pothos.org

In various history books and on the web, there are conflicting accounts or heated debates about who the "greatest" conqueror or military commander/general was. Based on my readings of the more military-based books by Theodore Dodge, J.F.C. Fuller, Peter G. Tsouras, Donald Engels, and Warry/Sekunda, it would seem that Alexander is viewed very favorably compared to the "competition" that came after Alexander. One thing I notice often is that Genghis Khan is mentioned as the greatest because of the sheer size that the Mongols subjugated and how much longer it lasted under the offsprings of the great Khan. Indeed, at its height under GK's grandson Kublai Khan, the Mongol empire was around 5 times the size of Alexander's. But does that make Genghis Khan the "greatest"?

I've read my share of books about Genghis Khan (including the recent 'Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World' by Jack Weatherford) and he is certanily a fascinating figure, but GK is probably even more of a mysterious and unknown figure than Alexander is when it comes to facts. Compared to the rather detailed info we have about the structure of the Macedonian army and Alexander's campaigns, the bits of info on GK's army and tactics are scattered and scanty at best. The Mongols in GK's time and afterwards were illiterates, so there simply isn't much info that survived on paper, only word of mouth. GK's army had no infantry to speak of. GK himself wasn't physically courageous and despised the sight of blood, as did most Mongols. They were almost entirely about archers on cavalry. And yet they wiped out opponents stretching from Korea to the borders of Austria. It's hard to make sense of it and my research into how they did it doesn't supply satisfactory info.

In any case, what GK accomplished and the effects of the Mongol empire can't be denied. Still, I can't help but roll my eyes when reading books and stuff on the web that seem to exaggerate what GK accomplished and that it is the "greatest" empire of all time. Mainly, they talk about the sheer size and how quickly it was conquered. By land mass, it does indeed dwarf Alexander's empire or the Roman. Okay, good enough. But then these GK fanboys would go on about how the Mongol army would have destroyed Alexander's army or the Roman legions. Hmmm... We're talking about an era some 1500~1600 years after Alexander's time in a totally different environment. And yes, Napoleon or Hitler's army would have blitzed GK's... I just don't see how people could make direct comparisons of figures who are separated by so many centuries and so many miles. The achievements have to be examined and analyzed in the context of the times, the geography, and political situations of the surrounding areas.

I don't know how many of you have really looked into the other great conquerors and military leaders of history. Besides Alexander, I've done a good deal of research on Caesar, Napoleon, and quite a lot on Genghis Khan. I haven't been able to muster too much interest in Napoleon yet but I figure that will happen soon enough. I'm really not keen on the fighting techniques of that era (including the American Revolutionary War), but I do want to learn more about that whole era because it was a fascinating time that dramatically and profoundly shaped the Western world we now live in. So what are your thoughts when you compare Alexander to the likes of Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon or other great military commanders like Hannibal? BTW, here's a list of the 100 most "influential" military leaders of all time:

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_mil ... ilitary100

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/intro.html

alexkhan hi.

Indeed, at its height under GK's grandson Kublai Khan, the Mongol empire was around 5 times the size of Alexander's.

Yes, but with vast deserts and unpopulated areas, and areas with nomadic tribes. Alexander was just not interested in these areas. Thus when he fought the skythians and knew that in the north there were just areas with tribes like this he chose to go to where the kingdoms were.

Alexander also never lost a battle. And had the greatest stategical mind, which is what makes him the greater conqueror from the rest. Plus the fact that he did what he did when he was 20, and for some 12 years he conquered the Persian Empire and more.

And maybe to the "greatest" also can apply his attitude towards the people he conquered. He was probably the more gentle.

Efstathios wrote:alexkhan hi.

Indeed, at its height under GK's grandson Kublai Khan, the Mongol empire was around 5 times the size of Alexander's.

Yes, but with vast deserts and unpopulated areas, and areas with nomadic tribes. Alexander was just not interested in these areas. Thus when he fought the skythians and knew that in the north there were just areas with tribes like this he chose to go to where the kingdoms were.

Alexander also never lost a battle. And had the greatest stategical mind, which is what makes him the greater conqueror from the rest. Plus the fact that he did what he did when he was 20, and for some 12 years he conquered the Persian Empire and more.

And maybe to the "greatest" also can apply his attitude towards the people he conquered. He was probably the more gentle.

I totally agree with you. I'm simply pointing out what Alexander detractors or Genghis Khan supporters tend to bring up when comparing these great conquerors. As I said, I looked quite a bit into GK but just couldn't dig up enough that really impressed or inspired me as Alexander has or even Julius Caesar. The information on GK varies wildly but what is known for sure is that he (and his offsprings) slaughtered innocent human beings on an unimaginable scale - possibly millions.

As you said, there was a lot of empty territory that GK and his hordes ran over. Each Mongol cavalry soldier traveled with 3 or more horses, so they had to live off the steppes for the horses to graze during their campaigns - no grazing land, no conquest. There is justified speculation that the Mongols stopped any further penetration into Europe because the European terrain (very mountainous with a lot of forests) was totally unsuited for their style of warfare.

I agree that the most substantial difference of Alexander compared to the other great conquerors is that he never lost a battle. That means that there wasn't a match for Alexander's army at it's day, unlike the armies of the other conquerors.

I agree the Khan was great and deserves reckognition.

However most of GKs enemies were beaten befor a battle through Shear terror. Massed Monghul Cavalry against Disciplined formeative Infantry. Debatable. And measure for Measure Alexanders Cavalry were equal if not better than any cavalry in history.

I would argue Alexander would have problems with the shear numbers of Monguls but in my opinion only that. And would be pretty sure hed think his way round it. However in Alexanders latter days when he had the wealth and Resources of armies etc due to his conquests Im pretty sure he could muster an army big enough and tactically organised to crush the Khan.

One thing Alexander didnt really need was huge numbers and above all he wouldnt have been scared or intimidated by the Monghuls.

Many have argued about Mionghul Cavalry and Numbers. I liken it to the Huge Cavalry Charge in Lord Of the Rings.

The Tactical experts in Pothos thoroughly understand that the Orcs only had to drop Sarrisas and hold Formation for the Rohan Charge to Grind to a halt. Alexander need basically to hold formation and resist Mongul outflanking.

Alexander is without doubt the Greatest Military Minded strategically gifted general there ever was

Alexander Was and remains the Foremost of military commanders

kenny

alexkhan2000 wrote:In various history books and on the web, there are conflicting accounts or heated debates about who the "greatest" conqueror or military commander/general was. Based on my readings of the more military-based books by Theodore Dodge, J.F.C. Fuller, Peter G. Tsouras, Donald Engels, and Warry/Sekunda, it would seem that Alexander is viewed very favorably compared to the "competition" that came after Alexander.
(snipped)
BTW, here's a list of the 100 most "influential" military leaders of all time:

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_mil ... ilitary100

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/intro.html

I thought the list of 100 most influential military leaders was very interesting. Alexander only third - how can this be?
I liked the way the compiler of the list had tried to cover all ages and places - even both genders, glad to see Joan of Arc in there! But I thought it was a bit biased towards the 19th and 20th centuries, and towards Americans and people who fought Americans. I was surprised not to see the first Chinese emperor in there - I am sorry, I always forget his name, because you see it transliterated so many different ways, no one of them sticks in my memory, but the one with the Terracotta army, who united his country. Surely he ranks higher than Saddam Hussein! And where's Pyrrhus? I love Pyrrhus, I always feel he was Alexander's spiritual heir.
I would never have put Napoleon higher than Alexander, let alone George Washington. But the list is not saying 'the greatest' but the 'most influential', and if by that they mean having the most influence on the world as it is now, then that might go some way to explaining the reasoning behind the choices.
One thing that strikes me is how very difficult it is to compare these leaders, in their very different situations. I can imagine a lot of them - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, in particluar - saying with a loud, "Humph!" that it was all right for Alexander, he didn't have to answer to political masters back home. It must make a huge difference to your capacities, if you have complete executive, as well as military, power. You can basically do whatever you like, constrained only by immediate circumstances.
That freedom of action is something that the Great Khan and Alexander had in common, so they are quite a fair comparison in that respect. But you yourself, Ed, pointed to a very good reason why Alexander is greater when you said that the mountainous, forested terrians did not suit the Mongols' style of fighting. Alexander could, and did, cope with any terrian, however much it was previously unknown to him. On that count, I think, he beats the Khan.
It is hard to compare leaders across centuries, fighting different enemies with very different weapons. But it is great fun to wonder, how would Napoleon have coped with Pir-Sar? Or what would Alexander have done at Gettysburg? (On either side!) For me, in these imaginary games, Alexander always comes out best.

Fiona

Fiona wrote: I thought the list of 100 most influential military leaders was very interesting. Alexander only third - how can this be?
I liked the way the compiler of the list had tried to cover all ages and places - even both genders, glad to see Joan of Arc in there! But I thought it was a bit biased towards the 19th and 20th centuries, and towards Americans and people who fought Americans. I was surprised not to see the first Chinese emperor in there - I am sorry, I always forget his name, because you see it transliterated so many different ways, no one of them sticks in my memory, but the one with the Terracotta army, who united his country. Surely he ranks higher than Saddam Hussein! And where's Pyrrhus? I love Pyrrhus, I always feel he was Alexander's spiritual heir.
I would never have put Napoleon higher than Alexander, let alone George Washington. But the list is not saying 'the greatest' but the 'most influential', and if by that they mean having the most influence on the world as it is now, then that might go some way to explaining the reasoning behind the choices.
One thing that strikes me is how very difficult it is to compare these leaders, in their very different situations. I can imagine a lot of them - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, in particluar - saying with a loud, "Humph!" that it was all right for Alexander, he didn't have to answer to political masters back home. It must make a huge difference to your capacities, if you have complete executive, as well as military, power. You can basically do whatever you like, constrained only by immediate circumstances.
That freedom of action is something that the Great Khan and Alexander had in common, so they are quite a fair comparison in that respect. But you yourself, Ed, pointed to a very good reason why Alexander is greater when you said that the mountainous, forested terrians did not suit the Mongols' style of fighting. Alexander could, and did, cope with any terrian, however much it was previously unknown to him. On that count, I think, he beats the Khan.
It is hard to compare leaders across centuries, fighting different enemies with very different weapons. But it is great fun to wonder, how would Napoleon have coped with Pir-Sar? Or what would Alexander have done at Gettysburg? (On either side!) For me, in these imaginary games, Alexander always comes out best.

Fiona

Yes, such lists are interesting as food for thought but that's about as far as it goes. Yes, it says "Most Influential" although even the terma "influential" is subject to interpretation. Washington was hardly a tactical innovator or even a great military commander. Here's the link to article about Washington from the same list:

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/wash.html

I think when you get to the top 5 or top 10 of "all time" in lists like these, it's hard to say one's "better" or "greater" than the other. It's like comparing Bach, Mozart and Beethoven or Homer, Dante and Shakespeare, etc. Still, as you say, some objective comparisons can be made. We just have to remember to take into account their eras, envrionments, the technologies, resources, etc. to make the comparisons. If Alexander had the technologies and all the knowledge accumulated up to the time of Genghis Khan's era some 1500 years later, how would he have fared? If Alexander faced the Roman legions some 150~170 years after his time, would the Macedonian army still have been using the unwieldy sarissas against the nimble legionaires?

Alexander certainly showed his adaptability throughout his marathon campaign. By the end of it, he showed that he was the master of the three areas of warfare at that time: big scale set-piece battles, the sieges, and guerilla warfare. It would have been interesting to see how he did as a naval commander although naval manuevers during that age was severely limited. It is well known that one of the plans before he died was to build a fleet of a thousand warships to conquer Arabia and Carthage (nothern Africa) and perhaps even extend into Spain, Italy and Britain. He just didn't seem interested in building a navy during the Persian campaign and his strategy of simply capturing the Persian bases and ports was brilliant and rather matter-of-fact at the same time (like - "Why didn't I think of that?").

It's also fun to wonder what if Alexander's soldiers enthusiastically followed him beyond Hyphasis deeper into India. Just how far would he have gone? I've read conflicting things about how the inland kingdoms were much stronger than what Alexander had faced until then or that they were even weaker than Porus's kingdom and army. Either way, I just get the sense that Alexander would have kept rolling on - after all, the Battle of Hydaspes was Alexander's masterpiece as far as set-piece battles are concerned. He was still improving as a battle commander, strategist and tactician. It's as though he needed war because that's what he was simply the very best at. But after he conquered India, would he have kept going through the jungles of southeast Asia (what is now Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam) and then venture into China? Even if Alexander kept rolling over new kingdom after kingdom, such an expedition would have consumed another 15~20 years. It would have gotten to the point where things simply got ungovernable and unmanageable from a practical standpoint. Fun to ponder...

Ed

To place Napoleon Higher than anyone as a Commander particullaly Alexander to me is folly and a joke.. ok the guy was a master Tactician and battle winner.

but from pretty early on wellington had the better of him... Wellington basically did to Napoleon what Scipio did to the Overated Carthaginian.

Napoleon was a very expensive commander in relation to troops he lost. He got trapped in Egypt for Months and had to sneak out. Ok Russia was relative to Alexanders Makran.

If Napoleon was a great general I would say he should have taken Alexanders writings literally and learned From Makran before Marching hundres of tousands of troops to Moscow and back. Look at Napoleons overall record and to me personally it looks a little cowboyish.


Alexander never made the Multitude of Cock ups Napoleon made. No military Commander excelled in so many different field of battle as Alexander. As mentioned would Alexander have still used the Pike sarrisas against following Roman Legions. Alexander was the master of Adaption. The Army that left macedonia with Alexander was far changed and ready for all types of action. He created hit and run. Light aemed hunter units.

The Guy was the Sugar ray Robinson of Commanders the greatest All rounder.

Kenny

To place Napoleon Higher than anyone as a Commander particullaly Alexander to me is folly and a joke.. ok the guy was a master Tactician and battle winner.

but from pretty early on wellington had the better of him... Wellington basically did to Napoleon what Scipio did to the Overated Carthaginian.

Napoleon was a very expensive commander in relation to troops he lost. He got trapped in Egypt for Months and had to sneak out. Ok Russia was relative to Alexanders Makran.

If Napoleon was a great general I would say he should have taken Alexanders writings literally and learned From Makran before Marching hundres of tousands of troops to Moscow and back. Look at Napoleons overall record and to me personally it looks a little cowboyish.


Alexander never made the Multitude of Cock ups Napoleon made. No military Commander excelled in so many different field of battle as Alexander. As mentioned would Alexander have still used the Pike sarrisas against following Roman Legions. Alexander was the master of Adaption. The Army that left macedonia with Alexander was far changed and ready for all types of action. He created hit and run. Light aemed hunter units.

The Guy was the Sugar ray Robinson of Commanders the greatest All rounder.

Kenny

Hi there,

I agree with most comments, especially with the fact that Alexander excelled at every type of (land) war and that he was fully adaptable.

The argument that he never lost a battle, though true and remarkable, could be rebutted by some (not me) who claim his opponents were weak or that the Macedonians had a technological advantage (phalanx, sarissae, tactics) that made them overwhelmingly superior but that would have dwindled as the others caught up (those people would say that is exactly what happened in the Hellenistic period, where battles were much more evenly balanced; but here I would just reply that Alex´s adaptability would have still given him the edge).

Last, but by not means least, Alexander surpasses Caesar, GK, Napoleon and (obviously) Washington because he did his campaigns BEFORE all of them. That means that all the others learnt from Alexander (even today West Point teaches Alexander´s tactics, I heard). I guess this is an important topic that is rarely raised in these kind of comparisons, and I consider it to be even more important that the technological differences in military equipment between eras (swords v bullets, horses v tanks or catapults v artillery).

Just my thoughts.

All the best,
Alejandro

alejandro wrote:Last, but by not means least, Alexander surpasses Caesar, GK, Napoleon and (obviously) Washington because he did his campaigns BEFORE all of them. That means that all the others learnt from Alexander (even today West Point teaches Alexander´s tactics, I heard). I guess this is an important topic that is rarely raised in these kind of comparisons, and I consider it to be even more important that the technological differences in military equipment between eras (swords v bullets, horses v tanks or catapults v artillery).

Yes, West Point does teach Alexander tactics and has done for a long time, although obviously he's not the only great military leader whose battles and tactics are taught there. However, he features in Great Captains before Napoleon which was written by United States Military Academy staff, the earliest version of which is, I believe, 1943. He's also included in Leadership: The Warrior's Art published by the Army War College Foundation Press,

Further to this, Theodore Ayrault Dodge was a graduate of West Point and his book inspired J.F.C. Fuller to write The Generalship of Alexander the Great which is required reading at the West Point Command and General Staff School. And Alexander is one of many great generals featured in a mural of the Decisive Battles of the World which hangs in the mess hall at West Point. You might be surprised to see the names of the people we are told are in the mural - I'm not even familiar with all of them or their battles - but it's good to see that Cyrus is also there.

Best regards,

jasonxx wrote:I agree the Khan was great and deserves reckognition.

However most of GKs enemies were beaten befor a battle through Shear terror. Massed Monghul Cavalry against Disciplined formeative Infantry. Debatable. And measure for Measure Alexanders Cavalry were equal if not better than any cavalry in history.

I would argue Alexander would have problems with the shear numbers of Monguls but in my opinion only that. And would be pretty sure hed think his way round it. However in Alexanders latter days when he had the wealth and Resources of armies etc due to his conquests Im pretty sure he could muster an army big enough and tactically organised to crush the Khan.

One thing Alexander didnt really need was huge numbers and above all he wouldnt have been scared or intimidated by the Monghuls.

Many have argued about Mionghul Cavalry and Numbers. I liken it to the Huge Cavalry Charge in Lord Of the Rings.

The Tactical experts in Pothos thoroughly understand that the Orcs only had to drop Sarrisas and hold Formation for the Rohan Charge to Grind to a halt. Alexander need basically to hold formation and resist Mongul outflanking.

Alexander is without doubt the Greatest Military Minded strategically gifted general there ever was

Alexander Was and remains the Foremost of military commanders

kenny

Alexander vs. Genghis Khan

Now I would have paid top dollar to see that!

I tell you; GK was a very shrewd and wily strategist and tactician. I believe Alexander would have found GK to be a very respectable and worthy opponent and "enjoyed" fighting against him. Alexander would have had to adapt and use the technologies (stirrups and saddles for the cavalry, for example) and tactics developed over 1500 years after Alexander's time, but if all those things were considered equal, I think Alexander would have out-smarted GK after taking some initial pounding from GK's ruthlessly efficient mounted archers.

GK also used a lot of feigned retreats to lure the enemies into a trap and then surround them to shower missiles on them. This would have been the main tactic of GK's that Alexander would have needed to be aware and wary of. As mentioned earlier, GK's cavalry soldier each had numerous horses that they would change during their manuevers so they'd have fresh horses to ride at the critical moments. The European cavalry horses, weighed down by heavy armor, had a short time in which they could be at their full speed. GK and the Mongols knew this and used it to their full advantage. When their horses ran out of steam, they were toast and got slaughtered by the Mongols.

The Mongol formations were sometimes as wide as 25 miles over vast plains! They didn't travel in a long baggage train manner. They had no infantry and no trains to encumber them. They were very efficient at living off the land and that's why they were able to cover so much territory so fast. Since each cavalry soldier had 3 or more horses, they lived off the horse for milk and cheese and even their blood if they had trouble finding fresh water. They were extremely well disciplined, the best horse riders at the time with more emphasis on manueverability and endurance than just speed, and also the most efficient archers while in full speed cavalry motion. GK's army would have presented numerous problems and challenges for Alexander.

From a distance, the approaching Mongol army would have indeed seemed like a huge horde of locusts! Imagine a cavalry formation approaching that stretches to either side as far as your eyes can see. Since each cavalry soldier had 3 or more horses, the approaching contingent of 100,000 would have seemed like 300,000 or more. If an opposing army faced GK and his horde of a cavalry in a vast open field with normal infantry and cavalry positions, they would have been surrounded in an instant with missiles falling on them from all directions. If they tried to chase the Mongols, they would have run out of gas and be stranded, getting surrounded again by fresh Mongol cavalry. You look at the GK and Mongol tactics and it's easy to envision why they were so successful.

Alexander would have had to try to neutralize fighting the Mongols at their own game. Like he did at Guagamela, he would have had to try to do anything possible from getting outflanked and surrounded. When you think about it, what Darius tried to do at Guagamela isn't that much different from how the Mongols operated. The tactical square formation and stretching the flanks would have proved effective but Alexander would have needed a way to better neutralize the Mongol mounted archers and their constant barrage of arrows from all directions. Infantry formations were typically like sitting ducks to GK and the Mongols. Alexander would have had to have a more flexible and nimble infantry without the sarissas as well as catapults and other missiles to repulse the initial wave of the Mongol charge.

As we all know, Alexander relied a lot on reconnaissance to assess the enemies before the battles. Assuming Alexander would have done the same with an approaching Mongol horde led by GK, I think he would have found a way to win. GK would have been unlike anything Alexander himself faced in his lifetime, but I think Alexander would have figured out what the weaknesses of the Mongols were and then attack them while somehow holding off their strength. The key would have been for Alexander to not be lured into the various traps and encircling manuevers that the Mongols would engage in. Endurance would have been another important factor as GK's cavalry horde wouldn't have the normal left-center-right type of formation of ancient armies. GK's cavalry was indeed often like a formless horde that was very fluid in motion. Alexander would have needed to adapt and exploit the weaknesses of the Mongols while utilizing his strengths. Somehow, I believe, he would have found a way. The Mongols did lose some major battles (although very few) during their campaigns, so they were certainly not invincible. It would certainly have been the clash of the titans, but I'd have to say Alexander, after absorbing some initial pounding, foils Mongol's surrounding manuevers, penetrates and divides or scatters their formations with his own brilliant cavalry tactics, and uses the infantry and artillery of various types to post a decisive victory in the end.

Ed

I'm not sure if these have been posted here already, but here are some interesting and detailed articles about three of the four Alexander's set piece battle victories on historynet.com:

The Battle of Granicus

http://www.historynet.com/historical_fi ... 36426.html

The Battle of Issus

http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflict ... 37521.html

The Battle of Hydaspes (actually about the conquests down the Indus)

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mil ... 27066.html

Enjoy!

I think one needs to be careful in what they read. I scrolled over the “Issus” link and, to me, there are some indications of errors of understanding in the article. The author, Harry J Maihafer, discusses the nature of the Macedonian invasion and terms it “panhellenic”. While he rightly goes on to indicate that this was a nice propagandising overlay, he writes this zinger:

The Greeks had forgotten neither the sacrileges committed against the temples of their gods nor the humiliating settlement that had ceded the Hellenic cities of Asia Minor to Persia's "Great King."

Now, the only “settlement” Mr Maihafer can be referring to would be the peace of Antalcidas, otherwise known as the “King’s Peace”. Humiliating indeed and, left unsaid, the direct result of the Spartan alliance with Persia to guarantee a win over Athens in the Peloponnesian War and underwrite its hegemony. The Athens that Mr Maihafer describes with “while a center of wisdom and culture, had never been able to sustain a dominant role politically or militarily”. It had, in fact, done quite well in that regard for some seventy years I’d have thought. There was no “King’s Peace” under the Delian League/Athenian Empire. Certainly the Greeks of Asia Minor were not under the King’s heel.

To read Mr Maihafer’s single sentence one could be forgiven that the King had imposed a “humiliating settlement” upon the Greeks at the close of the Persian wars.

Others pepper the first page. The battle of Chaeronea seems to have been re-written also:

He (Alexander) was a splendid student and a gifted athlete, and at the age of 18 at the Battle of Chaeronea on September 1, 338 BC, he had fought heroically while commanding Macedonia's finest cavalry unit. It was an Alexander-led cavalry charge that broke the Thebian line and exposed the Athenian flank and rear, leading to an overwhelming Macedonian victory and the "conquering" of the Greek city-states.

I believe, on the scant information that survives, that it was his father, Philip II, who shattered the Athenian phalanx and created the gap in the allied line for the “splendid student and gifted athlete” to attack.

The ultimate first page clanger is, though, the reference to the battle at the Granicus. In the true Hellenocentric spirit, the Persian satraps are removed from the field:

Now, at Gordium in 333 BC, Alexander could look back on a year of solid triumph. Only once had he faced serious opposition, and that was at the Granicus River, where he had convincingly defeated an army led by Memnon, a Greek general fighting for Persia.

Led by indeed. It appears that at the conference near Zeleia, Aristes, Arsames, Rheomithres, Petines, Niphares and Spithridates decided that they were unworthy of leading the satrapal army into a battle the Great King will have ordered to take place and handed overall control to the Greek. News to me.

Be careful what you read: it may lead you astray.

Just on which alexkhan2000, on this (or another thread) you mentioned you'd not read the ancient Alexander historians. Perhaps you might? It would help when reading such articles as the Maihafer one. Arrian is no turgid read. He is no prize winning author to be sure but still quite readable. Ditto Diodorus - especially when "following" Hieronymus' post Alexander narrative.

Well, I looked at Peter G. Tsouras' contribution to the site, Wars of Alexander the Great: Battle of the Hydaspes River. It's not bad; the reason being that the writer mostly paraphrases Arrian. Here's an excerpt from his piece:

As Tulambo was falling, Alexander heard that another Mallian force was concentrating at a city of the Brahmins (modern Atari). Again he marched quickly, encircled it with his infantry, and drove the defenders from the walls to their citadel with a deluge of missiles. The Macedonians immediately began sapping the walls. As at Agalassa, the cornered Indians fought manfully, killing 25 Macedonians who had forced their way into the citadel through a breach. A tower, then the adjoining curtain wall, collapsed.

Alexander bounded through the rubble to mount the broken base of the wall. For agonizing moments, he held the breach alone against the Indians. For the first time, the Macedonians had not rushed where he led. Finally, impelled by shame, small groups came forward to join their king and break into the citadel. This time 5,000 Mallians died fighting as they set fire to their own houses. Subsequent events would show that the commander did not fail to note how his Macedonians had hung back, even momentarily.

And here's Arrian:

Arrian 6.7.4-6 Alexander himself was now advancing against a city of the Brachmanes, as he had learned that some of the Mallians had taken refuge there too. On arrival, he led his phalanx in close formation on all sides up to the wall. When they saw their walls undermined, and were pushed back by the missiles, they too deserted the walls and took refuge in the citadel where they continued their defence. A few Macedonians broke in with them, whereupon they turned round, formed a solid mass and drove out the attackers, killing about twenty-five while they attempted to withdraw. At this point Alexander ordered ladders to be set up on all sides against the citadel, and the wall to be undermined. When a tower was undermined and fell, and a breach in part of the curtain wall made the citadel easier of assault on that side, Alexander was the first to mount the wall and was seen holding it. At the sight, the rest of the Macedonians mounted, out of shame, one here and one there. And by this time the citadel was in their hands; some of the Indians set fire to their houses, and perished imprisoned in them, but most of them died fighting. Up to five thousand in all fell, but such was their courage that few were captured alive.

In essence, the article reads as if Tsouras was given an assignment to relate Arrian's version "in your own words." However, Arrian is mentioned only twice in the piece and there's no source reference at the end!

Best regards,