pothos.org

Can anyone explain whether Darius was smart to flee from battle? Or was his flight an act of cowardice? How did his flight affect his troops? Is it credible for him to have met Alexander heads on while in a chariot?

Hi Jan -I think this is a very good question. And yes, I think it was the right thing to do for Darius. (Others might disagree, I know.) During the days of the Persian empire there was nothing like nationalism, chauvinism nor the concept of the territorial nation state. There was just one sole factor that kept the huge empire together: the King. And within that context the succes of any battle was determined by one single factor: "the King must live". And that was what Darius understood very well.If Darius had not fled at Issus, the Persian empire would have collapsed in 333 BC. If Darius had not fled at Gaugamela, the empire would have collapsed in October 331 BC. But Darius' 'cowardly' moves prolonged the existance of Persia until July 330 BC. That is your answer.Regards -
Nick

Thank you, Nick, for satisfying my curiosity. I had somehow or other thought that retreat was smart of Darius also. You have convinced me.

Hi NickYour answer makes sense to me. I guess the same could have been said of ATG - thus making his exploits on the battlefield all the more remarkable. There was a fine line wasn't there between having the King's presence on the battlefield, and the obvious moral boost to the troops,and the risk of losing him. English Kings fought alongside their men, I think I'm correct in saying, until Bosworth (1415?).Chris

Hi Chris -
You might consider that both Alexander and Philip were effective 'warrior' kings, while Darius presence had a far more symbolic, ritual meaning.

Battlefield positions alone reveal this difference. Alexander was leading the attack in the front line; Darius was in the center of the army, his position probably visible to as many of his men as possible, his war chariot designed to have his figure 'towering' above the masses as the central point of focus. Two entirely different 'styles of war' clashed at both Issus and Gaugamela.

You might say that Alexander and Philip fought "with" their men, while the Persian army operated "under" Darius.

Regards -
Nick

I also don't think that he was a coward. He must have fled only after his bodyguard was defeated. Since Alex was close enough to charge directly at him this must mean that all the men between the two men were slain.The death of Alexander does not necessarily mean the defeat of the army. Remember Xenophon and the 10000?

Bosworth was 1485 - but, in fact, although English kings are not generally known to have fought alongside their men after that, one of the Georges (George II, I think) was the last English king to lead his troops in battle (some time in the 18th century, but I forget exactly when and where - maybe it was Dettingen). But he was the first and last after Richard III at Bosworth, that's true.All the bestMarcus

Hello Nick,
I would only take contention with your statement that the Persian empire was still intact after Guagamela. It was generally assumed to be Alexanders after this battle. Certainly, within a very short time it was. I would also say that it is not conclusive to me that it was smart for Darius to turn tail and run for it. It was good in that it prolonged his life, but at the cost of his legacy. I have trouble viewing Darius as anything other than a coward, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
later Nicator

I have always been in two minds on this one if the high command want to join the front rank then surely they must hold their ground, simply because to do otherwise is to invite the flight of your men.Since Darius is known to have been personally brave I tend to agree with Nick that his flight is in order to keep the war going. HOWEVER it strikes me that the best place for that sort of leadership is to the rear, like Xerxes; Darius was perhaps a brave soldier confused by the burden of Imperial responsibilityThe case of Xenophon is not pertinent; the Greek general;s were murdered and did not die in the heat of battle, indeed no Greek did at Cunaxa, had Alexander died the Macedonians would have lost, they had nowhere to flee, the Persians must have saved substantial forces to give Antigonos his three battles in Syria.

I believe that the Xenophon example is very relevant Karl. The essence is the same, meaning that this type of army would not route in battle against a Persian army no matter what. They would have (if things went wrong) retreated in order from the field of battle and the next day the generals would have assembled to deside the next move. The army was not depended on one individual even if this was the king.

My point was that the circumstances after Cunaxa are very different viz. after Cunaxa the Greeks are permitted to retreat by Artaxerxes under truce their generals are invited to a feast and murdered but one makes it back to camp to tell the troops who have hours to elect new leaders who prove as resourceful as the original leaders. They almost fragment.Had Alexander fallen it would have been in full view of an army that loved him, but was hard pressed by the enemy, there would have been no time for new leaders to be elected, nor was Darius going to let them escape; unlike Artaxerxes he had his own Greek mercenaries ie. solid infantry. The morale effect of Alexander's death may have saved the battle, witness the fury in the Malli town but without him the campaign was over; witness the anger of his friends over his recklessness there, they understood his essential worth.The ten thousand were fortunate they had a Xenophon (well, that's Xenophon's view,anyway) the Macedonians did not have another Alexander.