pothos.org

I know there must have been some kind of reason but why?

aleksandros wrote:I know there must have been some kind of reason but why?

I would say that it was less a case of it "going" to Damascus, and more of a case of it being left there as the Persian army continued. Damascus was the nearest large town to the plain where the Persians initially gathered, before going through the mountains to where the battle was finally fought - I imagine.

ATB

r u sure? the persian army went up through mesopotamia, Damascus is not on the way to Issus. One has to make a big arch and head 400km south to reach Damascus. If Darius was coming from Egypt to Issus it would make more sense. Well maybe they all together marched towards the mediteranean and when they realized Alexander is near they dismissed the treasure to Damascus...

aleksandros wrote:r u sure? the persian army went up through mesopotamia, Damascus is not on the way to Issus. One has to make a big arch and head 400km south to reach Damascus. If Darius was coming from Egypt to Issus it would make more sense. Well maybe they all together marched towards the mediteranean and when they realized Alexander is near they dismissed the treasure to Damascus...

There's nothing that says that the army followed the Euphrates right up to where, say, Aleppo is. I could quite easily imagine that Darius turned west from the Euphrates and came to Damascus, then continued with the mountains on his left flank until he reached the area where he imagined to do battle.

I don't know about the relative sizes of cities in the region - but I can't see any other reason why Damascus would have been chosen, especially as it was about 200 miles from Issus.

ATB

Oh that cant be done. You cant go eg from babylon straight to Damascus or Egypt or Sidon with a large army cause there is a desert between. You have to follow the course i said, from Susa to babylon up to northern Iraq and then west along the Turkey-Syria borders to the mediteranean where Issus lies. Or you can follow a more direct course along the Euphrates.

aleksandros wrote:Oh that cant be done. You cant go eg from babylon straight to Damascus or Egypt or Sidon with a large army cause there is a desert between. You have to follow the course i said, from Susa to babylon up to northern Iraq and then west along the Turkey-Syria borders to the mediteranean where Issus lies. Or you can follow a more direct course along the Euphrates.

In 331, Alexander headed straight across Northern Mesopotamia towards Arbela, with a large army, and most definitely not sticking to the course of the Euphrates - even though to do so would have taken him straight to Babylon; so I'm not sure I can possibly agree with "Oh, that can't be done".

I haven't got a map in front of me at the moment, to be able to look at it closely. But if anyone else can come up with another more plausible explanation for why the baggage was sent to Damascus, I'm all agog.

ATB

this is a matter of geography and i wonder why you insist since you have no map?
download google earth. and watch closely Alexander's route from egypt to babylon and spot where the desert lies, where issus is, where Damascus and where babylon.

Darius route is along the Euphrates as Curtius states that he crossed it at Thapsacus, which is north of Sochoi.

The reason the baggage was sent to Damascus is that that lay in the direction which Darius planned to move after crushing Alexander; it was not a case of dropping it off so much as sending it ahead where it could be picked up. Darius clearly foresaw that Phoenicia was restless and the Royal prescence was required to reaffirm his overlordship. My opinion only,but witness the prompt collapse of the region after Issos, no resistance offered.

aleksandros wrote:this is a matter of geography and i wonder why you insist since you have no map?

I stand corrected, having now looked at the map. Thank you!

I do accept that my mental picture of the geography was wrong - and Agesilaos has also clarified the Persian movement (assuming he took that from Arrian or Curtius?). However, I still don't buy the "it can't be done" - as I said, Alexander struck out across Northern Mesopotamia only 2 years later, without sticking to the rivers.

ATB

Agesilaos these sound pretty reasonable. thank you

Marcus the rivers were not the problem. An army goes the way with the most resourses. West of the Euphrates there is the syrian desert so one must cross the rivers up north to avoid the desert.

aleksandros wrote:Agesilaos these sound pretty reasonable. thank you

Marcus the rivers were not the problem. An army goes the way with the most resourses. West of the Euphrates there is the syrian desert so one must cross the rivers up north to avoid the desert.

Yes, I am aware of that. My point was that, unless I am very much mistaken, Alexander took his army between the rivers in the north of Mesopotamia, where Darius was operating a scorched earth policy - so there weren't the resources there, either.

ATB

If I remember my Engels correctly Alexander took the Persian military road which ran straight between the rivers 'He then proceeded north and east , keeping the Euphrates and the mountains of Armenia on his left, through Mesopotamia; for once accross the river he preferred not to followthe direct route to Babylon, as by this other route supplies of all sorts, including fodder for the horses, would be more readily available;...' Arrian III 7 (only have the penguin to hand).

Darius had employed his scorched earth to the direct route and neglected the more northerly one. It was the direct route from Babylon to Thapsacus he had employed.

Marcus I get the fact that Darius crossed at Thapsacus from Curtius but the reason for sending the baggage to Damascus is my own surmise though based on the reasonable assumption that Darius expected to win.

agesilaos wrote:If I remember my Engels correctly Alexander took the Persian military road which ran straight between the rivers 'He then proceeded north and east , keeping the Euphrates and the mountains of Armenia on his left, through Mesopotamia; for once accross the river he preferred not to followthe direct route to Babylon, as by this other route supplies of all sorts, including fodder for the horses, would be more readily available;...' Arrian III 7 (only have the penguin to hand).

Darius had employed his scorched earth to the direct route and neglected the more northerly one. It was the direct route from Babylon to Thapsacus he had employed.

Marcus I get the fact that Darius crossed at Thapsacus from Curtius but the reason for sending the baggage to Damascus is my own surmise though based on the reasonable assumption that Darius expected to win.

Although Engels can only be surmising this, because I don't think it is specifically described in any of the sources. I might be wrong, though.

I'm not sure about the scorched earth policy - but would need to check that.

Yes, I realise you were making your own hypothesis about the Damascus bit. Once I realised I was in error geographically, I would have come to the same conclusion, so I certainly agree with you there.

ATB

Perhaps my post was a bit confusing, the Arrian quote is describing the course of the Persian road also known from Herodotos, I think, and other sources; though my post reads as if he followed the road then turned NE Arrian is describing Alexander's route from Thapsacus. Also looking at the initial posting of the thread it must be remembered that it was not Darius' BOOTY but his BAGGAGE that went to Damascus and subsequently became Alexander's booty.

his baggage was near the battlefield. thats where the royal family was.