Greek Treachery Defeated the 300

[jasonxx]

Alexander in reality could never really afford dangerous pressings like the Persian Gates.

The amounts of Soldiers and resources he had made it vital. 40.000 plus was all. He didnt have the ability nor man power to replenish as say the Romans or the Persians.

It does show how great a general he was. I suppose he could have the Sogdian Rock attitude and try take it. But his genius and common sense knew it was folly.

Kenny

[marcus]

Alexander in reality could never really afford dangerous pressings like the Persian Gates.

The amounts of Soldiers and resources he had made it vital. 40.000 plus was all. He didnt have the ability nor man power to replenish as say the Romans or the Persians.

It does show how great a general he was. I suppose he could have the Sogdian Rock attitude and try take it. But his genius and common sense knew it was folly.

Kenny

He didn't even have his entire army with him at the Persian Gates, because Parmenion was taking the "other road" to Persepolis, guarding the baggage.

It ain't genius to know it's folly, though - it's only common sense!

ATB

[Paralus]

Well, if it came down to it, I'm of the opinion that the Macedonian Phalanx would have been able to beat the Spartans straight up. Yes, it'd be bloody, but I'd take the sarissas in that case as opposed to the regular spear.

It would, eventually, come down to a matter of the better armament. At the time, the Lakonians were the masters of hoplite warfare and hoplite warfare ruled. That said, had a Macedonian phalanx – of Philip or Alexander – pressed Thermopylae, I believe that it will have prevailed by virtue of casualties inflicted, eventually. Whether its commander will have stood for the losses he too will have endured is another thing entirely.

That stated, the point to remember here is that Alexander attacked the Persian Gates front on with, in the absence of any cavalry action described, the pahalanx and suffered, as Arrian states "severely". And this against a rabble remnant of a Persian polyglot "horde" (see below).

Time and again a well trained and commanded Macedonian phalanx proves itself over the Greek hoplite. It is only when the Macedonian phalanx is discombobulated – such as Issus where it was fractured over the river and the line broken by Alexander’s headlong charge – that it is vulnerable.

The other point is that he did pass the Persian Gates, he did turn the pass into Thessaly, he did get through the pass to the north on his way to the Isther/Danube. While there may have been times that he chose not to turn a pass, when he chose to, he did.

All of which are different passes and different actions. At the Persian Gates Alexander misjudged terribly. He attempted what you propose for Thermopylae and suffered severely. He turned that pass by, as Kenny says, getting behind the Persian forces with the help of “Persian prisoners”. Having trapped them between himself and Craterus, he annihilated them. If Arrian’s account is correct, almost to a man. In fact, Alexander seems to have planned it this way for, as Arrian reports:

…the Macedonians were all around them, on one side Alexander pressing his attack, on the other Craterus and his men rapidly thrusting forward, so that most of them had no option but to turn back to the inner defences in the hope of saving themselves there. But these defences too were in the hands of the Macedonians, for Alexander, having foreseen how things would go, had left Ptolemy there with 3,000 infantrymen, who in some close fighting cut the greater part of the enemy to pieces.

One hell of a way to make up for the error of a frontal assault gone pear shaped.

I'm not trying to denigrate Spartan valor at all. They were, overall, the best heavy infantry up until the time of Alexander, with the Sacred Band being great, also. I'm just of the opinon that Alexander would have found a way to force the pass, and I agree that he wouldn't be above using Ephialtes to do it.

We’re in the realms of “what if” anyway so I don’t s’pose it matters much if I indulge. The Spartan army – and by which I mean the homoioi – were in serious decline during the second half of the fifth century. In essence, Sparta’s heyday was ebbing – if not gone. Spartan invincibility in the field took a severe battering at Pylos. Indeed, if one reads Thucydides – and between the lines of idolatry that clouds Xenophon’s Spartan apologia, sorry, Hellenica, the decline is visible. The Spartans, who marched with “their whole army” (as well they would) to Mantinea in 418, only just held that field. Had they lost Laconia was wide open to – of all states – Argos. They didn’t. Just. During the “Arcananian war” in the west of central Greece during 428-425, Spartan hoplites did not fare well. The real door knocker, though, did not involve Sparta. Athens marched a force to Delium in Boeotia in 424. It was to meet a force led by Demosthenes. That did not occur. They did meet an army of Thebans who eventually prevailed on the field with “a massed wing”.

By the time of the Corinthian War (390s), Sparta was a mere shadow of its former self. Pushed, it could likely amass some 2,000 – 3,000 hoplites; more if the old men were counted. By Leuktra that was down to some 1,700. By then the pugnacious, recidivist and Theban hating Agesilaos had drilled the Thebans in every conceivable Spartan tactical move. I’ve often wondered why it was not he that the Ephors chose to die that day.

In short, I believe that the Spartans were one of the best heavy infantry armies prior to Philip’s Army (never forget, it was Philip’s that executed those marvellous manoeuvrers for Glaucias’ benefit before Pelium). The Thebans though were without peer for some decades. Just ask the Athenians and the Spartans. Pity Epaminondas and Pelopidas taught Philip but never met him on the field.

[Paralus]

Had Alexander been at Thermopylae, he would have sought his Ephialtes - the difference between him and Xerxes is that he would have gone looking for his Ephialtes earlier than Xerxes did.

Had Philip been at Thermopylae he will have done what he did the last time he was pressed to pass it (and what he will have done at the Persian Gates): already have found his man to buy well before he got there.

[marcus]

Had Alexander been at Thermopylae, he would have sought his Ephialtes - the difference between him and Xerxes is that he would have gone looking for his Ephialtes earlier than Xerxes did.

Had Philip been at Thermopylae he will have done what he did the last time he was pressed to pass it (and what he will have done at the Persian Gates): already have found his man to buy well before he got there.

How true.

As we are indeed in the realms of "what if?", perhaps I might be permitted to indulge, also - had either Alexander or Philip been in Xerxes' shoes at Thermopylae, they might not have needed to buy their man - they would have moved so fast that they would have arrived at, passed, and shored up the pass long before Leonidas and his allies arrived!

ATB

[jasonxx]

Paralus Hail

Id press your claims with Spartan superiority. I would argue it wasnt very long lived nor was it as formidable as legend may claim. I am aware somewhere that Spartans did turn tail maybe at least once. I would also look at Sparatn Politics etc and wonder who out of them or Athens were on the make with Persian Gold. They get all the press about loyalty honour etc but they had dirty hands with Persian Gold.

Im pretty sure the so called excuse for not sending Spartan Armies with Leonidas was Persian Bribery.The Spartans had the same or similar excuse when asked to help the Athenians at Marathon. Although nothing at all can be taken away from Leonidas. Sparatan politics doesnt cover itself with glory.

And secondly with the so called religious festival stopping them help Leonidas. The Spartans found no such excuses when Agis had a go behing Alexanders back. I would say the Spartans were more friendly with the Persians than any.

Kenny