Battle of Issus (Part 3/5)

Alexander The Great - The Battle Of Issus
Part 3 0f 5

Category:

Education

Tags:

• The
• Great
• Commander

[alcibiade666]

Before saying that, you should see the 5 part video showing the strategy used by Alexander at Gaugamela. Absolutely stunning.

[McBinary]

they were both great commanders no need for these pathetic arguments

[riacheslav]

Al was working with a far superior army- Greek heavy infantry were renowned, had served as mercenaries for the Persians generations earlier. Part of the reason he was there was that the Greeks, for a long time, felt they could take Persia. It is why a few Spartans held Thermopylae for days. Xenophon's Anabasis was a 'best-seller' in the Greek world. That phalanx could make even a poor commander look good. And Alexander was brilliant. But the real genius was Philip. Philip built that army.

[saudi4eva9]

@McBinary 0.. what u mean theyboth great ? the guy just got his ass kikd by smaller army and u telling me he is great . alexander is great . daraius is looooooser

[steveecker]

@FlamingLion116 Darius 3 had 250,000 infantry + cavalry + archers, slingers etc at his disposal. Alexander initially had 40,000 including his cavalry and mercenaries (initially meaning at the time of this battle, his army grew afterwards). That's no exaggeration, Darius' army was HUGE, but poorly commanded.

[evilscotsmin]

@FlamingLion116 6 - 1 ...5 - 1 is the true numbers the army went for 2.5 miles unbrocken in a line ofocurse 100s deep..and am sure this is the battle of gaugamela it was miles away from issus plus this is the first ever time i seen a river in the middle....or am i getting mixed up o0 ?

[FlamingLion116]

1 to 6 is a gross exaggeration- more like somewhere between 1 to 2 or 1 to 1 even.

[sushanalone]

alexander's strat was pretty brash here if he had been killed in the initial assault on the persian left or blocked with reinforcements he would have died or had suffered major losses to his elite army division. Then people would have thought Alaxander to be incompetent. But then history favors the victors not the best.

[pikewerfer]

@McBinary Please explain why you believe Darius to have been a great commander?

[lupulrox]

@Oldcartoons571 watch first the battle at gaugemela and yes crossing the alps had benefits but i think we can agree that the losses out weighed the benefits i think that we should agree to disagree because i will stand frm in my belief that alexander is the most incredible military commander

[Oldcartoons571]

@lupulrox he faced the Romans was the real reason he lost.

Crossing the Alps was a great move which had great benefits. If he had gotten the reinforcements he needed he might have still been able to win. However thats still a maybe since the Romans manpower was so great.

We cannot base whos great off who wins in the end. Different factors affect things.

Case done they are tied (maybe)

[Oldcartoons571]

@lupulrox Can you think of some ways Hannibal could have won? No? Ok. His situation was different from Alexanders. He fought the ROMANS. The same Romans who had lost two major (one draw) battles to Pyrrhus and still didnt surrender. The same Romans who lost major battles to Hannibal and didnt surrender. The Romans had a seemingly limitless amount of manpower which Hannibal simply couldnt match for various reasons. His skill was matched by few if many. His opponent and the fact that