Out of Alexander The Great's battles, which would you say is the most interesting?

Question

I personally found the Battle at Gaugamela to be amazing! I mean, such a small army against the Great Darius' many men, and to have Alexander come out victorious! Wow!

Answer 1

I agree with Tissafernes in general.
I believe the most remarkable victory was definitely in Gaugamela! Main reason was better (ingenious actually) leadership by Alexander and superior men.
The Greek phalanx was at its peak with the use of "sarisa" (the long spear that Philip the father of Alexander had introduced, mainly influenced by Thebes). Very disciplined army better armored (Greeks wee heavily armed) and homogenized.
But the secret weapon of Alexander's army was not the phalanx but instead was the Cavalry of the "etairoi" (companions). The Macedonian noblemen cavalry was the best cavalry the Greeks could have provide. (The Greeks will rebuild an equal powerful cavalry only at Byzantium with the famous "klivanoforoi")
The "etairoi" were unstoppable! Powerful charge with a heavy thrusting force and armed with a longer spear (more like a lance) than the Persian elite.
On the other hand the Persian army was huge but not homogenized! (various nations with different weapons different tactics and very difficult communications!).
And of course extremely poor morale by Dareious!
It is true that the Greek Army took tremendous pressure!! Their camp was sucked and the second line that Parmenion lead, nearly collapsed.
But the battle was judged by the conflict of the kings! Alexander knew that the Persian army won’t stand to fight with out a king. Therefore he charged for the King himself, and when Dareious saw his front lines crashed by Alexander he fled causing his Army to collapse!
But the most important result of Alexander campaigns was not the destruction of the Persians, but it was the expansion of the Greek culture and language!

Answer 2

Each one was certainly amazing:
Granicus, while not a amazing battle as such, and not strategically significant ( Persia was capable of defending itself, just failed to do so). The way the battle was fought outlines the sperate nature of the satrapy's and the discipline of Alexanders force (while demonstrated in Thrace), also Alexanders guts and determination lead from the front and wadeing the water. On the other hand it demonstrates memnon as an able leader (despite losing, he was overruled).

Issus was a great battle, without this battle I believe Alexanders capaign would be less memorable. For a start the King was present, its hard to consider the Persian view, but the fact he took his court, demonstrates arrogance on his side, again amazing battle they way he turned it around. But more importantly he beat the King, this really sparked his campaign off, battles against the satrapy had been won before (Agesilaos) without making so much as a dent inside Persia, but to beat the King is something else, causing cities to surrender and not to support the King.

Guagmela was the best, how did Persia not win! the Bactrian Cavalry were far superior, the numbers were greater and he had the best technology Persia could offer. Alexander had discipline, a sarrissa and a proper General. It is true Alexander flank was about to collapse, the result would have been disasterous. The real reason must lie in the fact Darius ran away causing a general retreat. Alexander knew this and postioned his force to achieve this aim.

I believe if the King had stayed at home and responded in a way Artaxerses had when Agesliaos invaded, by pouring money into the opposition, he would have been successful. But to Darius misfortune, Persia had princes in quick succession, the Satrapys were divided (more so) from Cyrus, Artaxerses civil war, and Alexander was a extroadinary general, and had a 'new model army' if I take the English term. Poor Darius

Personally, im only interested in the Persian campaign.

After consideration I think Darius bought his court as a means of self-preservation, the subsequent betrayal by Bessus, outlines the shaky situation of Kings in Persia at that time. I still think Persian cavalry was superior, along with archery (agree completly about Persia having no real armour). But like chess on paper its superior, but on proper deployment a pawn can still take a queen, as it appears the situation Darius did not act with proper deployment.

Answer 3

Each one was extremely important! If he would loose any battle he would not be known even in our days!
There are reports that he was doing always incredible moves and was a real leader! more than the battles, he combined nations and accepted all nations regardless their race, color, etc.! He was judging people by their virtues and values! He created more than 70 cities and organized the liberation of all the nations within his "empire".
The Battle in Granicus, being the first is the most crucial, because then he started the destruction of the Persian rule!

Answer 4

putting out after the lack of existence of his father at the same time as he turned right into a youngster, Alexander took administration of Macedon, conquered their close by opponents then set his factors of interest on the Persian Empire, which become the most important empire in existence at that factor. He turned right into a mind-blowing chief both on and stale the battlefield, prevailing victory after victory and spreading the Macedonian Empire to India.

Answer 5

I think none....beoz battle can never please someone. A lot of innocent lives are lost to satisfy the Egos of some irrrational minds.

What did he achieve in the end.......just a graveyard enough to bury his body and lots of dirt!

Answer 6

im still reminded of his answer to the riddle of the Gordian Knot if you recall he looked at it and then chopped it in half with his sword

Answer 7

Issus was a cliffhanger

http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/