Debunk the myth of Alexander the Great, his conquests and his adversaries

Nov 2011
1,120
The Bluff
The Persian 'elite' troops sort of remind me of what the press repeatedly called 'The Elite Republican Guard' in the first Gulf War - which lasted about 5 minutes when the ground war started
The Persian "elite" troops caused Alexander rather more headaches than your Iraqi comparison. The sources focus on Alexander and only note action elsewhere. Greco-Macedonian sources would have one believe that one Macedonian was worth ten Asians. Those same sources wildly exaggerate Persian losses (and army numbers) while downplaying Macedonian losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,333
Georgia
The Persian 'elite' troops sort of remind me of what the press repeatedly called 'The Elite Republican Guard' in the first Gulf War - which lasted about 5 minutes when the ground war started
Those Persian troops almost defeated Alexander at Issus and were close to destroying him at Gaugamela. Not to mention, that Parmenion with 10 000 Macedonian army was defeated in Asia Minor and had to retreat back to the coastline.

Alexander had some problems with Illyrians as well at Pelion in 335 BC and Battle of Hydaspes was a hard-won victory.

You also fail to realize that Alexander was commanding a Coalition force. It wasn't just Macedonian army. He had Thessalians, Cretans, Thracians, Illyrians, other Greek allies and mercenaries in his army. Are you suggesting that all of them were ,, elite professionals '' and on the same level ? Later Alexander would add Eastern elements and even incorporate horse archers into his army.

Persian fleet was also superior to Alexander's.
 
Last edited:

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,872
Cornwall
Those Persian troops almost defeated Alexander at Issus and were close to destroying him at Gaugamela. Not to mention, that Parmenion with 10 000 Macedonian army was defeated in Asia Minor and had to retreat back to the coastline.

Alexander had some problems with Illyrians as well at Pelion in 335 BC and Battle of Hydaspes was a hard-won victory.

You also fail to realize that Alexander was commanding a Coalition force. It wasn't just Macedonian army. He had Thessalians, Cretans, Thracians, Illyrians, other Greek allies and mercenaries in his army. Are you suggesting that all of them were ,, elite professionals '' and on the same level ? Later Alexander would add Eastern elements and even incorporate horse archers into his army.

Persian fleet was also superior to Alexander's.
Funny they lost then eh?

(And I don't 'fail to realise' I'm just playing Devil's Advocate)
 
Sep 2016
1,333
Georgia
Funny they lost then eh?
They lost at Gaugamela because of Alexander's ingenuity. Funny how Romans got constantly destroyed by Hannibal for 3 years. Obviously it means that Roman armies were trash and Hannibal was overrated.

Alexander also spent 2 years fighting in Sogdiana and Bactria. He even faced Scythians.
 
Jul 2018
543
Hong Kong
Those Persian troops almost defeated Alexander at Issus and were close to destroying him at Gaugamela. Not to mention, that Parmenion with 10 000 Macedonian army was defeated in Asia Minor and had to retreat back to the coastline.

Alexander had some problems with Illyrians as well at Pelion in 335 BC and Battle of Hydaspes was a hard-won victory.

You also fail to realize that Alexander was commanding a Coalition force. It wasn't just Macedonian army. He had Thessalians, Cretans, Thracians, Illyrians, other Greek allies and mercenaries in his army. Are you suggesting that all of them were ,, elite professionals '' and on the same level ? Later Alexander would add Eastern elements and even incorporate horse archers into his army.

Persian fleet was also superior to Alexander's.
Recall the famous line from the AD 2016 Taiga Drama Sanadamaru in which Sanada Yukimura said:"Don't view the enemy as the entity" — this advice is really good.

People always love "generalizing" or "concluding" things based on very few, narrow-minded facts, which is really a bad habit obstructing us for getting a real picture of the things.

For example, when discussing about Alexander the Great, whether for or against, praise or demean, people always concentrate only on a single figure in analyzing anything about him, just like the others were his pawn or "non-relevant person" only and did not have their own brains and feelings. Same as the Persian Empire or the Kingdom of Macedon, for which the people is always accustomed of viewing the whole regime as the "entity" — while in fact, not ; a great leader or organization might be able unify many factions to his banner for some occasions, but that doesn't mean this "united front" is certainly integral and unwavering.