pothos.org

NickI was in a hurry writing the above post, and reading it back, it sounds somewhat terse and unfriendly. Not intentional. I know that "noblesse oblige" and the politeness of gentlemen are not the preferred standards of the present day, but we Companions can still live by them if we choose. Regards in friendship - Halil

Apologies to all reading this thread, but I think my computer is playing tricks on me today as I tried to attach a post to Nick (W) with an apology for sounding somewhat terse to him and it attached as a reply to Nick C's instead!However, I think I was sounding terse to Nick C as well and so probably owe both the same explanation!The days of "seconds" was so much easier, don't you think? Regards - Halil

Hi Halil!

--- I may be misreading you, but you seem to be saying that the point of "noblesse oblige" to them, was to fight in a way that spared the "pawns"? Isn't that the very opposite of chess where the pawns are sacrificed to save the more important pieces? ---

Yes, but it is both ways around too. A chess player doesn't carelessly waste his pawns. If you can move a Tower in a position to cover a pawn, you would do so. I wrote that the Persian satraps were on a sort of "mission impossible": they had to take care of many conflicting interests at the same time. (There are quite a few examples in Persian history before Alexander where battles were settled/fought without including the masses of levies in the actual fighting. Granicus (keeping the infantry in reserve) maybe be another example... perhaps...

--- PS Do you really think it's likely that anyone could stand before Alexander and say something like that in a "neutral" way or without explanation? ---

Yes, yes, I am sure I myself could do that! I always say things in a neutral way. Look at my postings: they are always neutral!

Best regards -
Nick

No worry, Halil. I will delete any posting I don't like anyway.To be serious: the issue deserves greater exposure.Was Alexander just darned good at what he did? And that's it?Or did he also change the style of warfare, the conduct during battles? Was he an innovator?I like Nick C's (we're beginning to sound like the Spice Girls right now) remark that Poros' use of elephants was a real innovation in Western warfare. Come to think of that: Darius had some fiftheen elephants at Gaugamela. But they're nowhere in the account of the battle. Did he use them? Or didn't he have a clue how to? Or were they there as a symbol of power only, not meant to trash the enemy? Was this noblesse oblige too?So many questions. I think we should start a new thread later on.Greetings to you and Sikander. Best wishes -
NickAbout pawns: move one pawn to the opposite side of the chessboard - and you'll get a new Queen. However, Sisigambis at Gaugamela refused to re-enter the game when the pawns came to her rescue.

"Was Alexander just darned good at what he did? And that's it?"He was darned good, but that was just the start of his legacy..."Or did he also change the style of warfare, the conduct during battles? Was he an innovator?"He changed the way battle was conducted in that his cavalry became his primary offensive weapons and his infantry secondary...until Alexander this was in reverse. The trend was already in place to go after the officers and generals whenever possible, but he may have accelerated it considerably. If there was anything about Alexander which seperates him from the other 6 great generals up until Waterloo, it was his incredible gift for innovation on the battlefield...he was the quintessential original thinker. Caesar? (for instance) was a reader and an adaptor of other peoples tactics.
I like Nick C's (we're beginning to sound like the Spice Girls right now) remark that Poros' use of elephants was a real innovation in Western warfare. Come to think of that: Darius had some fiftheen elephants at Gaugamela. But they're nowhere in the account of the battle. Did he use them? Or didn't he have a clue how to? Or were they there as a symbol of power only, not meant to trash the enemy? Was this noblesse oblige too?Alexander bypassed the elephants completely by pushing his entourage so far up field that he arrived behind them, thus, taking them out of the battle before they had a chance to do any damage. I was just working on this section of my book (again) and had to do some rework of Alexander's flanking maneuver. Now it sounds too cool! I'll post above to bring my viewpoint to light. The elephants seemed to be stationed for a charge into a thinned out Macedone center, with the greek mercenaries close behind to mop up on Alexanders inside flanks...really a well conceived plan, just didn't have the right people to get the job done. Nick C.

Greetings Nick!I should add, that elephants are terrible war weapons. Being highly intelligent and with little tolerance for pain, they were easily turned on their masters because they will bolt and flee when injured, trampling whoever the heck gets in their way, which includes their owners. Alexander used this knowledge effectively against the elephants. Alexander one, elephants zero.Elephants have far more sense when it comes to war than people do. While a male elephant in must would be quite aggressive and deadly and will charge anything that moves, there isn't a man alive who would dare try and control one during this time.Yes, they look impressive, but no one with any sense would actually rely on them to win a battle.Regards,Tre