How Alexander the Great Conquered Persia

[xxx]

While I might disagree with Jona's views on Alexander, he is entitled to his opinion and personal attacks and name calling are totally uncalled for.If you want to disagree, keep it civil and make your case. That is the whole point of having a Forum - so that all people can converse with good humor.Jona has been kind enough to provide insight from 'the other side' of the conflict and citations when people ask for them. Let's keep our nationalities out of it. We're better than that I would hope.Regards,Tre

[luisfc1972]

perhaps its jona's disrespect towards alexander? "persia ripe for the plucking?"
she doesnt just state her opinion, she tries to be hurtful. shes a joke and im surprised many here havent realized what shes trying to do.

[kenny]

tre you are correct with everything you say,but as luis makes it clear some of us are passionate about our guy and even we admit alexander did have some luck and bad marks.buy jona give Alexaqnder nothin positive at all it seems the guy has writen a book or whatever it is to be sensational or controvertial,, id welcome jonah negativity if it were balanced but its not,, luis like i take Alexander and his reputation seriously as he stated,,, Hannibals great victory at cannae are we gonna take it away from him because he outwitted the Romans with Ambush indeed not Hannibals victories were great as were Alexanders.
The guy reminds me of Albert Goldstien the stupid writer of Elvis and John Lennon biographies the guys famous for not having a good word to say about either of them regardless of both mens gigantic achievements.Alexander was great he was a first met the Persians head on and anhialated them,,, i doubt if Alexander was this lucky guy people like Napoleon Caesar even George washington would have taken a lead from him,,, im sure these guys were far better judges of greatness than a Flying Dutchman,,, Is there some kind of complex going on with Jonah pick the biggest historical figure and chisel away at it.sorry tre
kenny

[kenny]

tre you are correct with everything you say,but as luis makes it clear some of us are passionate about our guy and even we admit alexander did have some luck and bad marks.buy jona give Alexaqnder nothin positive at all it seems the guy has writen a book or whatever it is to be sensational or controvertial,, id welcome jonah negativity if it were balanced but its not,, luis like i take Alexander and his reputation seriously as he stated,,, Hannibals great victory at cannae are we gonna take it away from him because he outwitted the Romans with Ambush indeed not Hannibals victories were great as were Alexanders.
The guy reminds me of Albert Goldstien the stupid writer of Elvis and John Lennon biographies the guys famous for not having a good word to say about either of them regardless of both mens gigantic achievements.Alexander was great he was a first met the Persians head on and anhialated them,,, i doubt if Alexander was this lucky guy people like Napoleon Caesar even George washington would have taken a lead from him,,, im sure these guys were far better judges of greatness than a Flying Dutchman,,, Is there some kind of complex going on with Jonah pick the biggest historical figure and chisel away at it.sorry tre
kenny

[xxx]

Now Kenny, there is nothing wrong with being passionate about Alexander. But it is not wrong to dislike Alexander either. That comes with undying fame - critique. It's all a matter of perspective. For instance, Alexander thinks Jona has a balanced view of the King, but that would be from his point of view. I would naturally disagree, but that doesn't make my perspective 'correct'. Like history, so much is up to personal interpretation of sources, personal values and our own personalities. Now on Darius - he simply did not have an army that could beat Alexander at the time. I would wager there was no army at the time who could beat Alexander and no army since armed in the same fashion.Hannibal was defeated because he was too predictable. But no one called Hannibal a coward for leaving the field of battle. Nor would I say same for Darius because as we all know, "He who runs away lives to fight another day." Darius would no more want to be responsible for the loss of Persia than anyone else. He thought he had options and could reorganize, but that was not to be. He was unable to admit defeat - that could be thought of as noble, Kenny, wouldn't you say? To never accept defeat? And it is no dishonor to have lost to Alexander, but a tragedy to die at the hands of your own people who no longer have confidence in you. But it is the winners who get to write history, not the defeated, so it is interesting to read from the other side, even if I don't agree all the time.Regards,Tre

[luisfc1972]

why do you keep addressing kenny when jona is the one instigating? we hear this nonsense all the time some of which you just put down. all of these ifs or buts, etc. etc. it is all excuses to me. it seems people forget the whole point. this young 20 year old defeated the mightiest empire up until that time with a much smaller army, no ifs ands or buts. he succeeded because he was fearless, very charismatic, and tactical.we get propagandists like jona in other alexander forums once in a while. they use the same excuses and propaganda to bring this man down. why? these people are bitter. well they can be bitter for all i care. let it fester inside them forever.

[xxx]

It's not propaganda it's a differing opinion. And Jona is not the one being bitter. This should be a Forum welcome to all for discussion. Who wants to participate in a Forum where everyone has the same ideas and all agree? Then it would be boring and not a discussion group at all.Regards,Tre

[kenny]

Luis hailIt dont matter buddy,,, I can take been told off it dont matter,,, All that matters is that Im true to our king and stand shoulder to shoulder with him and those who feel the same way about him.Alexander was and is eternal with the everlasting flame of unequeled glory,,, No one can erase that.Kenny

[jona]

Is it possible to be a little be more to the point? It appears that not everybody likes my opinions, but few have bothered to tell me why my use of the eastern sources is incorrect.It is my conviction that if you study a war, ancient or modern, you must hear the story from both sides. If you write a book on Operation Overlord, it really helps if you also read German sources.In the second place, admiration can not be a historian's guide. The best book on president Lincoln is the one by D.H. Donald, who tries to strip away the legend, and brings the real man to life again. If we want to understand Alexander, we must accept that he is not perfect. He was a human being, after all.I have never denied that he was courageous, clever, and commander of an excellent army. What I did say -and which must be said- is that he and his father made use of an excellent opportunity, as any good military commander should have done.The simple questions are: were the Persians involved in a civil war, yes or no? Were the Persians impressed by evil omens or not?Jona

[Heinrich]

It is a pity that you will not read Jona's book. I read it (German resembles Dutch) and it is excellent. He has really found new evidence, and I think his treatment of the subject matter is fair. He avoids both the too positive and the too negative extremes. In my opinion, humble or not, it was the only good book to appear on Alexander last year.H

[luisfc1972]

jona, sure he was opportunistic. he was the great son of a great man and one of the best soldiers in the army. he was a product of the time. concerning your questions at the end; sure there was a civil war in persia and sure the persians were impressed by evil omens. but you could say the EXACT same thing about greece in alexander's time, no?if you deny that then i will be convinced you are nothing but a troll searching for attention.

[jona]

"but you could say the EXACT same thing about greece in alexander's time, no?"There's no denying that. The rise of Macedonia was impossible without the Social War and the Third Sacred War.But I fail to see what the weakness of Greece has to do with the initial question, why Alexander was successful against Persia.Jona

[luisfc1972]

i have already answered this question.

[Kit]

Hi Jona,Risky as it seems to be to get in on this thread I'll give it a go!It is true what you say about the situation in Persia at that time. The Persian disunity undoubtably contributed to the Macedonian advance force under Parmenion, Attalus and Antipater being able to operate for such an extended duration. The assassination of Philip certainly forced them to conduct operations far longer than they anticipated before the main force under Alexander reinforced them! However we must also bear in mind that the Macedonians had their own problems when Alexander first ascended the throne. Let's not forget that fully half the royal army had to remain under Antipater for the protection of the homeland and maintenance of order in Greece.I would say the Persian and Macedonian problems cancelled each other out by and large. The Persians did have the advantage of interior lines of communication, vast reserves of manpower and money, and huge tracts of land that they could 'trade' for 'time' during the war.I think we need to look elsewhere for the 'why' Persia lost, certainly beyond mere disunity. My observation would be would be that the Greek military 'system' (and I include the Macedonian system in this) had proved itself superior to the Persian system since the Persian wars. On almost every occaision where a Greek army met a Persian army in battle after this the Greeks were victorius.The big difference is that Philip/Alexander were finally able to bring the full force of Greek military supremacy to bear, for a sustained period, against Persia. Coupled with the undoubted military genius of Alexander victory was almost certain, regardless of internal stability of Persia. Remember that the Persians had come to rely on a divide and rule policy in Greece to offset Geek military supremacy, and this system had broken down due to the rise of Macedon. I would also add that the Macedonians under Alexander, unlike the Greeks, aggressively sought to destroy defeated opponents after victory on the battlefield- note Alexander always looked to pursue opponents once they routed to kill/capture as many as possible.It is this, I believe, that accounts for the speed of the Macedonian conquest more than anything else. Although your points are certainly valid and well made.regards,Kit.

[jona]

Good points, thanks. The trouble is, of course, that we can not know if it is really true that the internal troubles in Macedonia/Greece and Persia really cancelled each other out. Until we find a way to measure this, we simply can not know the answer to the initial question.Jona