pothos.org

30 Nov 2003TO: Mr. V.M. ManfrediDear Sir,The subject on Memnon. In the Sands of Ammon - Memnon seems to pose an overwhelming threat to Alexander and his army. I studied Alexander the Great in the University of Calgary under the tutelage of Professor Waldemar Heckel and are findings were that in reality Memnon was overated as a Commander posing threats to Alexander. In fact the only critical period in Alexander's period of conquest was the time in Sogdiana - present day Afghanistan. Alexander's resources and army faced a myriad of obstacles and difficulties. The solution was a marriage between Afghan women and the Macedonians. Alexander married Roxane - a daughter of an Afghan baron. The next major fight and perhaps the most formidable of opponents was King Poros of Punjab. Poros was a King like Darius. He was only a Chieftain between the rivers in the Punjab - Land of Five Rivers. Poros unlike cowardly Darius was courageous and noble.

Hi mr. Singh -Though I agree with your analysis in general, I think the popular view of Darius as a coward needs to be reconsidered. Diodorus offers us a description of Darius which is very different from that of Arrian. In the end, Darius did not act as a coward, but just according to the rules of his culture and Persian kingship. The fact that in 330 BC he wanted to battle Alexander again (but Bessus et al. prevented that) says a lot. Still, I won't debate that Poros proved a much more serious opponent than Darius ever did.Regards -
Nick

Hi Nick,As a military man, Darius was a bit slow off the mark, but made up time quickly as evidenced by his excellent battle plan at Guagamela. He appears to me more of a statesman than general, and from his point of view Alexander was just some nuisance until Issus. I know you are well aware of Darius' failures, and only want to share my opinion that it was not just his failures that cost him his kingdom. He scamperred off the field, but his troops were beaten by a well trained and disciplined army, led by an energetic, bold, genius on the right, and anchored by an unfailingly brave and capable general on the left. Hydaspes was not a fair comparison in that the army was worn down, watered down in talent, stripped down of first rate arms through wear and loss, and somewhat demoralized by constant warring even before the battle began. Porus was indeed a brave general, but had he had a horse instead of a slow elephant to escape on, would he not have run for safety as well?later Nicator

As for Memnon, the inescapable verdict of history is that he was highly successful in turning back the tide against Macedon. It was bad decisions from the top which inevitably cost the Persians Asia Minor. Memnon knew how to fight Alexander, and went about it with nearly flawless execution until his untimely death. He avoided pitched battle at all costs, went for his supply line, and nearly pushed the war back to the Greek peninsula. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that what happened at Halicarnassus was a bit of dogged bait and stall tactics...performed nearly perfectly. In the end, he had the town burned to rob Alexander of a decent base in the rear. Who knows how the war would have turned out if Memnon survived. My guess would be that you have a bit of an ethnocentric viewpoint on Porus, as being brave and honorable. Porus did have a defensive line in front of him of enviable proportions, but in general, I think the actual plan put forward by Darius was superior in scope and detail, but no less faulty in execution. The main difference between the two would have to be that Darius' plan was an offensive set-up, whereas, Porus' was defensive...in other words, Darius' plan offered him an opportunity to actually win the battle, whereas, Porus' plan was never going to be anything but a survival mechanism. later Nicator

I disagree. Did alexander ever run away from a fight? I believe that Darius is a coward.

Was Alexander ever put in a position where he seriously needed to consider running away from a fight?regards,Kit.

Hi Jan,I used to think that, too, and certainly the sources, on the whole, seem to portray him as such. However, I revised my opinion on this a while ago. Ultimately, had Darius been captured at Issus or Gaugamela, the empire would have been lost. In theory, while Darius was still free (and alive) he had a chance of stopping Alexander, and so by leaving the field at Issus he delayed the fall of the Persian empire for about 3 years. It doesn't look good, I know, for a king to run away from a battle, but if Darius felt the battle was lost, then there was little to gain by sticking around, and potentially much to be gained by living to fight another day.All the bestMarcus

No offense, but Alexander did run away.From scratch I recall...The Pisidians, not at Sagalassus, but the fortress before that one. Our sources say that his judgement was that it was not strategical to risk his forces in pursuing or continuing an open battle. Isn't that the same judgement Darius made at Issus?At the Persian Gates, Alexander withdrew. I confess - he retalliated very soon after and he was the ultimate victor.In the past some Persian Kings had survived by luring the enemy deep into Persian territory before delivering battle. (Wasn't Napoleon tricked into the same mistake at Borodino?) In retrospect, all the decisions that Darius made seem to be wrong. He was defeated after all. But as our great Dutch comedian Herman Finkers has said: "In retrospect everything seems easy beforehand."Best regards -
Nick