Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Please fill in the gap,

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by John Paul (U1698054) on Sunday, 31st July 2005

  I recently got the history channel, which i have enjoyed a lot; I am trying to bridge the gap from the end of the 4 part series on Sparta, and Alexander the Great.
  
  It seems to me that A. was not so great after all, the previous 2? campaign defeats of the persions by the greeks seems to me to be were the greatness lies.
  
  The persians were still not able to match the metal shields, spears and body armour of the greeks, which I find surprising from the point of view of the latest arms race that we spectated.
  
  The falanx ? merely grew from 8 to 16 men deep; how can "the infantry be A. secret weapon, not his cavalry", when during the second persion expedition, the persian king witnessed the action of the few thousand greeks and few hundred spartans from some advantage point?
  
  The persians seem like a soft target to me,
  
  Your comments will be appreciated,
  
  John Paul

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005

  I do not know what is your idea of a 'great enemy' or is that the fact that Alexander was 33 when he died after having conquered the vast persian empire and much more beyond that makes Persian and all Asian people less worthy in war?
  
  I would like also to hear which other nation from ancient times up to middle ages was 'better' than the Persians in war (who were carrying with them all these asian and european nations - including Greek mercenaries) apart from the Greeks.
  
  Mentioning Romans is no answer (as these used mainly Greek-based styles of war) - in anyway Romans had a difficult time with the Perso-Parthians. The Romans did what they did in a span of many centuries, and their main achievement was the conquest of S.Italy and victory over the Carthagenians, the rest were stepped advances over the Greek kindgoms by creating friends and ennemies - Greeks were defeated not in military terms but in politics, had they been a bit more united, Rome would probably had stayed in western Mediterranean.
  
  I think Persians were excellent fighters however their basic mistake coming out of their kings' arrogance was that their style of war was not directly appropriate for matching a well organised phalanx and their large numbers (in 3rd large battle the analogy was at least 10-1) would not help them when facing with such an organised compact army.
  
  Alexander is the first man in history and changed it like no one has ever done it before or after him. Many people just do not like that idea and try this way or another to belittle his achievements - that will not change anything though.

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005

  To add on your comment on the fact that the Persians did not learn from their mistakes, i.e. were soft targets:
  
  The last thing that the Persian empire needed for its army was the phalanx: Having such a vast area to cover and so many people willing to rebel against the king, the phalanx would not have been very practical (as Romans also found out from the 3rd century AD onwards). Howeverm they had phalanxes mainly of Greek mercenaries.
  
  The phalanx style suited Alexander's army in close combat. Persians should avoid that and follow the plan devised by one of their Greek consultants of retrieving and destroying food supplies: Alexander's army would have eventually to stop and return. To prove what I am saying, Alexander spent more years fighting down (successfully but with much difficulty) the Persian revolts here and there - a decentralised style of combat better suited for Persians than he spent facing them in direct battles.
  
  It was clearly the Persian kings' arrogance that lead them in direct battles (where he wanted to show the number of his armies and his grandiose power to that 'young and stupid Greek King') that costed them their empire and not the Persian fighting worthness. In no case though Persians were unworthy fighters.

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by John Paul (U1698054) on Saturday, 6th August 2005

  E_Nikolaos_E, howzit?
  
  Thanks for your notes.
  
  I am not thinking that the persians were not good fighters, but that the greatness lies not with Alexander, but rather with those in greece that faced off the previous persians attacks; the persians numbered over 200 000, over 400 ships, etc.
  
  The persian inability to cope with the phalanx, the body armour, accross many centuries, points to a very basic problem; if it was just arrogance, as you point out, this overwhelming arrogance lead to total blindness of past events.
  
  Being a wide empire it should precisely have learned the importance of the ability to cope with different situations; the persian entrance to Babylon was precisely an illustration of the need for different and unusual approaches. Check a rugby match, the scrum is a phalanx!
  
  Alexandre's attacking attitude rides on the proven historical military aces, and that is why I see the previous stage as the one really great.
  Julius Gaious was obviously impressed, and tried to emulate him, but I am not. Just my opinion. I understand that you are saying that they tried to 'decentralise' the military action, and perhaps the greatness lies with A. in having been able to still succeed in facing that strategy.
  
  The gap that I mentioned was how did the macedonians get involved? did Sparta ( no more slaves ) and the other greek city states collapse, after they beat off the persian invasion? was there a vacuum, or did the hellenic city states go back to fighting each other to a stand still? or did the macedonians just rise above the greek cities in military power? where the macedonians previously part of the hellenic world?
  
  Many thanks
  
  John Paul

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 6th August 2005

  Good evening John Paul,
  
  As a Greek coming from Thessaloniki, in the heart of region of Macedonia and some 60km from the place of birth of Alexander, I will have to answer first your last question but I will do it in the second message cos this will be too long. Your question is honest and perfectly expressed: I am only happy when I talk with people unrestrained and not afraid of asking intruguing questions that may even provoke the national feeling of others, always with the intention of learning. Only fact is that because I am Greek you might think that I am not the most objective person to answer your question.
  
  As I read your answer I understood your point: Athenians and Spartans had done a greater achievement than Alexander since they fought an unknown enemy. However you could see it from the opposite side; Alexander fought an enemy that knew about him and his army. Then that is why you say Persians did not adapt their methods to stand against the Greeks while they had their chances for 100 years. True: Persians like Greeks spent their time more on fighting civil wars (between royal members) and while they employed Greek mercenaried they did not go into effort to learn from these methods.
  
  The answer to this question is that Persians in this period (470-335BC) would never had imagined that a Greek city or kingdom or coalition of cities would be ever become so strong to be able to threat them in Minor Asia. Hence, their politics were restricted in financing the Greek civil war (that is how Spartans managed to build a naval force and beat Athens in the Peloponesian war that ended in 405BC!!!) and by dividing they remained safe on their western borders and continued being occupied with their internal strife. Even when Alexander entered Minor Asia and had his first great victory in Granicus river, Persians thought that he would just return after that, they never imagined that he would go so far. When he did it, they just throwed all their forces hoping that they would win by simply employing their large numbers - unfortunately for them only to be proven wrong.

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 6th August 2005

  So, who were the Macedonians and how came into the scene?
  
  On the one hand the over-focusing on Athens and its democracy (ignoring the fact that the greatest Greek city of that time was Syracuse in S.Italy), the fact that democracy was abolished by the Macedonian rule (thus macedonians seen as a foreign occupation), on the other hand the usual attitude to ignore the fact that many Greeks did not exactly live in city-states but continued living in kingdoms (in earlier Mycenean style) like in Macedonia, Ipirus, Cyprus, some early South Italian colonies etc.... and then the existence of the little ex-Jugoslavian state that uses the name 'Macedonia' for political reasons while its language its slavic Bulgarian and while not having lands of historical Macedonia .... all these factors unfortunately created a picture of Macedonia being a 'border kingdom' whose nationality is vague. See the facts I
  
  Macedonians were Greeks as much as Athenians, Cyprians, Spartans, Ipirotes, Syracusians etc. They spoke Greek and participated from the beggining (i.e. when they were a weak fameless kingdom) to the Olympic games and all religious ceremonies in Delphi (which were all prohibited for non-Greeks) Macedonians were actually the remaining main branch of the Macedni tribe that splitted - they moved to the east - the other part were none else than the Dorians who moved to the south conquering and creating cities like Sparta - myths tend also to show a connectio between Spartans and Macedonians. Macedonian language is known to us and was nothing else than a Dorian dialect remminiscent of older forms of Greek, something which was caused by their relative isolation from the rest of the Greeks that kept for centuries. We know that Macedonian soldiers of Alexander went up to western China and Thailand and only left behind them Greek writtings (and these were semi-illiterate common people not any 'hellenised' high class philosophers who studied foreign languages!!!). The fqmous rhetor Demosthenes of Athens hated them (cos they were a threat to Athens) and called them barbarians (at that time this was just a swearing - Demosthenes used it as such in his propaganda)... while at the same time the 2nd strongest political party in Athens was that of rhetor Aishunis who was philo-macedonian and pleaded the king of Macedonia to unite all Greeks under his power (we cannot imagine an Athenian rhetor at that era calling his co-citizens to unite under a barbaric control - that would had costed his head!!!!). The same holy mountain of Greeks - Olympus was always under Macedonian rule (even when they were a small powerless kingdom!!). I have so many things to add on that but is as trying to explain to you why people from Shangai are Chinese or why people from Calcutta are Bengoli Indians etc... Anyway since you may perceive my opinion as not 100% objective you are free to check all these details (something which is suspiciously avoided by all those (few anyway) who try to pass a theory of a 'border kingdom that was hellenised'.
  

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 7th August 2005

  ... and third and last to end the story of Macedonians:
  
  How did they rise to power?
  
  By the end of the Mycenean era qround 1000 BC.(caused partially by the descend of Dorians - left branch of the Makedni tribe, most Greek kingdoms in southern greek regions collapsed and they turned gradually to the well known city-state system. That was not true though for all greek regions like Cyprus, Ipirus, many greek colonies in S.Italy etc. Macedonia also remained a kingdom, organised in a decentralised way (more less like in Medieval feudal Europe) where the king was simply the first among equal nobles who made up the upper-council which was vaguely controlled by the council of the army (i.e. common Macedonians had some 'voice' in some basic decisions) - to the same council of the army the same Alexander the Great - despite being conqueror of the world - had to obey and hence decided to stop his campaign!!!
  Macedonia as a kingdom was rather isolated by southern Greeks by the fact that on the south there is Olympus, on the west there are the Pindus mountains (and Ipirus 'brother' kingdom - isolated also) on the north there were various barbaric/semi-barbaric tribes (Dardanians primarily) that pressured them for centuries (thus Stravon named Macedonians the 'shield of Greece') and then on the east there were the colonies of Athens that controlled the Halkidiki gold mines and all the sea access. Hence, Macedonians remained an isolated, poor and backwards region constantly at war by northern tribes unable to keep up with the progress of south greek cities. In 490B.C. king Alexander had to surrender to the overwhelming army of Xerxis and he was used as an ambassador of the Persians in Thermopylae - where despite being obliged to suggest to Spartans to surrender, he stated his pride on being a Greek and showed his honest consideration for the survival of the overall Greek nation. When Persians left, Macedonians continued as a poor little kingdom making though some gradual progress. In the Peloponesian war, Macedonia was a theater of battles between Spartans and Athenian colonies of Halkidiki (who controlled the goldmines). Macedonians were dragged to the side of Spartans. By the end of the war in 405 - Sparta being victorius - Macedonia enjoyed some progress under king Amundas, a king that moved the capitol from Argos (Macedonian Argos is believed to be even more ancient the famous Mycenean Argos in south Greece) to Pella. Amundas was ambitious but also culture-lover and in his time Pella became a culture center, with temples being built, theaters (of the first stone theaters in Greece!) where the same Euripides showed acts of his into the Macedonian audiences (he stayed years as a guest of Amundas)... yes another proof that common Macedonians did not speak other than Greek (we are certain that Euripides or other Greek writer would ever write or translate acts in barbarian languages!!!)...
  After Amundas death (i do not remember - around 395 BC) things turned quite ugly for Macedonians. In southern Greece Sparta was losing to Thebans - Macedonians being allies of Spartans were suppressed. Then Athenians also fought for a new dominance with their 2nd Athenian alliance and their colonies pressured Macedonians on the east. Thessalians made attacks from the south. The worst came from the north: Dardanians (barbarians) finally after centuries managed to brake the 'Macedonian shield' and conquered north and central Macedonia. By 365BC Macedonia was nothing more than the area covering Olympus and the land around Olympus... i.e. almost eliminated.
  At that time came Philip. A 15 year old prince who was given as hostage to Theba (in order that Macedonia remains neutral to Thebans). At that time Theba was the strongest power lead by Epaminondas and Pelopidas with their famous side-phalanx system - Philip had the chance to learn a lot from what he saw in Theba. When he returned in Macedonia the king had died, the successor was a child and Philip was named as a co-king until the successor would reach 18 (he died soon of natural causes - well as far as it was reported...!). From the first day Philip decided to take active measures to save his kingdom. He took more powers than usual for a Macedonian king (thus the rivarly from the first moment with traditional clans and nobles). He saw that he had an outfashioned army of ... farmers and goatkeepers (true!) who fought more or less in the same manner as described ... in Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr (even their armour was more close to Mycenean armour than hoplite armour!!!) - note that even the non-Greek Dardanians had employed phalanx methods, thus beating them in battle.
  Philip spent all his money and time in his army but without throwing it in battle, initially he tried to avoid that. He took the Thebam side phalanx and experimented in many ways, tried many formations, many different weapons and ended up in the famous Macedonian phalanx employing the new type of spear (tried at many lengths up to 16 metres!!! ...finally kept at 8 metres). He put his army under the most strict training reportedly employing marches on full load at 50km/day (weight of armour carried by a soldier up to 30 kilos!!!). When he felt his army was ready for action he hit on all fronts. First he dealt with Dardanians - sendind the formidable general Parmenion (said to be the genius behind the phalanx) he liberated northern Macedonia and even proceeded to conquer their homeland in the north. Then on the south he hit the Thessalians and forced them to join him (thus getting their cavalry). Then he was strong enough to turn against the Athenian colonies of Halkidiki (Olynthos first - Alexander's first taste of battle!). Southern cities were too war-torn to be able to react to the Macedonian offensive. Macedonians took the gold mines thus being able to 'throw more money into their war machine'. Philip continued to conquer Byzantium and southern Thrace (thus reaching to the door of Minor Asia), then beat in battle the Athenians and Thebans. At that time all of Greece spoke of Philip - half of then hated him os he was a threat to their independence - half of them - and many famous people - saw him as the only chance of Greek cities, coalitions and kingdoms to unite into one strong force able to threat the Persian empire on the east.
  That was pretty much the story up to 331 when Philip was murdered in the theater in Dion (from Dias-Zeus, religious city in mountain Olympus) by political opponents - probably Olympias his ex-wife and mother of Alexander (himself most probably nothing to do with that though...).
  So yes Alexander had a ready army in his hands, great generals like Parmenion, Ptolemeus etc. Yes what he did probably his father Philip would have done.
  For me Alexander is the Great and he deserves it but if you ask me ... he had the means and he exploited them to the maximum and more...- his father had achieved a more difficult task. He had nothing and created things from zero... maybe he is overshadowed by the achievements of his sons.
  The rise of Macedonia, the most unpresumed and unfamous of Greek cities/states/ coalitions/kingdoms is a proof of what discipline, organisation, methodical work and above all correct leadership can achieve even in the worst of states/societies/countries.
  Thanks for reading all that... you know for me its a pleasure writting on that story!!! I hope I enlightened you a bit on the rise of Macedonia. You also are welcomed (and should always) to cross-verify whatever I have mentioned.

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 28th August 2005

  Hi all
  
  Just my two cents worth. Alexanders use of his cavalry against the Persians was the deciding factor. The phalanxes were good at holding the flanks but it was the shock tactic of hitting the centre of the persian line (where the king was) with his best troops and cavalry that won the battles. cavalry had not been used in this way before to charge infantry and this shock treatment put together with crack infantry broke the persian line, and with the king fleeing the rest of the headless army fled.
  
  The Persian empire itself was not in good shape anyway and various `alies' had revolted so Alexanders moment was fortuetous.
  
  Arto
  

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by BlueHue (U1943007) on Monday, 29th August 2005

  The"famous"inventor of the SLANTED PHALLANX, is not Alexander nor his father but: Satrap CYRUS-III "the younger", who instructed Spartan mercenary general Clearchos, to use it to beat the "Golden 2000"" bodyguard of his elder brother Artaxerxes-II at the :"Battle-of-Cunaxa" near Babylon in: 401 Bc.
  
  The opposing fieldmarshall: Grandvisor Tissaphernes sued for Peace and handed the Emperors Bodyguard over to Cyrus-III, however a stray arrow hit Cyrus and killed him: he was emperor of Persia"for a Day".
  Now that their ONLY-political leader had passed away, the Greeks had no paymaster and started to leave. The cunning Tissaphernes saw gain in his Political or military defeat and invited the 5 Generals of Cyrus to a "Farewell Dinner"where he killed them. despite good promisses, as scions of a"warlike-nation".
  
  THUS, Sub-Commander or General-paymaster Xenophon took over the command for the retreat back to Greece about which he wrote an account known as:"The Anabasis".
  
  HERE, he recounts that Tissaphernes gave him no trouble in returning but no food aswell. the strange way of return: not straight to Greece by the Bay-of-Iskanderoun in Cilicia, but by a roundabout way via Trebizonde, to the North was suggested, by the cunning Tissaphernes, because these were the Crownlands of Cyrus' Mother: Parysatis, who initiated the"Anabasis"in her son and now would regret it by the devastation of her farmers foodsupply. So for food, the"battle"of returning to Greece took longer and was more troublesome than conquerring the Persian Empire in -a-day-in:401! For,
  
  THE PERSIAN farmers were secretly armed by Tissaphernes behind Xenophon's back and retalliated upon the looting Greeks!
  
  WHO WAS:"AHAZVEROS"?
  Some say that the :"Ester Meghillat"happened during the days of Cyrus-III's father Darius-II, about 450 Bc.And that the Biblescribe/Satrap EZDRAS, was responsable for the "Jewish-ANABASIS". or that:"Ahazveros"was Xerxes-II in Ca.500 Bc. But it is obvious to keen "observers that with: "Ahazveros" Artaxerxes-II was meant!
  
  WHO WAS:"ESTHER"? ( targum-Esther?)
  This notion makes it easier to name the other"key-players"in the "Esther-Megillat": Ether herself may have been: Atossa, the Kings daughter, but behind her was her mother: Parysatis(="Wife-of-TWO-Kings.")
  
  WHO WAS: MORDECHAI, the"pious-Jew"-in-the-Court.?!
  Grandvisor Tissaphernes, "who was in the Courtyard"when two Guards were plotting to do away with the Sultan and become Sultans themselves"
  
  WHO WERE THE:"PLOTTING"-GUARDS?
  These"Two-Guards"( who were not punished, although the story says so!)were in a broader sence, the"Guardians of the "Gates-of-the-Empire": the Admiral of the Fleet: the greek/Spartan king-regent Lysander and the rebellious King of Egypt: of the 27th Dynasty: Pharaoh Amyrthaos( 405-395.)Who were payed by Tissaphernes to conquer north-Greece and divide the trade-territory bond of the "Delian-Sealeague"( 481-405 Bc.)headed by Athens. which was later indeed sacked in 379 Bc., by Sparta after which ArtaXerxes-II Sacked Athens another time.
  
  WHEN WAS PLATO'S:Γ„TLANTIS"WRITTEN?
  With Sparta in mind as:"The unprovoked Force that attacked: " Archaiic-Athens " Plato later wrote his Trillogy:"Atlantis"( left unfinished in: 366 Bc.)By attacking Athens, the Spartans sacked their weakest opponent infront of their strongest enemy!( this reminds me of the galliant Polish King ALEXANDER NEVSKI, who in: 1220 Ad. defeated a verry mighty German Knight-Army,not by force but in wintertime on a barely frozen lake. and in 1221 was himself a prisioner of the"Golden Horde"of the Huns from Mongolia, who were"just waiting"for him to defeat his"weakest enemy"!)
  
  WHO WAS:"HAMAN-the AGOG-ite?("a mighty Minister"?)
  Cyrus had heard the Return-to-Israel"ANABASIS"speech of Rabbi-EZDRAZ in Babylon and Jerusalem! And thus plotted with an Admiral and the chief of the Egyptian territory, to get the persian/Babylonian exile-Jews, back to their Lands-of-Origin!
  
  But, at their abode of Conference, put at their disposal by courtesey of the EgyptianGouvernment, ( the Lybian Desert Shiva-Temple in 405 Bc.) Amyrthaos, who had just revolted from Persia,in 405 Bc.obviously didn't want(any more )persian Jews in Palestine! From this:"Wannsee-Conference in Shiva-Oasis" Cyrus-III was nicknamed:"HAMAN-The-AGOG-ite"= Ammon-The-Egyptian"! CONTRARY, to:"Populary-Believe" Cyrus-III or:"Haman"was not an ennemy to the Persian Jews, but a "crypto-Jew"
  himself! Who also wanted to revive the notion of:"SION"and repair the irrigation systems that made Jerusalem as a Garden- City of Paradise!
  
  But when finally the Prince/Messias SESSBAZAR went to rebuild Old-Jerusalem( "Hagia-Polis"Kades)
  only some Levites went with him, the majority of Jews had prominent Gouvernment offices and did not want to return to the"Promised"land, to restart as:"Paradise-Farmers"in poverty for the next 3 generations rebuilding the mountain terras-damms! So instaed of the Temple, the levites built
  manors.
  
  WHAT TO DO WITH:"Unwilling Sheep"?
  So, Cyrus onlyway open to send Jews as "new-farmers-in-Paradise"(Eg.1945:"Kibbutzim")away from Persia was to become King of Persia, and only a Spartan General with 10.000 willing Athenian mercenaries could do that!
  
  WHO WAS: "ALEXANDER'S ROLL MODELL"?
  Later a rich Strategos: general Chabrias was powerfull enough to do what Alexander did: in 395 Bc. he invaded Sardes and again beat a Persian army which was commanded by Tissaphernes, who fled to Persepolis where he was
  writing a letter to the Spartans to order Chabrias back to Greece to fight the Egyptians instead, this worked and Persia was "safe"again-in defeat-! ( as it was a supprize attack Tissaphernes couldn't have written his"Saviour-Letter"sooner.)
  
  But for his military defeats Tissaphernes was beheadded in 393 Bc. By...his "niece""Esther/ Parysatis". Thus Alexander already had TWO collegueae-generals that briefly achieved what he made permanent, at the Battle of Issus in 333 Bc.
  
  WHO WERE: THE TEN "SONS" OF HAMAN?
  These, were the (5)Greek generals and their 5 Sub-Commanders murdered at the dinnertable( Later copied by french King Clovis with King Siagrius in: Rouan in 486 Ad.)
  
  CONCLUSION: There are Two-sides to"Alexander'sWar"
  "backgrounds and events that led to Alexanders( Succeeded!)Conquest are mostly forgotten. What is qaint however, is that according to this Greek-persian Wars-history, most Persian men in power should have jewish familinames dating back from Alexander's conquest! Ofcourse this is only an amateur's view, not corroberated by academic scholars. SINCERELY, from: "BlueHue".

  Link to this forum: Please fill in the gap,

  Report message9

Back to top