pothos.org

Because many people say that Alexander had "easy pray",meaning that it was a matter of circumstances in persia and Darius III incompetence that he was able to conquer persia,lets see what would have happened if Xerxes was on Darius III place or another more competent leader/King. Lets presume that Xerxes was in the opposite side of Alexander's army.I believe the result would be the same because:Alexander would have tried to kill Xerxes as he did with Darius III.Would Xerxes stay there and fight Alexander back?I believe not,because we remember that Xerxes and all the other Persian Kings always were on a safe distance while in war.In Thermopylae Darius watched the battle from the top of a mountain and the same thing happened in Salamina too.So why would he go and fight along with his troops?In an open battle he would probably be were Darius III were, but he would not fight either. Again lets remember Greece.Both Xerxes and Darius fled back to persia when they saw the defeat coming and let their generals handle the situation (meaning to die).So again,why would Darius or Xerxes sit there and fight Alexander?There is no account of them two fighting in a battle rather than watching from safe distances. So i guess Darius III did nothing less or more than Xerxes or Darius I would have done in a similar ocassion.Maybe the strategy of Xerxes during the battle would be better than this of Darius III,but again Xerxes strategy could not win battles in Greece so i guess that Alexander wouldn't have a big problem facing these strategies.But that is another discussion. Overall: Alexander knew that the Persian army had a big flaw.It's troops would flee once their King was dead or had ran away.And he took advantage of that.And either it was Xerxes or Darius I or Darius III or Cyrus the result would probably be the same. I want your thoughts on that

To be fair in answering this question, it would help to understand how King Darius III had trained his troops. The size of his army was such that he automatically assumed that sheer numbers would overwhelm Alexander's troops. Yet history proves that that was not the case. Alexander's skill, the extreme discipline and training of the Macedonians, and the combined so called incompetence of the Persians enabled quality to defeat quantity. But little is said of the manner in which the Persians were assembled as they seem to be a combination of many and various tribes who simply join together for a common cause. It does seem peculiar that King Darius's decision to flee caused the entire band to fall apart so readily, but that is how the story goes. It seems that he fled after his own bodyguards were killed at his feet. I wonder at how the news media of the Persian court would have described this action. I don't believe that they would have been able to discredit King Darius III without fearing for their own lives.

King Darius III had a trained army when he faced Alexander in Issus.The army was trained by his predecessor for this purpose since the time they suspected that Philip wanted to invade Persia.
When this army was destroyed in Issus then Darius had very little time to prepare another one.So even if Xerxes was in Darius III plce he would have the same problem as well.Actually Alexander defeated 2 armies.The one at Issus and the one at Gaugamela.Don't forget that there was a great massacre at the Persian army in Issus and great numbers of troops died either by ALexander's forces either by their own persian forces during the retreat...

Deleted

Deleted

Hail BrothersAndrew I very much doubt Parmenio or even Philip would taken the field against Darius on both occasions. Philip would haver chess played and played the political game to a better end,only at a push I think Philip would take the field especially having found out he had bee cut off at Issus by Darius.With Gaugamella Parmenio would take the bribes and would not have had the balls to take Darius at Issus.Parmenio was a great holding general but far too cautious to take the guts from the Persian forces.Kenny

Greetings.ItGÇÖs correct to say that the weak point of the Persian army, both at Issus and at Gaugamela, was its dependance from the kingGÇÖs conduct and the lack of initiative on the satrapsGÇÖ part; however it took an Alexander to get within a few metres from the enemy king, who was defended by a 250.000 men armyGǪThe Romans never found easy to do the same when they fought with the Parthians; against the Iranic cavalries they lost a consul (Crassus) and an emperor (Valerian), and the Parthian border remained unbreakable. ItGÇÖs interesting to think that Julius Caesar was killed three days before leaving for a major campaign against the Parthians: perhaps the conspirators, besides the other reasons inducing them to act, feared a potential disaster as well. All the best Azara

Very nice point there azara.Philip was maybe the first to understand what a good cavalry could do,But Alexander made it happen.The "aixmi" (pronnounced: ehmi=the sharp edge of a spear or sword) was a cavalry formation that looked like the edge of a spear and Alexander was the man leadng it in the very front.Well this formation of heavy cavalry could easily breach the enemy lines (and especially of the persians who were very light armored) and destroy everything in it's pass until they reached the destination.Then if needed they would do the same thing again.In that way Alexander managed to reach Darius who saw literally a big arrowhead consisting of horses coming towards him,penetrating everything in it's way. The same tactic became popular also with the romans later.And surely if Julius Caesar was up aggainst the Parthians he would probably be victorius due to this tactic and his deep knowledge of Alexander's tactics...

Hmmm... I am not certain Caesar would have won agaist the Parthians... Maybe it is because I associate Alexander's most creative solutions with his youth, and Caesar was old (for those times, at least). Napoleon said that a commander has 10-12 years in his whole life in which he gives his finest performances; later he becomes repetitive and predictable. The Duke of Wellington,on the eve of Waterloo, said of the same Napoleon that he fought always in the same way. What would have happened to Alexander if he hadn't died and had continued in his all-consuming profession of arms? (But this is another topic) Greetings Azara