Revisiting The Wars of Alexander’s Successors, by Bob Bennett and Mike Roberts

I'd thought I'd reviewed these two books already, but it turns out not. 

It’s been a decade or so since I first read these two volumes, which covers the period immediately after Alexander’s death down to the end of the last direct Diadochi (Successors), Seleucus and Ptolemy. Details are reasonable down to the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC but become altogether more scant after that.

It’s interesting re-reading history compared to other genres because you can get more out of it and either appreciate a book to a greater extent or realise more contentious matters or even potential flaws (as an aside, I’ve started a book about the early Seleucid/Seleukid Empire and in that the author asserts Demetrius cavalry at Ipsus would probably have been able to deal with elephants rather than being totally terrified, a common view and one held by the authors here).

Since reading these I’ve reading biographies of Antigonus Monopthalmus and Pyrrhus, as well as James Romm’s excellent Ghost on the Throne, all of which cover similar ground from differing angles.

Got to say I still really like Bennett and Roberts’ two volumes on the period, which do an excellent job of presenting the major strokes of the four decades or so after Alexander’s death in the first book, before focusing on some of the biggest battles and other aspects of warfare in the second. As such, there is some overlap and, personally, I would’ve preferred a single larger volume but both are still well worth reading.

I’d still recommend these to anyone, including people who don’t normally read history but are looking to get into it.  The Diadochi period is fascinating because there’s a cauldron of war but a surplus of excellent military commanders who grew up under Alexander. Not only that, there’s plenty of scheming and double crossing, and a number of intriguing leading ladies too. 

Thaddeus

Macedonian She-Wolves

Alexander the Great’s death left a massive power vacuum, exacerbated by the fact his heirs were a foetus and a man with the mind of a child. Worse still, their guardians were a large number of bold, intelligent and fiercely competitive men, any one of whom would make a great king in his own right.

These men, the Diadochi [Successors], embarked almost immediately on a massive war, from the coast of modern day Albania to Pakistan to Libya, and all points in between.

But no less vicious were the machinations of the women Alexander left behind, most prominently Roxanne (one of his wives), Olympias (his mother), and Adea (AKA Eurydice, wife of Alexander’s half-brother).

When Alexander died, he was in his early thirties. The most obvious successors were absent (Hephaestion had died a short time earlier, and the greatest general, Craterus, had just been sent west). His half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, was a grown man but had the mind of a small child (it is suspected the jealous and ruthless Olympias had poisoned him to damage his mind, and remove him as a potential rival to Alexander [her son]). The only other credible blood heir would be the child of Roxanne, his wife.

However, Roxanne was only pregnant. There was no guarantee she would give birth to a son rather than a daughter. To make matters worse, she was only the daughter of a Bactrian satrap, and lacked the regal pretensions of Alexander’s other wives (Macedonian kings were permitted multiple wives).

To enhance her position, Roxanne took the brutal step of (along with the regent Perdiccas) having Alexander’s other two wives murdered. One of them, Stateira II, was the daughter of Darius, once ruler of the Persian Empire (and, therefore, of rather better pedigree than Roxanne).

As it happened, she did give birth to a son, whom she named Alexander. He and Philip Arrhidaeus become joint monarchs, although in truth the power lay (for a time…) with the regent, Perdiccas.

Two women, Cynane and her daughter Adea, who also had royal Macedonian blood, travelled east with the plan of marrying Adea to Philip Arrhidaeus. However, Perdiccas (allied to Roxanne) sent his brother Alcetas to remedy the problem by assassinating the two women. Cynane fell, but when the soldiers realised the identities of the women they had been sent to kill and that Adea still lived, their respect for the royal house made them her protectors rather than her killers.

Later, a botched invasion of Egypt led to Perdiccas’ death. After he was killed (by his own troops), Adea, backed by the sentimental support of the army, demanded a share of authority. She seemed to attain it, but only briefly. Antipater, the aged, respected veteran viceroy of Macedon during Alexander’s adventures, arrived on the scene. The army was in vengeful mood and very nearly murdered him, but Antigonus and Seleucus rescued the viceroy. Adea tried to provoke further mutiny, but in the end authority was settled on Antipater, Antigonus and Seleucus.

Antipater, a loyal servant of the Argead dynasty but understandably not well-disposed towards the now powerless Adea, accompanied her back to Macedon. However, he died shortly thereafter, and political turmoil ensued.

Adea made another bid for power, allying with Cassander, the son of Antipater. Against her was Olympias, Polyperchon (the rather feeble successor, as per Antipater’s will, of the viceroy) and Roxanne.

For perhaps the first time in history, two armies, both led by women, approached one another.

However, the same loyalty that had prevented the Macedonian soldiers killing her years ago, now worked against Adea. They couldn’t bring themselves to even fight the mother of the legendary Alexander, and surrendered to Olympias.

Olympias came to power. Adea, wife of Alexander’s half-brother, found her days numbered, and that number was very small. At first, she and her husband were strictly confined, but Olympias was concerned by the sympathy the Macedonians felt towards them. In line with her usual response to a problem, Olympias chose to kill those who might be a threat. She presented Adea with a sword, rope, and poison, to choose her own death. Adea first of all killed her husband, the unknowing, blameless Philip Arrhidaeus, whom Alexander had taken to Asia and protected, and then hanged herself with one of her own garments, shunning the rope Olympias gave her.

By contrast, Roxanne was protected by the violent, volatile and cunning Olympias (because she was the mother of Alexander’s son). However, Olympias’ uncompromising and arrogant manner lost her much support, and she faced perhaps the wiliest of the Diadochi: Cassander. Antipater’s son gradually built up his strength, even as it drained away from the bloodthirsty Olympias.

Eventually, he bottled her up in a port city, and she surrendered herself, Roxanne and Alexander. The surrender included the condition Cassander show her mercy. He did not, and had her killed by the relatives of her many victims.

Defeat to Cassander removed the shield that had protected Roxanne and her son. Cassander kept the young Alexander alive until he reached his mid-teens, at which point he became a threat, and was killed. His mother was also assassinated, and thus ended the Argead line of kings in Macedon.

For more reading on this, I highly recommend James Romm’s Ghost On The Throne, which I reviewed here.

Thaddeus

Review: Ghost on the Throne, by James Romm

Ghost on the Throne is a history of the years immediately after the death of Alexander the Great, as the Diadochi (Successors) battled for mastery of the world. I have read a small amount on the subject, and was interested to see how this stacked up.

After Alexander passed on, it was as if the alpha wolf of a pack had died. But because he had so many secondary fellows, all of whom acknowledged they were his inferior but considered themselves equal to their fellows, suddenly there were a large number of would be alpha wolves looking to get as much power and influence as possible. No shrinking violets, the upper echelons of the Macedonian elite were (almost uniformly) personally brave, quick-witted, devious men hardened by decades of constant warfare. And the only man capable of reigning over them was gone.

There are ten chapters, each starting with an overview and then little sections of a few pages (sometimes less) focused on one individual or a small group in a given time and place. The approach is interesting, and effectively disentangles a fluid political and military situation that might otherwise become too complicated, enabling the various events to be kept track of more easily.

Whilst I was familiar with the general progression of events there was new information about the parts I knew (anecdotes about Antigonus losing his eye and trusting Demetrius), and a whole slew of completely fresh information regarding the situation in Athens (as well as bits and pieces elsewhere).

The level of detail was spot on. The progression of events was relayed in detail without getting bogged down in triviality, and the writing style was very easy to read without being dumbed down.

There’s a focus on the political (and personal psychology) rather than the military, which is partly because major battles and direct confrontation were relatively uncommon.

Another plus was the map at the start (there are a few others, and some illustrations/photographs, later on) which overlaid Alexander’s conquests onto a modern map of Europe/Asia/Africa. It really was bloody enormous.

So, down sides. Not many, to be honest. I would’ve liked the book to go on for longer, though it does end at a natural break point. The references to ‘old man Antipater’ do get over-used. There are notes, which was a surprise because there are no symbols/numbers to signify these and I stumbled across them at the back of the book when I’d finished it [I also much prefer footnotes to endnotes].

I would recommend this book to anyone after a history of the aftermath of Alexander’s death. I think it’s accessible for new history readers, but has a level of detail that would also satisfy people who already have some knowledge of the era.

Thaddeus

Cycling to Persia – The Granicus

Each of the three best known ancient generals (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar) had rivers to cross. Hannibal had the Ebro in northern Iberia, Caesar had his famous Rubicon, and Alexander had the Granicus.

Rivers form natural boundaries and are relatively easy to defend, hence their importance in both modern and ancient warfare. The Persians were well aware Alexander was a skilled general and that his army was accustomed to victory, and that both were heading their way.

The Persians assembled a sizeable force to oppose Alexander's crossing, including Greek mercenaries (foot soldiers). Persia's own foot soldiers were a bit rubbish, but their cavalry was pretty good. Weirdly, it was the cavalry (which included Persian nobility) which gathered upon the banks to try and prevent the incursion.

Alexander, as was his wont, attacked at once, leading the charge of the Companions personally. His life was saved by Cleitus the Black, who severed the arm of a Persian noble who would otherwise have slain Alexander and dramatically altered the course of history.

The Persian cavalry retreated, leaving the Greek mercenaries to be cut to ribbons by Alexander.

As this happened quite a while ago, there are some disputes about precisely what happened, but the above is a reasonable outline. Once Alexander had crossed the Granicus, Asia Minor lay open to him. But, Darius, the Great King of Persia, commanded a huge number of men and plentiful resources.

Asia Minor

Hellespont to the Granicus 50 - completed

The Granicus to Sardis 180 – 6/180

Sardis to Smyrna and back again 100

Sardis to Ephesus 50

Ephesus to Miletus 60

Miletus to Halicarnassus 60

Halicarnassus to Telmessus 160

Telmessus to Phaselis 160

Phaselis to Side 85

Side to Termessus 85

Termessus to Sagalassus 70

Sagalassus to Celaenae 60

Celaenae to Gordium 170

Gordium to Ancyra 80

Ancyra to Tarsus 320

Tarsus to Rugged Cilicia and back again 160

Tarsus to Myriandrus 100

Myriandrus to Issues 25

Total = 1,955

Thaddeus

Cycling to Persia – The Hellespont

Today I'll just write up a brief background to the starting point of the Cycling to Persia route. For those who missed the initial post, I've decided to 'shadow' Alexander's route into Persia, adding together the miles I cycle on the old exercise bike and then posting when I reach certain milestones. The figures used are from the back of Theodore Ayrault Dodge's excellent biography/military history, simply entitled 'Alexander' and which I heartily recommend (NB be careful you get the full version as some are abridged).

It's just a quick rundown of how Alexander found himself at the Hellespont, so I'll be going from memory.

When Alexander's father, Philip, came to the throne Macedon was a pretty weak, rather rubbish kingdom. Philip, however, was a military genius. He utterly reformed the Macedonian army and made it the foremost military machine in the world. The lengthy sarissa spear was the backbone of the pezetaeri heavy infantry, the Companion and Thessalian cavalry were remarkable, and the hypaspists (the foot soldier equivalent of Companions) were a match for anyone in the world.

Philip first stabilised Macedon then set about showing his neighbours the formerly rubbish kingdom was now a force to be reckoned with. He achieved hegemony over Greece (destroying Thebes, his former ally, after they forsook the alliance) after the Battle of Chaeronea. Alexander, then 17, fought at this battle, commanding the cavalry and annihilating the Sacred Band, an elite force of 300 Theban soldiers.

A couple of years later, just as he was contemplating a march east to teach the Persians a lesson, Philip suddenly died. Some said Alexander, then 19, had a hand in it. His rivals also ended up dead rather promptly, but the Greeks and others saw this as an opportunity to throw off their Macedonian shackles. His initial campaigns were spent bringing Macedon's neighbours back into line, and teaching them that opposing Alexander the Great was not terribly clever.

Alexander left Antipater in charge of Macedon and marched east with his army, the army modelled on Philip's ingenious design. As well as the core of Macedonian infantry and cavalry there were numerous contingents of allied soldiers.

At the Hellespont, he crossed from Europe into Asia Minor.

Current position = 16/50 miles from the Hellespont to the Granicus.

Asia Minor

Hellespont to the Granicus 50

The Granicus to Sardis 180

Sardis to Smyrna and back again 100

Sardis to Ephesus 50

Ephesus to Miletus 60

Miletus to Halicarnassus 60

Halicarnassus to Telmessus 160

Telmessus to Phaselis 160

Phaselis to Side 85

Side to Termessus 85

Termessus to Sagalassus 70

Sagalassus to Celaenae 60

Celaenae to Gordium 170

Gordium to Ancyra 80

Ancyra to Tarsus 320

Tarsus to Rugged Cilicia and back again 160

Tarsus to Myriandrus 100

Myriandrus to Issus 25

Total = 1,955

Thaddeus

Cycling to Persia

Some time ago I tried to go into walking as an exercise, but I get bored too easily and stopped. However, during the brief period I was trying it out I came across an interesting idea called Walking to Mordor. Basically, you use a pedometer to measure how far you've walked, and then map this onto the journey Frodo took. So, you might walk first to Bree, then Rivendell[sp] and so on.

Whilst not someone who enjoys exercise I do think it's necessary, as most of my time seems to be spent sat down staring at a screen (or book). Got an exercise bike and use it 1-2 times a week, and whilst I can't claim to be especially fit I do think I'm improving.

So, an alternative to Walking to Mordor struck me: Cycling to Persia. Instead of following Frodo's route, I'll 'shadow' Alexander's using the list of marches in the back of Theodore Ayrault Dodge's excellent biography/military history (simply entitled 'Alexander').

As I reach certain milestones I'll make posts about Alexander's progress. I should stress that although I intend to gradually increase the time I spend cycling (currently 8 miles/19 minutes per session) there will likely be quite a few weeks/months between posts, so don't expect an update every few days.

Here's the list (NB I skipped Greece because all the distance were enormous, all distances in miles):

Asia Minor

Hellespont to the Granicus 50

The Granicus to Sardis 180

Sardis to Smyrna and back again 100

Sardis to Ephesus 50

Ephesus to Miletus 60

Miletus to Halicarnassus 60

Halicarnassus to Telmessus 160

Telmessus to Phaselis 160

Phaselis to Side 85

Side to Termessus 85

Termessus to Sagalassus 70

Sagalassus to Celaenae 60

Celaenae to Gordium 170

Gordium to Ancyra 80

Ancyra to Tarsus 320

Tarsus to Rugged Cilicia and back again 160

Tarsus to Myriandrus 100

Myriandrus to Issus 25

Total = 1,955

I'll put up an initial post about the starting point (with a little bit of background) in the near future.

Thaddeus

After Alexander: the Diadochi

Alexander the Great was a legend in his own lifetime and has been a source of fascination, admiration and sometimes censure ever since. However, the period immediately after his death is sadly not furnished with the same degree of interest either now or at the time (which means that whilst we have a lot of great historical information regarding Alexander’s life we have far less regarding his successors).

The Diadochi were the Successors to Alexander. They were almost entirely his Companions, his close friends and talented lieutenants. The great general Parmenio and his sons did not survive a possibly untrue attempt at regicide during Alexander's reign, and the only other men to rise (certainly in the earliest days) were Eumenes, Alexander’s secretary (and a Greek, to the contempt of his Macedonian rivals) and Antipater, the elderly and cunning viceroy Alexander had left in command of Macedon.

Alexander had a brother, who was mentally disadvantaged, and a very young son, born after his death. The pair was manipulated by the political machinations of those vying for power and finally slaughtered whilst in Macedon.

The territory of Alexander was enormous. It ranged from modern day Albania, Greece and Macedonia in the west to Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula in the south and all the way to Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent in the east. When Alexander died the Persian Empire had been comprehensively destroyed, the Macedonian war machine was unmatched, even unrivalled, and he left behind a great number of brave and intelligent generals. Too many, perhaps.

Alexander’s lover and chief of the Companions, Hephaestion, had died before the king himself. Craterus, greatest of the generals, had been sent back to Macedon and thus missed the crucial meeting that decided who ought to succeed Alexander.

In the end a Companion named Perdiccas was named regent, but the mood of the assembly was not convivial and he proved unable to retain the loyalty of the other great men who vied for supremacy. Within a few years the men accustomed to following Alexander and enjoying unrelenting success grew displeased and he was assassinated.

Ptolemy was endowed with Egypt, and proved most resilient of the Diadochi. He lived long, his kingdom (as it became) was never taken from him and he founded a dynasty that lasted until Anthony and Cleopatra.

Antipater had allied with Perdiccas and Craterus, but the latter was surprisingly killed in a first battle with Eumenes, the former was murdered and the decision of Antipater to hand Macedonian vice-regal powers to Polyperchon (a Companion) rather than his son (Cassander) plunged the kingdom into prolonged conflict. Ultimately Cassander proved victorious, and founded Thessalonica (which is named after his wife).

Lysimachus got Thrace (modern day Bulgaria), and Seleucus was fostered in Egypt as Ptolemy’s guest, later to acquire the eastern portion of the empire.

And what of the great heart of the Persian Empire, from Turkey to the Arabian Peninsula? That fell to Antigonus Monopthalmus (‘one-eyed’). He alone had the power to dream of reunifying all of Alexander’s lands under one ruler, and that power caused his rivals to combine their forces against him.

The Battle of Ipsus is not especially well-known, unlike Cannae or Issus. However, it was very important. Cassander did not participate, but did send a significant number of Macedonian heavy infantry (in short supply after prolonged warfare), leaving only a token force to hold his own land. Lysimachus and Seleucus did attend, and the latter brought 400 elephants. Both sides had around 70,000 men, with Antigonus having the advantage in cavalry and his enemies more elephants. Also participating for Antigonus were his son Demetrius and a young adventurer called Pyrrhus, who came from Epirus.

A cavalry charge from Demetrus and Pyrrhus defeated and pursued one of the coalition wings, but they charged too far. The two centres closed and the forces of Antigonus were hard-pressed. Demetrius tried repeatedly to return and attack the enemy centre to help his father, but horses are terrified of elephants and the hundreds Seleucus possessed had formed a screen to prevent the son’s return. In the end, Antigonus and any hope of a unified Macedonian superpower lay dead, and his son and Pyrrhus escaped the field to fight another day.

Seleucus took the lion’s share of the land, and formed the Seleucid Empire (which I think gave way to the Parthians, which were themselves consumed from within by a new Persian Empire).

Cassander retained Macedon, but it never rose to the heights it had once known. Lysimachus and Seleucus came to battle when both were in their 70s, and Seleucus won. He had a hugely powerful empire, and began to march on Macedon. However, he was betrayed and killed by Ptolemy Keraunos (a son out of favour with his father of the same name), who briefly was the most powerful man in the world. He was killed himself shortly thereafter by the Gauls.

It remains to be seen whether Alexander would have been able to keep together his vast conquests had he lived, and whether he would have marched west on Italy. Macedonian politics was soaked with blood (his own father had become king by assuming the throne in the stead of his nephew, but it was Alexander rather than Philip who slew Amyntas IV) and rather unstable.

Thaddeus

Was Hannibal greater than Alexander?

Alexander never lost a battle. He never failed to take a city by siege. On a number of occasions he won battles where he was enormously outnumbered (although I’m more impressed by his victories over the Indians, to be honest). So, it might seem a bit odd that in my book Hannibal (who only lost one battle in the Second Punic War, but with it the war itself) was a greater general.

There are a few areas that need to be considered: authority and army, opponents, strategy and reinforcements, and personal qualities.

Authority and army

Alexander, although he became king at just 19, had already seen battle (playing a crucial role in the Battle of Chaeronea when he was 17). He was battle-hardened, king and commander-in-chief. Whilst the Macedonian king wasn’t fawned over like the Persian Great King, he was clearly in charge (like a Prime Minister rather than a President). His army consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, both of whom were Hellenistic and quite similar in terms of fighting style. As well as the throne, he inherited the best army in the world, brilliantly developed and trained his excellent father, Philip.

Hannibal also grew up fighting, first for his father and then Hasdrubal the Handsome, his brother-in-law (both in Iberia). Then he assumed command of Carthage’s Iberian forces. He did not have particular political authority, and had a mixed army of veterans from numerous corners of the world all speaking different languages and with different weapons and armour.

In terms of authority, Alexander had a clear advantage. Hannibal had a very good army, although here too I’d give Alexander a slight edge (his elite soldiers were so good they were still in high demand decades after his death).

Opponents

Alexander faced three sets of opponents. Firstly, the Greeks. They’d been smashed by his father and sought to escape the rule of Macedon when Alexander took the throne. They were cunning opponents and almost ended his career before it got going, but he overcame them fairly quickly. Secondly, he faced the massed armies of the Persian Empire. Although the horsemen were brave and talented, the foot soldiers were less so and no match for the high calibre of the Macedonian army. Furthermore, Alexander was tactically brilliant, and (by making the Great King flee twice) made hordes of Persians flee at Arbela and Issus. I’d say the Indians, who were pretty damned clever and had lots of war elephants, were his greatest opponents (particularly Porus).

Hannibal did fight the Iberians, but that was mostly under the command of others. Whilst he was in charge he only really fought the Romans. During this time he inflicted numerous defeats upon numerically superior forces, including one of the greatest ambushes in history at Lake Trasimene and the most crushingly brilliant victory in history (arguably) at Cannae. He did lose to Scipio at Zama, however. After the war ended he continued, after a brief pause to lead the city, to fight the Romans, on behalf of Eastern despots.

Alexander had the easier task, I feel. Yes, the Persians had huge manpower, but the armies crumbled like rotted wood when Darius fled and Alexander had the finest soldiers in the world. Hannibal, meanwhile, faced Rome at the zenith of its patriotic determination and fervour. Even after the slaughter of Cannae the city did not contemplate surrender, and although initially they were tactically naïve, later the likes of Marcellus, Nero and Scipio learnt the lessons Hannibal had taught them to good effect.

Strategy and reinforcements

Alexander’s strategy was simple. March at Persia, accept surrendering cities kindly and slaughter everyone who didn’t recognise him as king. However, the detail of this was intelligent. He did not leave strong cities at his back (unless they were besieged by his lieutenants), and if a city did rebel or refuse to kneel he was pretty ruthless, encouraging the others to fling their doors open instead of having them rammed to splinters. In the open field he was victorious, in siegecraft he was relentless and he made scarcely a mistake when it came to invading Persia. He did, however, bugger up the end of his reign by unnecessarily marching through the Gedrosian desert. Reinforcements came as and when he needed them and he also recruited heavily from Persian soldiers who had served Darius previously, much to the irritation of his fellow Macedonians.

Hannibal took the heroic/slightly mental approach of marching an army, including elephants, over the Alps. In winter. His strategy relied upon gaining local support in Italy itself, and he achieved this to a certain extent, but it was never sufficient to deliver him ultimate victory. He was hamstrung by the fact that Carthage rarely sent him reinforcements and, although rebellious Gauls did offer him some more men, the army of his brother (also called Hasdrubal) that crossed the Alps was immediately slaughtered by the consul Nero.

Alexander did better when it comes to strategy, I think. He made a damned silly error at the end, but he succeeded in his overall objective of smashing Persia. The ample reinforcements he received did help considerably. Hannibal’s strategy was difficult, but his objective was harder. Fighting in Italy was the right thing to do, but manpower became an issue in the later years and he was sadly unable to be reunited with his brother.

Personal Qualities

Alexander was a great leader, and not just in a tactical or strategic sense. He delegated well, he was merciful to cities that surrendered and he was always ready to lead the charge (indeed, he very nearly got killed when two scaling ladders broke and he was shot in the lung, facing numerous opponents and had just two bodyguards still with him). However, he did have little flaws, like murdering one of his best friends (Cleitus, who had saved his life at the Granicus) whilst drunk. His ambition enabled him to achieve great feats, but ultimately his army forced him to turn back from India, having grown wear of being away from home for a decade. It is notable that he treated the wives and children of Darius well, and was merciless to those Persians who had slain the Great King.

Hannibal’s personality is harder to judge because his history is written by the opposing side. Despite having a mixed force with very few actual Carthaginians in it, he suffered from desertion just once (a few hundred Numidian cavalry after years in Italy) during 10 years in enemy territory. He was rather more civilised than the Romans when it came to honouring the dead, searching for Flaminius’ body for hours after the ambush at Lake Trasimene so that he might give it a decent ceremony. By contrast, the consul Nero, who slew his brother Hasdrubal, cut off the head and had it hurled into Hannibal’s camp.

Hard to assess. I think it’s reasonable to say that Alexander exceeded Hannibal in vices (Hannibal never got in a drunken fight and killed a close friend), but that Alexander may have been a better leader of men.

Overall, I think Hannibal’s achievements are the greater. He fought for longer against a more difficult foe, usually outnumbered, permanently (after the Alps) in enemy territory, rarely receiving reinforcements and lacking total authority over the Carthaginian state. That’s not to belittle Alexander in any way. He never lost, and deservedly became a legend in his own lifetime. Would he have done so well in Hannibal’s position, or vice versa? If he had lived and then gone west from Macedon I daresay Rome would have become yet another conquest of his.

Thaddeus

The strange parallels of Alexander and Caesar

There are perhaps three generals of antiquity who stand head and shoulders above all the rest. Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca (my personal favourite) and Julius Caesar.

All three have fantastic biographies/military histories by Theodore Ayrault Dodge, and it was reading these that I first came across the almost eerie parallels between Alexander and Caesar.

Both men were born into good families (in Macedon the kingdom was theoretically hereditary but it was pretty common for an uncle of a king to take over, as Alexander’s own father did). Alexander played an instrumental role in the Battle of Chaeronea at 17, slaughtering the elite Theban Sacred Band, and became king at 19 until his death just over a decade later. Caesar was a slower starter (it is scarcely possible to be faster) but he too rose to become the undoubted leader of his armies and effectively became a king.

The two generals led elite military forces that grew accustomed to unprecedented success under their leaders. Alexander clearly had the greater achievement, in my view. After centuries of fearing the overwhelming power of Persia he led the Hellenistic armies to total victory, scoring staggering victories and reducing every city that dared defy him by expert siegecraft (Tyre being particularly impressive). However, Caesar also had a great military record, finally exorcising the ghost of the Gauls who had ravaged Rome centuries earlier.

Neither man truly knew defeat on the battlefield. Caesar did not enjoy unmitigated success, but his record is nevertheless excellent. Alexander’s feats almost defy belief and he was a legend even in his own lifetime.

However, both men died premature deaths. Alexander probably died of a fever, although there is a suggestion that Antipater (who ran Macedon in Alexander’s absence) had Iollas, his son and the king’s wine-pourer, poison him. Caesar, rather famously, got stabbed to death by a large number of people.

Sadly, there’s a rather more gruesome coincidence between the two. Caesar’s son was called Ptolemy Caesarion, and was executed by Octavian (who became Augustus) before his 18^th birthday. Alexander’s son was officially king, but regents ruled in his stead. He was killed by Cassander, ruler of Macedon, when some claimed a 13 year old could rule on his own.

Ironically, both men, who barely knew defeat in their military careers, died younger than Hannibal (who lost the Second Punic War). Neither of their sons succeeded them and both defeated a great foe (admittedly, Caesar did slaughter his own side).

Both chaps also had epilepsy, which is a rather strange coincidence. [Hannibal was also disabled, but he had one eye, having lost one to exposure during the perilous march through the Arnus Marshes].

There were some rumours that Caesar was also friendly with fellows, as Alexander famously was, but there’s some doubt about that.

So, unusually, both chaps had epilepsy, both died prematurely, and neither were succeeded by their sons (both of whom were murdered). It is possible both were murdered and partial to man-on-man action, but the former is uncertain regarding Alexander and the latter regarding Caesar.

Thaddeus

Elite soldiers of the Ancient World

Following a similar vein to an earlier post on sieges, I thought it’d be interesting to have a look at some of the finest soldiers from thousands of years ago.

Leonidas and the 300

The 300 Spartans of Thermopylae are perhaps the most famous. Assisted by their usually forgotten allies for the first few days, they bought the Greek alliance time by staving off an enormous army led by arch-lunatic Xerxes. The Spartans defended the narrow pass at Thermopylae (Hot Gates, in Greek, I think). Unfortunately, some dirty swine told the Persians of a secret track that led behind the Spartan position. The defenders learnt of this, and almost all of them left, except the Spartans. They died fighting bravely and, although they lost, Thermopylae has the air of victory. It’s almost the antithesis of a Pyrrhic victory. In the end, the Greeks managed to defeat the hugely larger Persian forces, setting the scene for the Peloponnesian War.

The Theban Sacred Band

It’s sometimes assumed, wrongly, that fellows of a not entirely heterosexual disposition are not the best chaps in the world at fighting. The Theban Sacred Band would beg to differ. In a little window of history, Epaminondas, King of Thebes, won two victories (Leuctra and Mantinea) over the Spartans (inventing the oblique order of battle as he did so). The Sacred Band were the finest of his troops, and consisted of 300 (again) gay chaps (or 150 pairs). The reasoning was basically that you’re likelier to fight remorselessly and less likely to turn and run if your lover’s life is also on the line. They were an elite force, but the problem was timing. Thebes had kicked Sparta’s arse, only to find out Philip II of Macedon and his son (some chap called Alexander) were not so easily beaten. At the Battle of Chaeronea Philip’s brilliant tactics and Alexander’s (who was in his late teens) fury slew them almost to a man. Being ever so slightly vindictive, the Macedonians also totally obliterated Thebes. (One of the Diadochi later restored it, I think).

Alexander’s Companions

Companion does not just refer to his best mates (although they were), the Companions were the very best of Alexander’s cavalry, and led by the man himself. The Macedonian army was fantastic in every regard, but relied upon intelligent and bold action from its commander. The phalanx could pin an enemy down effectively, enabling the cavalry to storm in the flank or rear and massacre them. Countless times the Companions saved Alexander’s life and routed his enemies. However, the risks weren’t entirely from the opposing army. Cleitus the Black took exception to his leader’s increasingly Persian-influenced style of kingship and the two had a drunken argument that ended when Alexander killed him with a spear. Alexander wept for days afterward, perhaps recalling that Cleitus had saved his life at the Battle of the Granicus.

The above three loosely defined units have something perhaps unexpectedly in common. They all lost, ultimately. The 300 were slain, of course, as were the Theban Sacred Band. When Alexander died, the Companions split as the huge Macedonian territory was torn apart by the Diadochi. There was no grand, unified Macedonian empire. It was sundered into the Seleucid Empire, Macedonia itself and Ptolemy’s Egypt.

If Alexander had lived beyond the early 30s and marched west after reaching home, he would have smashed Rome to pieces. It’s an intriguing thought.

Thaddeus