 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
No doubt. But they could have chosen a Westminster form of national government. They did not. |
How would that have preserved any independance for the states?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
and then another rebellion back home |
Yeah, but the Spartans were defeated by Antipater and not by himself.
I'm not sure who's the greatest, because a lot of factors are important when considering that, but Alexander sure was very young when he gained power, and he was threatened by several usurpers to the throne, and also by raiding paeonian tribes up north and thracians to the (north-)east at the same time. He put down Greek attempts for independance, and only then started his campaign in the middle east. For someone his age it's quite impressive.
On the other hand, persian regular troops did not have much of a chance against a heavily armoured macedonian phalanx. Even the persian elite was not as heavily armoured (at most scale armour), their spear was much much shorter than the sarissa of the phalangite (around 15 feet!!), their additional bow was also not very effective against the heavy macedonian armour and the raised pikes of the troops behind the first lines also helped blocking arrows.
Not surprisingly the Persians had to rely much on Greek mercenaries as their main infantry corps, because the persians, medes and all other subdued populations didn't stand a chance, and even those hoplites were at a disadvantage because most of them were also less armoured than in classical times thanks to Iphicrates reforms making the greek phalanx more manoeuvrable instead of heavily armoured.
The innovation is that alexander made extensive use of heavy cavalry now, to make up for his very rigid and difficult to manoeuvre phalanx, whereas in the 5th century BC they were mostly used as skirmishers, scouts etc.
thanks to his cavalry he could manage a solid breakthrough in the persian lines while his phalanx could easily hold itself against the superior enemy numbers. A good example of this is at the barrle of the granicus, where his companions ensured a general persian rout, while only the persian greeks make an orderly retreat (but he slaughters them nonetheless setting an example of the greek 'traitors')
In a way it was the Romans who knew how to counter them. Roman soldiers were usually decently armoured, but were very flexible while at the same time staying in formation which is essential in a classical battle. The cumbersome phalanx on the other hand could not turn around for attacks in the flanks and other manoeuvres quickly enough.
Alexander was a great conquerer, but in my opinion he actually had the advantage. Darius could not easily take his big army along to the west, because usurpers could easily take control then, he needed to rely on satraps, and his army was a combination of various peoples with different customs, languages, their own leaders. It's hard fighting like that against an opponent that is much better organized. The only advantage Darius had was that he had endless funds and supply lines, and Alexander had more problems with that
Last edited by Traianvs on 02-09-2004 at 03:53
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2004 00:09
|