There into The Baggage Train

[kennyxx]

Companions of late I just re read Fuller Generalship of Alexander. And I really have to admit its a very good thought out book and nearly puts to bet a lot of the so called sources.IE it was stated that the Persians broke through and attacked the baggage train. Well according to fuller the Baggage train was about 10 miles to the rear. And in the time they had raided and returne to the battle The ran straight into Alexander relieving his left wing. Fuller argues that the battle could have lasted for no longer than about 2 hours. Its common sense that the raiding party would take longer to reach a baggage train 10 miles away and loot it then to return.Fuller argued that them must have raided pack animals etc just behingf Alexanders line. Basically what he says was the Persians never had time to get there and come back.He Also argues and on reflection that Alexander would not hahe had it in his mind to persue Darius once he broke through. I agree with fuller he wouldnt have even entertained the idea until he knew the battle was won.Fuller says Alexander would have been a third rate general were he to go straight after Darius not knowing how the rest of the battle was going. He also argues that a messenger was sent saying it woulf be dudty and messy and the messenger wouldnt find Alexander anyway. And if indeed Alexander did set off after Darius no messenger would have caught him anyway.Im glad i reread this book even though writen over 80 years ago it still holds good arguement ang reasoning.Kenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,Fuller's book is still, in my opinion, the best of all the books that focus on the military aspects. Yes, it is old, but it isn't dated - what you probably noticed when comparing it with the Lonsdale book, was that Lonsdale doesn't really say anything new, except that there have been more recent wars and advances in strategic thinking that he can refer to.Did you know:
JFC Fuller was the person who actually 'invented' the idea of the combined forces Blitzkrieg - it was reading his work on the subject that influenced the German strategic planners in World War II. The campaign in Russia in 1942 might never even have got started had it not been for Fuller!ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,Fuller's book is still, in my opinion, the best of all the books that focus on the military aspects. Yes, it is old, but it isn't dated - what you probably noticed when comparing it with the Lonsdale book, was that Lonsdale doesn't really say anything new, except that there have been more recent wars and advances in strategic thinking that he can refer to.Did you know:
JFC Fuller was the person who actually 'invented' the idea of the combined forces Blitzkrieg - it was reading his work on the subject that influenced the German strategic planners in World War II. The campaign in Russia in 1942 might never even have got started had it not been for Fuller!ATBMarcus

[kennyxx]

Hi MarcusAs you say the book very old but. The concepts and understanding of war. Strategy and Generalship basically cant be added to or better. His understanding nad reasoning was spot on. If he invented Blitz Crieg you can see where he developed his ideas. He was indeed a studier of Alexander and indeed Napoleon. Who he uses often for statements. He even put Caesar in prospective calling him an entrenching commander.For me the book more enlightened the Eastern campaigns and Alexanders adaptabaility and genius. I sometimes used to fleet over these campaigns as the major battles get all the publicity. I always dismissed them them as petty little raids. But its quite clear it was siege after siege and even large scale battles.Many times Fuller states incidents and actions that may have been equaled but never bettered on. The book also gives a better description of Alexanders administative and organisational mind. He must have had a mind like a computer to hold all the information.I must agree the book belongs in the top five as a an Alexander book and even top for military analasist.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Hi MarcusAs you say the book very old but. The concepts and understanding of war. Strategy and Generalship basically cant be added to or better. His understanding nad reasoning was spot on. If he invented Blitz Crieg you can see where he developed his ideas. He was indeed a studier of Alexander and indeed Napoleon. Who he uses often for statements. He even put Caesar in prospective calling him an entrenching commander.For me the book more enlightened the Eastern campaigns and Alexanders adaptabaility and genius. I sometimes used to fleet over these campaigns as the major battles get all the publicity. I always dismissed them them as petty little raids. But its quite clear it was siege after siege and even large scale battles.Many times Fuller states incidents and actions that may have been equaled but never bettered on. The book also gives a better description of Alexanders administative and organisational mind. He must have had a mind like a computer to hold all the information.I must agree the book belongs in the top five as a an Alexander book and even top for military analasist.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Marcus AlsoReading the book I am readily convinced Alexander himself was ready to turn back at the Beas. As fuller comments Alexander was well intelligenced with peoples and informants. And I would be sure by the Beas he was aware that the boundaries were hundreds or thousands of miles further.He must have realised even before the so called mutiny he couldnt keep driving his men foreward.And on his way back he was still campaigning hard as ever.I guess maybe like Hadrian in Britain he decided to stop at his wall as it must become evident that Empire can stretch so far before it becomes to big. Maybe he would consolidate then go again for the east. But realiatically it made good sense to stop.Maybe the Mutiny was a welcome thing to save face that he really wanted to turn back. He must have also heard reports about abuses of power etc and had to get back and restore some order before his empire crumbled behind him. Fuller states his lines of communication all the way back to Macedonia were apart from Issus where he overmarched and became outfalnked. I would say by the time of the Beas the advice of parmenio before Gaugamella. About regrouping then hit again was good sense.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Marcus AlsoReading the book I am readily convinced Alexander himself was ready to turn back at the Beas. As fuller comments Alexander was well intelligenced with peoples and informants. And I would be sure by the Beas he was aware that the boundaries were hundreds or thousands of miles further.He must have realised even before the so called mutiny he couldnt keep driving his men foreward.And on his way back he was still campaigning hard as ever.I guess maybe like Hadrian in Britain he decided to stop at his wall as it must become evident that Empire can stretch so far before it becomes to big. Maybe he would consolidate then go again for the east. But realiatically it made good sense to stop.Maybe the Mutiny was a welcome thing to save face that he really wanted to turn back. He must have also heard reports about abuses of power etc and had to get back and restore some order before his empire crumbled behind him. Fuller states his lines of communication all the way back to Macedonia were apart from Issus where he overmarched and became outfalnked. I would say by the time of the Beas the advice of parmenio before Gaugamella. About regrouping then hit again was good sense.Kenny

[jan]

I have read bits and parts of Fuller, but just finished reading the Arrian Anabasis, Volume I, at the bookstore where I left it on the shelf. Everything in the final analysis rests upon these original sources, and all the various and sundry interpretations of those same sources. I like Hammond for his appreciation and recognition of that. Again, all later or future, depending upon how you look at it, references will be the author's own personal reaction to those original sources.As you know the Romans translated these Latin works from original Greek works which no longer exist. That is the greatest mystery to me, what happened to the original sources, and why? I am convinced that those who hated Alexander saw to it that the original Greek manuscripts were destroyed while their own re-edited versions became the only evidence left. A lot like the story of Branchidae which may have been the real reason that all the original Greek manuscripts are destroyed and forgotten while new Latin manuscripts tell the story the roman way. Pensez! Think!

[jan]

I have read bits and parts of Fuller, but just finished reading the Arrian Anabasis, Volume I, at the bookstore where I left it on the shelf. Everything in the final analysis rests upon these original sources, and all the various and sundry interpretations of those same sources. I like Hammond for his appreciation and recognition of that. Again, all later or future, depending upon how you look at it, references will be the author's own personal reaction to those original sources.As you know the Romans translated these Latin works from original Greek works which no longer exist. That is the greatest mystery to me, what happened to the original sources, and why? I am convinced that those who hated Alexander saw to it that the original Greek manuscripts were destroyed while their own re-edited versions became the only evidence left. A lot like the story of Branchidae which may have been the real reason that all the original Greek manuscripts are destroyed and forgotten while new Latin manuscripts tell the story the roman way. Pensez! Think!

[marcus]

Except that Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch are all in Greek, Jan, and written by Greeks, even if somewhat (or largely) Romanised.(OK, I know you're talking about the *original* sources, but I did feel I had to correct you on that).Marcus

[marcus]

Except that Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch are all in Greek, Jan, and written by Greeks, even if somewhat (or largely) Romanised.(OK, I know you're talking about the *original* sources, but I did feel I had to correct you on that).Marcus

[kennyxx]

Hail MarcusWith regard to fuller. I think he puts to bed a lot of the so called Alexander Romances.Particullaly the idea it was in Alexanders mind he was gonna chase darius as soon as he had him in sight.Fuller argued Alexander would be a third rate commander to go off on a chase. Before securing the victory of battle first. I agree.Im intrigued with your post saying that fuller thought of the Blitz Crieg. I think with his writings about Alexander you can see it been used there. The theory of shock and or at the weakest point of the enemy. Blitz Crieg is based on speed and full on attack to anhaialate the enemy fast. Its all Alexander.It was new to re read that Alexander was basically as Fuller was concerned the worlds first field Artillery General. In the way he used long range weapons to cover his troops.The book and rhetoric as you say is relevent even today. As he says the basics of war have nopt changed a lot since. He also states Alexanders siege warfare has never even been equaled. Now thats some kind of endorsement for Alexander as a commander.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Hail MarcusWith regard to fuller. I think he puts to bed a lot of the so called Alexander Romances.Particullaly the idea it was in Alexanders mind he was gonna chase darius as soon as he had him in sight.Fuller argued Alexander would be a third rate commander to go off on a chase. Before securing the victory of battle first. I agree.Im intrigued with your post saying that fuller thought of the Blitz Crieg. I think with his writings about Alexander you can see it been used there. The theory of shock and or at the weakest point of the enemy. Blitz Crieg is based on speed and full on attack to anhaialate the enemy fast. Its all Alexander.It was new to re read that Alexander was basically as Fuller was concerned the worlds first field Artillery General. In the way he used long range weapons to cover his troops.The book and rhetoric as you say is relevent even today. As he says the basics of war have nopt changed a lot since. He also states Alexanders siege warfare has never even been equaled. Now thats some kind of endorsement for Alexander as a commander.Kenny

[jan]

Thanks for the correction, Marcus. I appreciate that as I was just reading some of Norman F. Cantor's book on Alexander and I suspect that I was making a blanket statement since he points out that it is Curtius who writes in the Latin. I appreciate learning the truth about the others, as I did not know that until you pointed it out.Norman F. Cantor is apparently Jewish as he makes lots of references that would target a Jewish audience in his book. I had just found a book by Aurel Stein, who is British, don't know if he is Jewish or not, who wrote about the trek into the Indus. It was published in the 30's long before Michael Woods, but it has illustrations of many Buddhist ruins in the same area in which Alexander and his troops marched. He discusses in great detail the mountains of the region that Alexander and his hardy Macedonians reached and climbed, and it is most fascinating to read his account. Michael Wood did write a commentary for this book which is now available at a local bookstore here in Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. It is on Cactus Road across from PVMall. Just in case any Arizonans may read this and want to find a copy.Every version I have read of any of the original sources has been in English, translated, and I had had the impression that they were in Latin. One such group at the internet had stated that one copy was for his beginning Latin students and he would not transcribe it into any other language, so that is why I presumed that they were all Latin. Thanks for telling me otherwise.

[jan]

Thanks for the correction, Marcus. I appreciate that as I was just reading some of Norman F. Cantor's book on Alexander and I suspect that I was making a blanket statement since he points out that it is Curtius who writes in the Latin. I appreciate learning the truth about the others, as I did not know that until you pointed it out.Norman F. Cantor is apparently Jewish as he makes lots of references that would target a Jewish audience in his book. I had just found a book by Aurel Stein, who is British, don't know if he is Jewish or not, who wrote about the trek into the Indus. It was published in the 30's long before Michael Woods, but it has illustrations of many Buddhist ruins in the same area in which Alexander and his troops marched. He discusses in great detail the mountains of the region that Alexander and his hardy Macedonians reached and climbed, and it is most fascinating to read his account. Michael Wood did write a commentary for this book which is now available at a local bookstore here in Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. It is on Cactus Road across from PVMall. Just in case any Arizonans may read this and want to find a copy.Every version I have read of any of the original sources has been in English, translated, and I had had the impression that they were in Latin. One such group at the internet had stated that one copy was for his beginning Latin students and he would not transcribe it into any other language, so that is why I presumed that they were all Latin. Thanks for telling me otherwise.