I don't think they had a currency just slaves (helots) plus the Spartans would always place their allies on the left flank against the best of the enemy,(except for the Battle of Thermopylae) this system would eventually fail for they would not adapt as warfare changed, the complete opposite from Philip and Alexander. They set the stage for future professional armies.
This clown at your place of work sucks!

[davej]

Actually they did have currency, but it was almost worthless. It was an Iron ingot which was supposed to have been dipped in vingar so it could not be reworked. It value like our paper money (or plastic money like in Oz) is the value put on it by the society. Off the point. No back. Theban sacred band were professionals and I am almost certain that the Athenians still had some paid troop in the form of Ephebes. And of course lets not forget the thousands of mercenary greeks scattered all over the mediteranian. The Point I was making was about the quality of opposition troops.

[beausefaless]

You're gonna love me!

I believe your brain has been dipped in vinegar, one hint to prove my point, your spelling! I wasn't talking to you but you where trying respond to me fine, I will recall my cryptanalysts background and grab my enigma keyboard and decipher what you're saying. Iron is worthless when it comes to currency unless you're selling it as weapons for gold, silver or bronze. Paper money might have a low value down under but it's definitely highly valued in the good ole USA. I was talking about professional armies not mercenary soldiers there is a difference. I'm glad you took your gloves off I love a good fight, feel free anytime.

[agesilaos]

Two errors when typing does not seem excessive maybe it was the syntax or content that threw you.The distinction you wish to draw between professionals and mercenaries is fallacious since you are using professional to mean well trained; the Spartans received no payment for service in the Army, despite their currency (whose significance Dave explained fairly well - it could only be used for internal transactions and was therefore non-tradable like the good old rouble, befor glasnost). Greek mercenaries were paid, but also spent alot of time training, one might cite Plutarch's Life of Dion. So let's not descend to name-calling and stick to the sources.As to the substantive point Alexander's Army achieves more in more varied situations than almost any other ( the Mongol khans rival his achievements) but I for one do not believe that victory was solely down to him, at least until Gaugamela he listened to his war council.

[davej]

Tempting, as it may be to respond to you by taking off my gloves, I am going to rise above it. The forum is about intellectual debate not bitching and nit picking. I am sorry if I appeared rude to you, it was late at night down here in OZ where or dollar may not be a full US dollar but who cares. At 67 cents we can trade easier with Japan and our other trading partners and I can live well on my wage here in OZ. Who would want to live anywhere else? Our money is plastic and different colours and sizes, which makes it easy to distinguish without looking for a picture of a dead president. It also makes it easy to observe fraud with CCTV cameras. Off the point but I did take you dig a little to heart (as you no doubt intended).I donGÇÖt understand how you missed my point on professional armies, I donGÇÖt believe that any distinction was made about state armies, so I would consider Mercenary armies fair game. An army is an army after all. No Offence.I thought somebody may be able to nail me on the Ephebes and I would be happy for somebody to do so. I donGÇÖt know if I am right or not. The passage from Plutarch's Life of Lykurgus. He commanded that all gold and silver coin should be called in, and that only a sort of money made of iron should be current, a great weight and quantity of which was very little worth; so that to lay up twenty or thirty pounds there was required a pretty large closet, and, to remove it, nothing less than a yoke of oxen. With the diffusion of this money, at once a number of vices were banished from Lacedaemon; for who would rob another of such a coin? Who would unjustly detain or take by force, or accept as a bribe, a thing which it was not easy to hide, nor a credit to have, nor indeed of any use to cut in pieces? For when it was just red hot, they quenched it in vinegar, and by that means spoilt it, and made it almost incapable of being worked. In closing, I am sorry if I caused you some offence by being brief, it is forum after all. I try to keep answer short and sweat where possible, this does not always allow one the opportunity to be gentile. I was also responding very quickly late at night after wrestling my two kids to bed and then checking my wifeGÇÖs email after writing up one of her psych reports. I was tired, it was late and I didnGÇÖt mean to pick a fight.Having said that, if you want an intellectual debate, bring it on. I wont engage you in a bitch slapping competition over spelling and grammatical errors. I don

[davej]

Go Karl,Thanks for leaping to my defense. Just one thing on the Spartans, the land alotments and the produce they recieved from their state own helots could be considered pay. They did'nt have to work (on the land anyway), so therefore they were free to serve in the army full time.I would have thought that decline in Spartiate numbers and all too frequent wars with Thebes were Sparta's downfall.Ps. My spare room is almost finished and my beer fridge is full of Crownies. Any time you are ready jump on a plane and help me empty the bloody thing.

[Sam]

Hi guys,I hope not to upset anyone by moderating some of the viewpoints here- believe me I really am a fan of Alex too: but prefer to see him as more human in his abilities. Just a few points for you guys to explore here:- would Alex been so great if he was up against Cyrus I rather than Darius? (a man who commanded such respect as to have the enemy troops deserting their own rulers on the battlefield) would he not end up much like Pyrrhus if the satrapies did not defect- or revolt as soon as Alex's army have passed by (he most cetainly wouldn't have the men power to hold these hugh territories without willingness on the part of these districts.)- My inclination is to agree with the Romans in the comment that he wouldn't have been called "the great" had he turned westward instead and say the Latin league remained loyal to Rome like in the days of Pyrrhus. He would almost certainly defeat the Romans on the field- but his manpower would have been his limitation compared to the numbers the Romans can raise.- Imagine if at the time Persia was a vibrant, resilient civilization that can come up with the equivalent of a Scipio to rise to the occassion, or have such sensible generals that refuse to give battle but keep up the harassment instead in the face of a superior foe- like what the Romans did to Hannibal?On the otherhand I agree the condition of his army was top quality over all armies in the surrounding regions at the time...and this is certainly a major decisive factor.I would however feel rather strongly that an important part of his "greatness" is to be attributed to opportune culmination of historical factors- though without doubt he is still more than worthy of being called "the great" be it in terms of spirit and ability.

[beausefaless]

You knocked me down and I kissed the ground but I'm back up and I stand corrected ! Some times I over indulge with the squeeze of grapes and that's a poor excuses. I will say with a sober mind, In the near future I will take issue with karl.
With all due respect I completely disagree. All dictionaries prove I'm correct when I state there's a difference between professional army and mercenary soldiers. I will add in combination with your theory, the Spartans set their standards too high for young boys to evolve into the perfect soldier.

[davej]

Apology accepted. Good luck proving Karl wrong, he is a walking source book.Mercenary soldiers are different I agree with you but they are still soldiers. Its like the old 'all Poodles are dogs but not all dogs are Poodles' argument.I am not sure the standard for Spartan boys were too high; there was a very low drop out rate from my understanding. In the end they just lost too many soldiers and the Spartan system did not really help with married men serving constantly under for most of their lives.By the way it was professional armies we were discussing not soldiers, so I am still convinced that a Mercenary army is still an army, I don't know of any other collective noun.Thank you and good night from the Croc hunter.

[beausefaless]

You said; "The distinction you wish to draw between professionals and mercenaries is fallacious since you are using professional to mean well trained"I say, no way!!One and two defines Plutarch on Dion!(nothing more,nothing less) 1. military professional soldier: a professional soldier paid to fight for an army other than that of his or her country,2. relating to mercenaries: paid to serve in a foreign army, or consisting of mercenaries.
The Macedonian army of Philip and Alexander surely qualifies as a professional army. Philip completely reformed the Macedonian army: introducing a combined arms structure of professional (as opposed to citizen militia) infantry, heavy cavalry and light troops. Philip could and did strike as the occasion warranted and did not have to raise a force for every specific occasion. Needless to say, this was a great advantage in his struggle with Athens which had to endlessly debate every military move. Certainly with Alexander the army must be construed as professional. No citizen army could travel the distances Alexander's did. If the army is to continuously exist through time it seems that individual soldiers cannot be running home to conduct their private economic activity. Philip was the first to have a three hundred sixty five days a year professionally well paid army, in silver and possibly gold, to fight for Macedonia and no one else. Plutarch on Dion is the complete opposite.