pothos.org

I bring this topic up as I had further reflections watching Cleopatra. I refer to the Naval and idiotic battle by Mark Anthony at Actium. He was a good miltary commander and had some good Roman Legions. Yet he chose to fight Octavian at sea. With disasterous results.

Was he so taken in By Cleoptras Alexandrian dreams that he did such a crazy thing. He fought so predictable that Agrippa lulled him into a trap. Its the same old. Same old about how some Roman Generals were indeed predictable.

So my point is was Alexander at all a naval commander. We know he took to his ships at Tyre and throughly understood the Imporatance of a Fleet. By the way he Neutralised the Persian Fleet and the Importance of his fleet acompanying his march Across the Makran. I think if need be he would command a fleet and even win a naval engagement.

To conclude with the Roman predictability at time and Alexander been impossible to predict. Goes that extra yard in assuming Alexander would take the Romans at any time.

Kenny

jasonxx wrote:I bring this topic up as I had further reflections watching Cleopatra. I refer to the Naval and idiotic battle by Mark Anthony at Actium. He was a good miltary commander and had some good Roman Legions. Yet he chose to fight Octavian at sea. With disasterous results.

Was he so taken in By Cleoptras Alexandrian dreams that he did such a crazy thing. He fought so predictable that Agrippa lulled him into a trap. Its the same old. Same old about how some Roman Generals were indeed predictable.

So my point is was Alexander at all a naval commander. We know he took to his ships at Tyre and throughly understood the Imporatance of a Fleet. By the way he Neutralised the Persian Fleet and the Importance of his fleet acompanying his march Across the Makran. I think if need be he would command a fleet and even win a naval engagement.

To conclude with the Roman predictability at time and Alexander been impossible to predict. Goes that extra yard in assuming Alexander would take the Romans at any time.

Kenny

Hi Kenny,

Although you are right that Alexander used ships at Tyre, and he had done also at Miletus (and to a much lesser extent at Halicarnassus), he never really gave us the opportunity to assess his ability as a naval commander. There was some naval action at Tyre, but not really a sea battle as such. And, as we know, he basically disbanded his Aegean fleet when he realised that there wasn't much he could do with it (and once he had the Phoenicians on his side there was no-one he would have needed to fight).

It's quite possible that he would have been as good on sea as on land - but whether that's the case we'll never know. Perhaps, had he gone up against Carthage, he would have found out.

ATB

What an interesting discussion! Alexander did in fact recognize the importance of a fleet (note the responsibility he gave to commanders Nicanor and Nearchus). Naval battles involve a different strategy and there is a different dynamic than in land battles. Unquestionably, Alexander's fearlessness inspired his land troops; could that fearlessness transfer to a naval battle?

Carthage may have been the greatest naval power of the region but let's not forget that Rome did in fact destroy the Carthaginian fleet after they discovered a beached ship, copied its design and then invented a hook that would enable Roman ships to run alongside, secure the enemy and allow Roman land troops to jump onto the other ship where their superior martial skills would win the battle.

There is no reason to think that Alexander could not have been as creative. Thoughts?