Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: chapters 10-11
Questions to consider: How much of Alexander’s success can be attributed to skill, leadership or strategy – and how much to good luck? How does Alexander’s decision making process differ from Darius’? Why? What are the costs and benefits of each man’s methods?
ATG is no idiot; he avoids needles fight and knows exactly what parts of the enemy to strike at. He also understands the intelligence of having the people on his side, offering the Greeks back democracy and in battle making decisions that should never work, so he looks like a cunning master mind when the stories are told later. That said, he was very lucky, with the Persians at first, because they did not expect him to attack, and so he managed to get a fair way through before an engagement. Because there was a lick of over head views of a battle no general ever did much to change tactics during war, but Alexander seems to have had a better comprehensions of what would happen and the guts to do it and some of the plans were good ones, and I feel other limped trough on luck
I think that no matter the situation- whether Memnon had died or not- Alexander's skill, strategy, and leadership were strong enough on their own that he would have been able to find a way to win, no matter what. Alexander was already at a disadvantage, since he was separated from Parmenion most of the time, but still managed to keep everything together. Not only that, but Alexander is an expert on military history, and if worse came to worse he could consult his Herodotus and/or Xenophon as a means of coming up with an alternative plan. In addition, the strong, resourceful Macedonian has been trained to withstand almost any situation. However, events like the death of Memnon certainly made things much easier. Had Alexander been dependent on good luck, the sickness he faced would've been the end of him. Not only that, but Alexander is so insightful, observant, and intelligent that what sometimes looks like good luck is actually a well thought out plan. Good luck worked hand in hand with strategy, leadership, etc, but were not the sole reason for Alexander's success.
I think Alexander's greatness derives more from his greatness of thoughts and perception than him being a great king.
The battle of Granicus shows that he was able to take a situation and try to twist it into something advantageous for him. The Persians simply didn't have good placement or formation, and cut out all chances for adequate maneuverability. His victory there really had more to do with showing up at the right time, and seeing that the Persians weren't thinking when they put themselves on sloping riverbanks, with cavalry in back of non-threatening foot soldiers. And I wouldn't necessarily say it was complete strategical prowess that allowed Alexander to beat Darius... Darius didn't seem all that competent, and perhaps if Alexander had had to face somebody as good as Parmenion, he would have failed.
I feel like for most of this class I have been missing out on the "great" part of "Alexander the Great". Maybe I have just been focusing on the parts that show Alexander just being very lucky, and missing out on his great mind and battle prowess, but I would say that soooo much of his "greatness" comes from luck. When I look at the advancements he made in war strategy, formation, and techniques, I don't see them as revolutionary as the text says they are, because most of the times they are small advancements from what Phillip left him with. Then, I feel that in every small scale battle we have read about, Alexander has thrived and shown some prowess, but on large scale war and large battles, it just seems there is too much luck involved to judge him on great, but I maybe don't doubt that he could still have done it without the luck of circumstance. I don't know...that also was a pretty terrible post, I may try again later.
While it is true that Alexander obviously did have some luck, it seems fairly cynical, or frankly just... annoying to say that his greatness was ALL due to luck. If it was, then I would love for him to be bald (and still alive), so that everyone could rub his head, because then everyone in the world would get some pretty lucky head-rubbed-luck for themselves. There is a reason he is remembered as being great (IT'S IN HIS FREAKING MOST USED NAME!), and I find it hard to believe that his memory is all because those who wrote his history were friends with him or feared him, OR, more importantly, because he was lucky. He did some pretty awesome shit, and yes, some of it may have been from inherited tactics from his daddy, but we have read about what fantastic leadership and military skills he had (and how brave- even rash- he was). These attributes, maybe COMBINED with luck, made him so victorious, and subsequently, so great.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
