How did Alexander do it?

[back to earth]

... Both here at UM and in my gallery work at our museum I've met Hindus who insist that Alexander lost at the Hydaspes (326 BCE). I don't know where such individuals get their information or who taught it to them ...

The Indian Nationalist Movement ?

[kmt_sesh]

The Indian Nationalist Movement ?

I'd have to guess it's something like that, although this is the first time I've heard an official name for it. Whatever they may call themselves, it's sad when people embrace revisionist history.

[back to earth]

Yes ... anyway .... DOH!

I just wrote a long post with references and links and had so many sites on the bay I hit the google chrome X and lost it all ... ... a lot of it was missing anyway, as I cant remember the books.

To be a briefer ;

I dispute some records (Greek historians - national bias ? The Greek nationalist Movement ; ) ? ) That claim the area was later a great empire due to Alexander's and later Hellenistic influence. It already was a great, if not the first civilisation, and predated the Persian Empire (they did battle with the Assyrians ) - although western research has explored it little and not at all really until the 1970's.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VSA4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Alexander+the+great+Bactrian+campaign&source=bl&ots=fzewdmEDL1&sig=JlOji-0ybLVQEpndR0LvRWTJEu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7d33U5mwEoaUuASZk4KoBw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Alexander%20the%20great%20Bactrian%20campaign&f=false

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm

I thought he was chasing the crown ... needed to kill Bessus and take that crown and put it on his own head. perhaps the whole reason for the campaign and the pursuit into Central Asia ? " He successfully pursued Bessus across the Oxus, capturing and executing him, and took the Persian crown for himself in 329. Alexander continued on to the northernmost reaches of his new empire on the Jaxartes (modern Syr Darya) River, where he attempted to seal off the border between the settled Sogdians and the less predictable, nomadic Scythians on the opposite bank by establishing a permanent walled city on the river called Alexandria-Eschate, or Alexandria the Farthermost." http://archive.archaeology.org/0411/abstracts/alexander.html

Then that area cant really be controlled without taking Sughdha / Turan ( or possibly he wanted to take control of the northern Silk Route.

This was even more trouble and possibly an even more advanced state?

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/sugd/sugd.htm

I think it was there that someone clouted him with some masonry ? ( I cant remember where I read that ) .

Anyway, its more the idea of an advanced civilisation that already existed with city states (which may have supplied a later model of organisation and 'just governance' as it moved westward and a refutation that Alexander bought civilisation to this part of the word .... 'Alexander's MIracle' as some historians have referred to it. Not that Alexander built all these cities and towns there .

Appropriation ... thats the word .... thats what I meant about Ramses .

[+DieChecker]

Yes ... anyway .... DOH!

I just wrote a long post with references and links and had so many sites on the bay I hit the google chrome X and lost it all ... ... a lot of it was missing anyway, as I cant remember the books.

For future reference, UM saves your post you are working on every couple seconds. Usually if this kind of thing happens to me (And who hasn't it happened to?), I go and open "More Reply Options" at the bottom of the posting area. Then at the bottom of that post area there is a piece called, "View Auto Saved Content". Click on that and hopefully you'll get 90% of your post back.

[+DieChecker]

Those Phrygian helmets remind me of Smurf hats!

[back to earth]

I'd have to guess it's something like that, although this is the first time I've heard an official name for it. Whatever they may call themselves, it's sad when people embrace revisionist history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory#Criticism

[back to earth]

Those Phrygian helmets remind me of Smurf hats!

Thats a bit like saying that santa looks a bit like my dad dressed up at Christmas with his fake beard and red suit.

[kmt_sesh]

Yes ... anyway .... DOH!

I just wrote a long post with references and links and had so many sites on the bay I hit the google chrome X and lost it all ... ... a lot of it was missing anyway, as I cant remember the books.

To be a briefer ;

I dispute some records (Greek historians - national bias ? The Greek nationalist Movement ; ) ? ) That claim the area was later a great empire due to Alexander's and later Hellenistic influence. It already was a great, if not the first civilisation, and predated the Persian Empire (they did battle with the Assyrians ) - although western research has explored it little and not at all really until the 1970's.

http://books.google....ampaign&f=false

http://www.heritagei...iryanavaeja.htm

I thought he was chasing the crown ... needed to kill Bessus and take that crown and put it on his own head. perhaps the whole reason for the campaign and the pursuit into Central Asia ? " He successfully pursued Bessus across the Oxus, capturing and executing him, and took the Persian crown for himself in 329. Alexander continued on to the northernmost reaches of his new empire on the Jaxartes (modern Syr Darya) River, where he attempted to seal off the border between the settled Sogdians and the less predictable, nomadic Scythians on the opposite bank by establishing a permanent walled city on the river called Alexandria-Eschate, or Alexandria the Farthermost." http://archive.archa.../alexander.html

Then that area cant really be controlled without taking Sughdha / Turan ( or possibly he wanted to take control of the northern Silk Route.

This was even more trouble and possibly an even more advanced state?

http://www.heritagei...m/sugd/sugd.htm

I think it was there that someone clouted him with some masonry ? ( I cant remember where I read that ) .

Anyway, its more the idea of an advanced civilisation that already existed with city states (which may have supplied a later model of organisation and 'just governance' as it moved westward and a refutation that Alexander bought civilisation to this part of the word .... 'Alexander's MIracle' as some historians have referred to it. Not that Alexander built all these cities and towns there .

Appropriation ... thats the word .... thats what I meant about Ramses .

I've lost posts for any number of reasons. I know how frustrating it can be. But I didn't know about the information DieChecker shared, about the auto-save…and I'm a Moderator! How embarrassing.

For a long time I used to cite academic references in my posts and, when I felt the page contained valid information, share a link to a good site or page. Over time it became a mixture of growing lazy and my own frustration that fringies almost always ignored it, anyway.

But to the substance of your post, I am in agreement. It would indeed be a mistake to say Alexander brought civilization to Central Asia because civilization was there long before Alexander came along. A lot of these peoples were tribal in nature, but there were also large cities and settlements that were ancient in Alexander's time. I personally think that he was aware of that fact, but it didn't stand in the way of his ambitions.

What would be accurate to say is that Alexander's legacy was the Hellenization of that region. It likely had little effect on most of the peoples of Central Asia, but Alexander did found cities there (even if most of them did not last). We know Hellenistic culture had influences on native cultures all the way from western Persia to the Hindu-Kush.

It's my understanding that Alexander's original motivation to enter Central Asia was indeed the subjugation of Bessus and his remaining forces. Bessus had murdered Darius III and proclaimed himself to be the Great King, under the guise of Artaxerxes V. As long as Bessus lived as such, he represented a threat to Alexander's nascent hegemony of Persia. He was successful in capturing Bessus (and sending him back to Babylon to be executed), but that doesn't explain Alexander's continued drive to head east into uncharted lands (at least as far as Greeks were concerned). I think this had more to do with Alexander's wanderlust and his desire to keep expanding his new empire.

I think it's a good thing that Alexander's army ultimately called it quits at the Hyphasis River. "Mutiny" isn't the right word because there was no move to kill or displace Alexander, but who could blame all those soldiers? Anyway, had Alexander continued marching into the Indian subcontinent, I doubt he would've been prepared for the massive armies he would've encountered there.

LOL You're a bad influence, back to earth. I said I was going to avoid Alexander's campaigns into Central Asia and beyond, and now look at what you've done to me.

[kmt_sesh]

Those Phrygian helmets remind me of Smurf hats!

LOL I've never been fond of the Macedonian helmet. So that's where Smurh hats came from!

http://en.wikipedia....heory#Criticism

I'm certainly familiar with the "Out of India" argument, and we've had Asian Indians at UM who've vehemently supported it. Speaking for myself, I don't think it survives scrutiny…at all. But is this actually something taught in schools in India? I'm just surprised because the whole "nationalistic agenda" seems common with people I've encountered.

I've never understood how a people with an incredibly ancient history and remarkable heritage would feel the need to reinvent history for the sake of some misplaced, modern socio-political agenda.

[Harte]

And by "do it" I'm not encouraging any randy innuendos. Hear that, Harte? Well, okay, I like that sort of humor as much as anyone else, but I'm attempting to be serious here.

You pre-emptive b******, you got me!

Damn, and I had a good one too!

Harte

[The_Spartan]

LOL I've never been fond of the Macedonian helmet. So that's where Smurh hats came from!

I'm certainly familiar with the "Out of India" argument, and we've had Asian Indians at UM who've vehemently supported it. Speaking for myself, I don't think it survives scrutiny…at all. But is this actually something taught in schools in India? I'm just surprised because the whole "nationalistic agenda" seems common with people I've encountered.

I've never understood how a people with an incredibly ancient history and remarkable heritage would feel the need to reinvent history for the sake of some misplaced, modern socio-political agenda.

As an Indian, from India i could say that all Indians who vehemently supported it do not value scientific study at all and the main agenda for them is nationalism. As for me, i will not support Out of India theory unless i see fossil records. (remember Harsh? the puppy without a bone)

[Bennu]

It was the spears and the use of the phalanx battle formation. Sure, you had to have some talent for strategy, but I think those basic elements were the biggest reasons for the success of Alexander. Let's face it, in those days battle was pretty crude and the average soldier was pretty dumb. It wouldn't take much to out-think most of the world's armies. You could win most battles just with extra long spears and box formations.

[The Gremlin]

Best topic in ages, with pretty comprehensive and positive input from everyone. Not much to add really other than to reiterate the importance of logistics to the success of Alexander and the failure of Darius.

Keeping an army the size of a city fed and watered as it transverses hostile territory is no mean feat. Alexander is famously interested in the Persian King's Road network at a young age when visited by persian ambassadors in Pella. These roads were furnished with supply caches to keep the King's army happy when on the march between cities.... It's when an army stops, and waits, as they did before Issus that it becomes a problem. I would like to reference a British Army officer's study on the matter in relation to Alexander, but can't bring it immediately to mind. Working out the daily requirements of men, horses etc. He concluded that 5 days is all an army can March for, carrying it's own supplies, or waiting without recourse to forage, before people start to drop.

Alexander 's delay at engagement before Issus is an unappreciated stroke of genius viewed in this light.

[Peter B]

...I think a better comparison might be between General Custer and the Lakota at Little Big Horn. Both Alexander and Custer were highly confident of themselves, perhaps to the point of arrogance (that much must be admitted). Both led inferior numbers into battle, although in Alex's case he probably knew what to expect whereas Custer had to have been rather shocked by the large numbers of Lakota. Both led highly trained veteran soldiers and calvary. The main difference is, Alexander defeated the Persians while Custer was slaughtered by the Lakota.

I'd say a better comparison, at least broadly in time, would be Napoleon rather than Custer. Like Alexander, Napoleon combined the business of being a general with the business of running a government. Other similarities include usually fighting at a numerical disadvantage and having an uncanny eye for using terrain to help win battles. However one of the more significant similarities is Napoleon's ability in his best battles of divining his opponent's plan and turning it against him. I've already described how Alexander did this at Gaugamela; Napoleon did much the same at Austerlitz in 1805 - seeing from enemy dispositions what the Austrians and Russians were planning, accepting and holding the attack, thus drawing in reserves, then launching a decisive attack at the enemy's weak point which broke them. It's also worth noting that in his early battles in Italy, Napoleon was willing to risk his life leading attacks, building up a mythology of his own bravery as well as brilliance.

...until they met the Greeks (e.g., Marathon in 490 BCE, Salamis in 480 BCE, and on up to Alex's conquests), the Persians were undefeated in almost all of their military conquests; this includes subduing difficult rebellious dissidents such as Egypt (more than once).

In fact the Persians had fought successfully against the Ionian Greeks in the Ionian Rebellion of 499BC to 494BC. Given that the Ionian Greeks fought as hoplites just like most other Greeks, it was likely to be the Athenians rather than the Persians who were nervous before the Battle of Marathon in 490BC. But yes, in the four decades prior to this the Persians had experienced a pretty much unbroken run of success, conquering the Medes, the Babylonians, the Lydians and the Egyptians.

However, while Greek military methods had changed in the 150 years from Marathon to the Macedonian invasion of Persia, the same goes for the Persians. At the time of the Persian invasion, Persian armies included a lot of infantry called sparabara. The front rank carried spear and large wicker shields, while the next nine ranks carried spears and bows. Over the decades the use of the bow decreased and they gradually transformed into lightly armoured spearmen - fighting like hoplites but more lightly armoured and with a shorter spear. Hence the popularity of Greek mercenary hoplites. Over the decades the use of cavalry became more important and the Persians diversified, with the standard armoured spear-armed cavalryman being supplemented by some cavalry riding partly-armoured horses, while others relied on massed archery. Hence the Persian army at Gaugamela was actually quite formidable; its problem was that it was led by a King who didn't really understand how to make the most of the opportunities it offered. I have little doubt that had Alexander been leading the Persians and Darius the Macedonians, Alexander would have won the battle.

Also is the common misconception that Alex merely inherited the professional army of his father, Phillip II, and ran with it without any prowess or improvements of his own. I once read a biography of Egypt's greatest warrior pharaoh, Tuthmosis III, whose author compared this pharaoh to Alexander and went to pains to try to demonstrate how lacking in innovation and skill Alexander was compared to Tuthmosis III. I couldn't read past that point because I don't care to read professional histories in which information is so obviously and painfully wrong.

I remember seeing a novel on sale in a book disposal store which proposed that Alexander got his idea for the tactics at Gaugamela from a battle some 2000 years earlier involving the Akkadian Empire, with the author proposing the Akkadians used cavalry of the same sort as Alexander. Well, it was a novel so the author was free to invent what he wanted, but like the idea of Alexander cribbing his tactics from Thutmose III it made little sense. It's possible to draw a fairly straight line from the Theban general Epaminondas's tactics to Alexander's, both because of their similarity and closeness in time, but also because Alexander's father Phillip was a hostage in Thebes at the time and we know Phillip was no fool.

While Alex did indeed inherit the Macedonian phalanx, he certainly adapted it as needed on the long trek through the Near East. In fact, the Macedonian army was significantly larger and contained many companies of foreign auxiliaries by the time he reached the Hindu-Kush. Also true is how Alex fine-tuned his military's siege capabilities, and that's something Philip II himself never mastered before his untimely death.

I wouldn't be too harsh on Phillip in this regard. Yes, he was defeated in a couple of battles and he failed in a couple of sieges, but it's also him rather than Alexander who's credited with wisecracking, on being told that there was no way into a certain city, "Not even for a donkey loaded with gold?"

Both here at UM and in my gallery work at our museum I've met Hindus who insist that Alexander lost at the Hydaspes (326 BCE). I don't know where such individuals get their information or who taught it to them, but this is stunningly (and embarrassingly) incorrect. I mean, that's obvious for any number of reasons.

Yes. For one thing, he returned from India with a large number of elephants that he didn't have on entering India, and defeated armies don't usually emerge from a campaign with a whole suite of troops. For another, Alexander had any number of people with political or personal reasons to blacken his name, and the fact that they concentrated on libelling him as a trouser-wearing Persian lover rather than criticising any defeats suggests they had no material of that nature to work with.

So there is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation when it comes to Alex the Great. I prefer the facts.

Agreed. The problem is that the contemporary sources have come down to us filtered through later authors who often had their own agendas to pursue. It would truly be a huge prize if someone could find a genuine copy of, say, Ptolemy's history.

[Peter B]

...I've always been impressed with the logistical abilities of the ancient Persian army to be able to coordinate and organize so many peoples speaking so many different languages...

This is a good point worth repeating.

To reuse the example of Gaugamela, the properly trained soldiers in the Persian army numbered around 50,000 - broadly as many as the Macedonians. They then handed out spears and wicker shields to all the members of the army's logistical train and got them to stand at the back like a giant cheer squad. But I seriously doubt if anyone on either side felt that these 100,000-150,000 extras were likely to have the slightest effect on the battle.

The Macedonian army would also have had a significant logistical tail of its own but there was never any suggestion that they be armed and formed up. The size of this tail varied over time - early on both Phillip and Alexander specifically forbade wives, concubines and children from travelling with the army, but it seems this rule was relaxed as the army accumulated treasure and families. All these people had to be fed along with the soldiers, and in the case of the Macedonian army the job fell to merchants who fanned out around the lands around the army buying up food from the locals and selling it to the soldiers. Incidentally, this caused a problem when the army captured a Persian treasury; suddenly every Macedonian soldier was a theoretical millionaire, but they still had to buy food, so the merchants upped their prices; the local peasantry also found out about this too and upped their prices. The result was a burst of inflation as a large amount of gold and silver was put back into circulation.

Someone mentioned the Macedonian spear. This weapon was known as a sarissa. It was detachable into pieces so it could be carried more easily when the army was on the move, but when assembled for battle, it was more than twice as long as the spears carried by almost all other armies of the time.

The idea of a spear which could be broken down into halves for easier carrying always makes me think of snooker cues...

Sorry, apologies for the aside.

This must have been terrifying to confront, if you were an unfortunate charging a Macedonian phalanx: I always think of a field mouse running into a porcupine. The effectiveness of the sarissa was dependent on the discipline and order of the phalanx, but in engagements led by Alexander the Macedonian phalanx was never broken or defeated. Even Philip II suffered at least on defeat (as I recall) in his early interactions with the Greeks. And as I recall, the Macedonian phalanx continued to be feared and successful until 168 BCE, when it was broken and defeated by Roman legions at Pydna.

Yes, frontally the phalanx was hard to face in clear terrain. But yes, Phillip lost a couple of battles, although at least one defeat appears to have been at the hand of an artillery ambush - the details are frustratingly unclear. The phalanx's problem was either being caught in rough terrain (which is how it was defeated by the Romans at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 198BC) or attacked in the flank. Another problem was its reliance on deep formations - the standard Macedonian phalanx fought in 16 ranks, while hoplites usually fought in 8 to 12 ranks. Thus a hoplite phalanx would outflank a Macedonian-style phalanx of the same size, meaning Macedonian-style armies sometimes had to rely on other troops to extend their line.

This is often an issue ancients wargamers face when using Macedonian-style armies in open competitions - the phalanx is powerful but it concentrates a lot of your available points in a relatively small area, meaning you constantly have to be aware of what your opponent is doing on your flanks. The wargaming website Tagmata has a bunch of reports of games with lots of pictures (http://www.tagmata.it/battle_reports.htm) some of them involving Macedonian-style armies against both heavy infantry and light cavalry armies. It's an Italian site but the commentary is in English, and even if the jargon is incomprehensible the pictures should give you an idea how the battles develop.

[Peter B]

As mentioned, they just had extra long spears, simple as that.

The picture above, as impressive as it is, doesn't quite do justice to the effect of facing the phalanx.

The sarissa was around 4 to 6 metres long, compared with a hoplite's spear (the dory) which was about 2 metres long. One big difference was that the hoplite held his dory one-handed, so needed to hold it near the balance point, while his Macedonian equivalent held his spear two-handed, meaning he could hold it near one end. This meant the reach of a hoplite was a lot less than that of a Macedonian sarissa carrier. In fact, the Macedonians were trained so well that the spear points of the first five ranks protruded out the front of the phalanx. By contrast it was hard for hoplites in even the second rank of such a phalanx to achieve anything useful with their spears.

Of course, the cost for the Macedonian phalanx was the restriction on its movement. Once the sarissas were down and pointing at the enemy you could really only move straight forward; every man in the front rank literally had four spear shafts on each side of him, separating him from his comrades to left and right. This was why so much time was spent on drill - it was the difference between life and death. It also explains why veteran formations were so deadly.

In the wars fought between Alexander's generals after his death, one particular formation was praised for its success on the battlefield; they were the Silver Shields, men who had been raised by Phillip early in his reign, and who stayed continuously under arms until being forcibly retired by Alexander more than 30 years later. When recalled to arms in about 320BC, most members of the formation were in their sixties or seventies, yet they constantly defeated opposing phalanxes full of men half or even a third of their age.

[Peter B]

It was the spears and the use of the phalanx battle formation. Sure, you had to have some talent for strategy, but I think those basic elements were the biggest reasons for the success of Alexander. Let's face it, in those days battle was pretty crude and the average soldier was pretty dumb. It wouldn't take much to out-think most of the world's armies. You could win most battles just with extra long spears and box formations.

With respect I disagree.

Yes, a lot of battles in those days were crude affairs in terms of tactics. But we have ample evidence that, regardless of the situation, Alexander had a knack for coming up with innovative ways of winning battles. The phalanx with its extra-long spears was part of that, but only a part. As has been pointed out in a number of posts, the ultimate victory in most of Alexander's battles came from a decisive charge unleashed by the Companion cavalry, having first been set up by spoiling attacks made by Thracian and Greek medium infantry and Thracian light cavalry.

As for the average soldier being dumb, I'd again disagree. The Macedonian army included a lot of highly trained specialists, including the members of the phalanx, and success in battle to a decent extent relied on their ability to smoothly undertake complex maneuvers on the battlefield while surrounded by dust and noise and often under threat from the enemy.

And regarding out-thinking enemy generals, part of Alexander's skill appears to have been not only in anticipating the plans of enemy generals but in turning those plans against them. On top of that he showed this skill against a wide variety of armies - Greeks, Persians, Central Asians and Indians.

[Peter B]

...Keeping an army the size of a city fed and watered as it transverses hostile territory is no mean feat. Alexander is famously interested in the Persian King's Road network at a young age when visited by persian ambassadors in Pella. These roads were furnished with supply caches to keep the King's army happy when on the march between cities.... It's when an army stops, and waits, as they did before Issus that it becomes a problem. I would like to reference a British Army officer's study on the matter in relation to Alexander, but can't bring it immediately to mind. Working out the daily requirements of men, horses etc. He concluded that 5 days is all an army can March for, carrying it's own supplies, or waiting without recourse to forage, before people start to drop.

Alexander 's delay at engagement before Issus is an unappreciated stroke of genius viewed in this light.

The comment I've read somewhere goes like this: Amateurs talk about tactics; professionals talk about logistics.

[Bennu]

With respect I disagree.

Yes, a lot of battles in those days were crude affairs in terms of tactics. But we have ample evidence that, regardless of the situation, Alexander had a knack for coming up with innovative ways of winning battles. The phalanx with its extra-long spears was part of that, but only a part. As has been pointed out in a number of posts, the ultimate victory in most of Alexander's battles came from a decisive charge unleashed by the Companion cavalry, having first been set up by spoiling attacks made by Thracian and Greek medium infantry and Thracian light cavalry.

As for the average soldier being dumb, I'd again disagree. The Macedonian army included a lot of highly trained specialists, including the members of the phalanx, and success in battle to a decent extent relied on their ability to smoothly undertake complex maneuvers on the battlefield while surrounded by dust and noise and often under threat from the enemy.

And regarding out-thinking enemy generals, part of Alexander's skill appears to have been not only in anticipating the plans of enemy generals but in turning those plans against them. On top of that he showed this skill against a wide variety of armies - Greeks, Persians, Central Asians and Indians.

Yeah, I guess I oversimplified it. I admit to not actually doing more than a quick perusal of a few web pages. In all likelihood, Alexander had a genetic predisposition to military strategic thinking. I guess he did have to think a battle through pretty well in order to keep coming out on top, needing to effectively coordinate the various specialized groups for maximum effect. The long spears helped but without a strong talent for strategic planning and on the fly tactical thinking he wouldn't have been consistently victorious.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Bennu

[back to earth]

LOL You're a bad influence, back to earth. I said I was going to avoid Alexander's campaigns into Central Asia and beyond, and now look at what you've done to me.

Edited August 31, 2014 by back to earth

[back to earth]

LOL I've never been fond of the Macedonian helmet. So that's where Smurh hats came from!

I'm certainly familiar with the "Out of India" argument, and we've had Asian Indians at UM who've vehemently supported it. Speaking for myself, I don't think it survives scrutiny…at all. But is this actually something taught in schools in India? I'm just surprised because the whole "nationalistic agenda" seems common with people I've encountered.

I've never understood how a people with an incredibly ancient history and remarkable heritage would feel the need to reinvent history for the sake of some misplaced, modern socio-political agenda.

Vedic Astrology - critically examined

By Dieter Koch

" Unfortunately, serious conflicts with Indian astrologers are bound to arise. They cannot live without the idea that their astrology was revealed in its present form about 5000 years ago by holy sages, and neither without the idea that this astrology is holy, perfect and eternal. If these ideas turned out to be an illusion, their whole world view would break down. When confronted with objections they cannot rebut, they often respond with aggression[1] or they deny one’s competence from the outset.[2] Western followers of Eastern teachings unfortunately often take over such patterns of behaviour.

E. g. my present text is interpreted by some as an aggressive act, not only against the Indian astrology, but even against the Vedic religion. I have even been accused of atheism. But this interpretation is based on a distorted perception of the facts. My actual goal is to critically examine the claims made by “Vedic” astrologers who teach in the West. If, at the same time, challenge the self-understanding of Indian traditionalists, then this is a side-effect I unfortunately cannot avoid. Besides, Vedic religion, as it is known to us in the Vedic scriptures, gets along perfectly without horoscopy. Hence it is not that I attack the Vedic religion itself, even less so as I myself am a follower of a Vedic doctrine, namely the Bhagavadgītā, or the Vedānta teachings of Kṛṣṇa."

http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic2_e.htm

[back to earth]

As an Indian, from India i could say that all Indians who vehemently supported it do not value scientific study at all and the main agenda for them is nationalism. As for me, i will not support Out of India theory unless i see fossil records. (remember Harsh? the puppy without a bone)

I should add ... it aint just India that does it ... its just that many others are a lot more complex and subtle about it. We (Europeans) did not focus on ealry civiliastion developent in Central Asia (or the Western Himalayas) because we 'knew' it started in the Fertile Crescent

[back to earth]

Yeah, I guess I oversimplified it. I admit to not actually doing more than a quick perusal of a few web pages. In all likelihood, Alexander had a genetic predisposition to military strategic thinking. I guess he did have to think a battle through pretty well in order to keep coming out on top, needing to effectively coordinate the various specialized groups for maximum effect. The long spears helped but without a strong talent for strategic planning and on the fly tactical thinking he wouldn't have been consistently victorious.

I believe that 'strategic overview' is of supreme importance ... one can use the 'Art of War' in many ways (I constantly referenced it to get strategy for our Supreme Court case (we won).

Aside from understanding underlying principles, the 'overview' part is interesting - Bruce Lee once said that one of things thats makes him so good in a fight is he can see the fight going on from somewhere else and hence has better control and options (like a football coach who can see the whole game, but he isnt restricted from a view of being within the melee ... perhaps brice and Alexander had .... oooh , dare I say it ... some type of 'precognitive' or higher sensibility ability in this area?

Definitely a tactical master though, at least.

[kmt_sesh]

You pre-emptive b******, you got me!

Damn, and I had a good one too!

Harte

All right, dammit, now I'm curious. Please feel free to share. I can always use the laugh.

As an Indian, from India i could say that all Indians who vehemently supported it do not value scientific study at all and the main agenda for them is nationalism. As for me, i will not support Out of India theory unless i see fossil records. (remember Harsh? the puppy without a bone)

LOL Harsh is exactly who I was thinking about when I mentioned UM nationalists. As an educated Indian yourself, you always handled him well. But let's not speak too ill of past members who embarrassed themselves. (I tried to dig up his old account and couldn't remember if he just left us or was banned, but I think it's the latter.)

In retrospect I should've been fair and made it clear that in my own experience, the nationalists are in the minority of the people from India I've encountered. They are usually some of my favorite folks to work with in our Egyptian gallery—almost all of them curious and intelligent. I recently finished training a new Egyptian docent who comes from India, and he was one of the most intelligent, earnest, and hard-working trainees I've ever had. And I've trained a lot of people.

[kmt_sesh]

I want to continue to thank all of you for contributing. I don't know how much longer the discussion will last, but it's already lasted longer than many of my own threads have. LOL I don't have a good track record with initiating long-lived threads. This might be in part because threads I start are absent ancient aliens, bigfoot, Atlanteans, and the like (with exceptions for critical reviews I've launched of clowns like Zecharia Sitchin). But I know painfully well that it's even more because I tend to be boringly arcane and supply way too much information. I make no secret of the fact that I'm a windbag.

I especially want to thank Peter B and back to earth for their excellent contributions. Peter B, you are highly knowledgeable of Alexander and his life and tactics, and I've learned from you. I fear I did not present an earlier post very well and might have made it sound as though I did not respect Philip II. Quite the opposite is true. He was not just a brilliant military commander but a skillful (and sly) diplomat and "politician," traits his famous son did not share on equal footing (in my opinion). I've always felt that Phillip himself deserved the appellation "the Great," too. But a lecturer in one of the TTC lectures I've listened to aptly pointed out that some of history's truly great men have been overshadowed, probably unfairly, by their even more famous sons.

I've read a lot of books on Alexander but admittedly fewer on Philip. However, my favorite biography on Philip is Philip II of Macedonia, by Ian Worthington (Yale University Press, 2010). Worthington really brings Philip to life and expertly portrays the man's genius and exploits. The drawback is that, like many classicists who prefer Philip, Alexander gets the short end. Worthington clearly does not like him. But the book is well worth reading.

Thanks again, everyone. Let's keep the ball rolling!