An Analysis of the Generalship of Alexander 111 of Macedon: Undermining Or Underlining Greatness?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses An analysis of the generalship of Alexander 111 of Macedon: undermining or underlining greatness? Boardman, Andrew Paul How to cite: Boardman, Andrew Paul (1999) An analysis of the generalship of Alexander 111 of Macedon: undermining or underlining greatness?, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4954/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Andrew P. Boardman An Analysis of the Generalship of Alexander III of Macedon: Undermining or Underlining Greatness? Submitted for degree of MA. Departmen t of Classics, University of Durham 1999 ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to present a more balanced interpretation of Alexander's worth as a general. Chapter One considers what shaped Alexander's campaign aims and strategies throughout his reign and how successfully he pursued these aims and strategies. Chapter Two deals with Alexander's major battles, focusing upon the battles of Issus and Gaugamela. For each battle Alexander's strategic and tactical generalship is analysed. Chapter Three considers Alexander's sieges. It concentrates on Alexander's conduct at the siege of Tyre, but also examines his command performance at numerous other sieges. Chapter Four looks at how Alexander handled hostile tribesfolk, national uprisings and guerrilla warfare: his small wars. Three areas are discussed: the Balkan and Illyrian campaigns of 335, the PersepoHs campaign of 331/0 and Alexander's operations in the north-east of the Persian empire in the period 329-327. Chapter Five examines how well Alexander led his men on and off the battlefield. The conclusion reached is that while Alexander was undoubtedly a fine general, there are many examples that one can cite, which undermine the notion that he was a commander who was unsurpassed in his briUiance. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be pubhshed without his prior consent and information derived form it should be acknowledged. I allow consultation by bona fide scholars without delay. The material in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree in this or any other university. This thesis contains approximately 49,400 words and thus conforms with the word limit set out in the Degree Regulations. An Analysis of the Generalship of Alexander III of Macedon: Undermining or Underlining Greatness? Andrew Paul Boardman The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the written consent of the author an information derived from it should be acknowledged. Submitted for degree of M.A. Department of Classics, Durham University 1999 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With the completion of this thesis there are numerous people who deserve my heart-felt thanks. My parents were always prepared to give whatever assistance they could whenever they could. Without their help I would have foimd it more difficult to complete this thesis. My brother gave up his computer so that I could use an up-to-date word- processor. While he undoubtedly came to regret this altruistic move, I thoroughly appreciated it and am in his debt. Graham Douglas took time out from his busy work schedule to cast his eye over my work. Although I only expected him to proof-read my thesis he offered many valuable insights and suggestions that have undoubtedly improved my work. Finally, my greatest thanks go to Professor P. J. Rhodes. What more can one ask of a supervisor? He was always on hand to answer any of my queries with clarity and the utmost efficiency. His patience and understanding has been never-ending, and it is thanks to his guidance that this thesis has finally reached its conclusion. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations ix Introduction 1 Notes to Litroduction 3 Chapter One: Alexander s Campaign Aims and Strategies 4 Greece (335 B.C.): The Balkans, Illyria and Thebes 4 The Conquest of Asia Minor: The Hellespont to Miletus 7 The Conquest of Asia Minor: Miletus and the Fleet 12 On to Gordium and Beyond to Issus 15 The Syrian Coast and Egypt 18 The Road to Gaugamela 22 The Conquest of the Persian Empire 27 Widening Horizons 33 The Invasion of India 33 Dissent at the Hyphasis 37 The Voyage South 39 The March Through Gedrosia and Departure from India 42 The Final Year and Last Plans 46 Conclusion 50 Notes to Chapter One 53 Chapter Two: Alexander's Major Battles 63 The Battle of Issus (333 B.C.) 64 The Battle of Gaugamela (331 B.C.) 81 Notes to Chapter Two 92 Chapter Three: Alexander's Sieges 106 The Siege of Tyre (January 332 B.C.) 107 Alexander's Other Sieges 118 Commendable Generalship: Competent Direction of Sieges 118 Poor Generalship: Incompetent Direction of Sieges 122 General Conclusion to Sieges 126 Notes to Chapter Three 130 Chapter Four: Alexander on Campaign: His Small Wars 137 The Balkan and Illyrian Campaign (335 B.C.) 137 The Persepolis Campaign (331/0 B.C.) 146 Alexander's Operations in the North-east of the Persian Empire (329-327 B.C.) 150 Conclusion ' 159 Notes to Chapter Four 162 Chapter Five: Alexander as a Leader of Men 166 A Leader of Heroic Mould 166 Problems with Alexander's Leadership 171 VI Final Judgement 173 Notes to Chapter Five 175 Conclusion 178 Notes to Conclusion 181 Bibliography 182 vu DIAGRAMS The Battle of Issus (333 B.C.) 99 Order of Battle 100 Battle Manoeuvres 101 The Battle of Gaugamela (331 B.C.): Initial Positions 102 The Battle of Gaugamela (331 B.C.): Manoeuvres 103 Order of Battle 104 Battle Manoeuvres 105 Vlll ABBREVIATIONS Listed below are the abbreviations used throughout the thesis. The abbreviations of periodicals in general conform to the format of L'Annee Philologique. Ancient Sources Arr. Arrian {Anabasis unless otherwise stated) Ind. Indica Curt. Q. Curtius Rufus Diod. Diodorus Siculus Hdt. Herodotus Plut. Alex. Plutarch Alexander Thuc. Thucydides Xen. Xenophon Anab, Anabasis Hell. Hellenica Modern Authors Atkinson, Comm. J. C. Atkinson, A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus' Historiae Alexandri Magni Books 3 and 4. Bosworth, Comm.! A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian s History of Alexander I. Bosworth, Comm. II A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian s History of Alexander n. Bosworth, C+E A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. CAW VI Cambridge Ancient History- VI Fuller J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Green P. Green, Alexander of Macedon. IX Hamilton J. R. Hamilton, Alexander the Great. Hammond, KCS. N. G. L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman. Lane Fox R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great. Marsden, Gaugamela E. W. Marsden, The Campaign of Gaugamela. N.B. for full publishing details, refer to Bibliography. Dates All ancient dates are B.C. INTRODUCTION "His (Alexander's) generalship has almost always received the recognition it desen>es and it would be peryerse to attempt to be original about this topic" Alexander III of Macedon is still a figure who inspires awe and respect; his place in history as one of the most successful commanders of all time will never be undermined. However, his position as one of the greatest generals is, I feel, more open to debate. Few who have written about Alexander have questioned his military prowess. In the ancient sources, especially Arrian, his generalship is practically faultless: "He found nothing impossible in any military operations he undertook"." Many recent scholars have tended to adopt this same stance. According to Burn, "No soldier in history is more indisputably "great" than Alexander";" he is "perhaps ... the most incomparable general the world has ever seen" in Green's view;"* "In generalship no one has surpassed him" Hammond states.^ Is Alexander's generalship really a paragon of greatness? Certainly he was more than a mediocre general; mediocrity would not have enabled Alexander to conquer the Persian empire, the largest empire in the world at that time, without a major defeat. Indeed, there are many times during his reign when he does display generalship of a great standard. However, I believe that historians (both ancient and modern), while being quick to highlight those instances when Alexander excels, have been aU too ready to pass over (or ignore altogether) episodes in which Alexander's command performance is far from satisfactory. As a result, it is far too easy to view Alexander's campaigns as a series of INTRODUCTION effortless victories in which his aims and strategies were always carefuUy mapped out. Similarly, it is possible to believe that his conduct in battles, sieges and small wars (against hostile tribesfolk) was nothing but ijnpressive, with keen tactical skill and awareness, ingenuity and audacity underlining success after success. Moreover, his leadership can also be taken to epitomise his greatness, with Alexander directing his men in an heroic and paternal fashion at aU times. Consequently, with very little attention given to Alexander's faults an unbalanced and one might say biased account of Alexander the general has emerged.