I have important news to tell you today, in which every Greek city-state will be taken to extreme heights of this new era. We have won the Battle of Issus, my friend! Finally, the day has come where we will be able to show Persia, our power and wisdom. Alexander is a key component to our success; we would have never survived without his courage, dedication, and wisdom. Before the war began, he had ridden to the front lines, where he named each solider and reminded us of the permanent values that will follow if we win. Although the Persian army stood before us with massive soldiers and weapons, it was Alexander’s quick reasoning and verdict that allowed us to react swiftly. Alexander’s tactics proved how he can lead and unite the soldiers when faced with difficult opposition. …show more content…
The defeat of the Persians was due to the battle being fought on a narrow coastal plain. The flat coastal plain proved to be a valuable advantage for us. This meant that Darius was unable to use his superior numbers to gain any sort of tactical advantage. Alexander’s ability to seize on these advantages led to such a decisive defeat. Alexander’s quick reasoning allowed him to turn his army around to face the Persians behind them.
In the end, tens of thousands of Persians, Greeks, and other Asiatic soldiers were killed. However, King Darius, that coward fled the battlefield in panic abandoning his mother, wife and even his children. Even though, they are of his descendants, Alexander treated them with respect because they pledged their loyalty to him. Alexander’s objective was to get revenge on the Persians for the violent campaign against Greece and for conquest. Today he was able to do both while ensuring the Macedonians
Alexander adopted Persian governing practices, but he had little use for Persian culture. According to his Greek biographer Plutarch, he considered himself "a governor from God and a reconciler of the world." He hoped that Greek culture would, through his actions, permeate all of Asia, inspiring its peoples to pursue virtue, excellence, and truth. This heroic idealism blended with practicality in his plan to develop the Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus rivers as commercial waterways linking all of Asia These undertakings promised to be long and difficult, however, and Alexander was an impatient man. His soldiers' unwillingness to proceed past the Indus was a great disappointment to him, for which he compensated by throwing his own festivals and celebrations. Alexander showed early leadership qualities. When King Phillip invaded Thrace, he left Alexander in charge of Macedonia at the age of 16. During his father's absence, one of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi, rebelled. Alexander was able to mobilize an army and put down the rebellion. In 336 B.C, Alexander's father was assassinated, putting Alexander on the throne at the age of 20. Shortly after this, Alexander left Macedonia with his armies to put down rebellions in the countries of Illyria, Thrace and Greece, all of which had previously been conquered by King Phillip. Alexander then moved his armies into Asia Minor and began to conquer the peoples there. Among the countries conquered by Alexander were Syria, Phoenicia and
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup-trm+ov+8.5&vers=engligh&browse+1). In conclusion, the Greeks defeated the Persians in the Persian Wars aided by unforgettable acts of heroism, divine support, and most importantly, Greek unity.
Darius had an advantage over Alexander the Great, he had more troops, better resources, and he chose the battle field. Although Darius had the advantage he was not as smart as Alexander. Alexander had good communication with his troops; he planned according, in addition he was well organized before the battled. He did not stray away from his plan he stuck to it. Alexander troops were heavily armed they moved in formation, and they were shield with their long spears they stayed close together and moved in formation. In addition he did not have all his troops engaged in the battle at once he planned an awesome attack strategy that won him and his troops the war.
Bury, J. B.; Russell Meiggs (2000). A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great
The main reason for Persian failures between 490 B.C. and 479 B.C. was not because the Persians made more mistakes than the Greeks did, but instead because the Greeks had superior armour and weapons and tactics. During certain battles the geography was also a disadvantage to the Persians and helped in their loss.
In the years following the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., Athens had come out on top being the most dominantly powerful of any Greek city with a navy that had superior strength that increased day by day. The Athenians “ruled with heavy-handed, even brutal force as well as with reason” (Kagan 2). This was due largely to the fact that Athens had a stable and effective government, which only increased their advantage in proving themselv...
There are many reasons why Alexander decided to invade Persia. Some say that he inherited the cause from his father, while it is said he was pre-destined to conquer Persia. Alexander did explain, in a letter, to Darius his reasons for invading Persia. This essay will explore briefly Phillip 's idea to invade Persia in the hope of understanding why Alexander invaded. In addition to this, one will look at his ancestral heritage as a possible means that may have further encouraged Alexander to act. Moreover, was he pre-destined by fate, through the omens and signs that accompanied his birth, and finally the letter that Alexander wrote to Darius explaining why he decided to invaded Persia. Furthermore, did all these events have a bearing on Alexander
One reason that Alexander was great was he disciplined and persevered. At the time of Alexander’s death, his empire was about 2,000,000 square miles, and the Roman Empire at its greatest was 2,200,000 square miles. (Document E). This shows that Alexander must have very disciplined in order to have conquered that much land. The Roman Empire had different leaders, so all of the land was not gotten by one leader. This also shows how Alexander must have persevered because it must have not been easy to conquer all that land by himself. Another example of perseverance
Athens was an important contributor to the Persian wars. Its tremendous naval power along with their smart and innovative leaders, Miltiades and Themistocles, brought victory in situations which had thought to be impossible. An example of this is the battle at Marathon during the second invasion. The Athenians met the Persian?s large army among the hills, where their cavalry would ineffective, which was their strongest quality. Miltiades, informed by some Ionians that the Persian cavalry was absent, convinced Callimachus to strike. The battle had resulted in a win for Athens, without the help of Sparta and showed the superiority of the Greek hoplites compared to their Persian counterparts. Miltiades, knowing that the Persian?s strongest troops were placed in the middle and absence of cavalry, devised a strategy to encircle their enemy by strengthening their wings. This strategy is what brought victory, and in turn, was a moral victory for the Athens and eradicated the impression that Persians were unbeatable. Th...
Hammond argues that Alexander demonstrated qualities that made him ‘Great.’ Alexander supported the sovereignty of the Greek Community and the Greeks supported him. Many Greeks even fought in his army. He also ordered that all exiles be sent back to their homes. This plan was strategic because it decreased instability,
Alexander the Not so Great:history through Persian eyes by Prof Ali Ansari Paragraph 1 Page
...s of the war itself, there are a number of crucial points which set the course of the tide, and I have tried to illustrate those which I consider to be most important and influential. In any case, it seems that if Athens would have continued with the policy of Pericles, she might not have been so weakened by the destruction of her superior naval forces, which, it seems, can largely be accounted for by Alcibiades and his supporters.
While Simon Hornblower acknowledges the limitations of the alliance, he is perhaps the strongest proponent of the importance of Persia’s financial support. He recognizes that Sparta’s victory at Notion in 407 was as much the result of poor Athenian leadership as Persian money, and that this financial backing did not prevent the disastrous loss at Arginusai the following year. Despite these statements, Hornblower is adamant that “The Peloponnesian War had been won because of Persian money.” P.F. Rhodes continues this reasoning in A History of the Classical Greek World, 478-323. He contends that Persia’s assistance helped Sparta effectively combat Athens at sea, and allowed them to remain engaged until Athens could no longer continue. These theories all center around the question of why Sparta won the war. However, if we flip our perspective and examine why Athens lost the war, Persia’s money becomes considerably less significant. It is to this examination that we now turn our
In the Summer of 331 B.C. Alexander the Great and his army of Macedonians defeated the well maned Persian army after their leadership, king Darius III, left in an act of cowardice. However, Jona Lendering says in his book Alexander de Grote. De ondergang van het Perzische rijk “ It wasn't Alexander's courage or Darius' cowardice that decided the fate of the Persian Empire, it was the signs that were seen in the
The Battle of Salamis is said to be one of the most important battles in all of history. It was a naval battle fought between the massive Persian army and smaller Greek army in the Bay of Salamis in 480 BCE. This battle was one of the many battles that were a part of the Greco-Persian war. This paper will explore the events leading up to the battle, the battle itself, including advantages and disadvantages both sides had on one and other, and finally will discuss the affects the result of this battle had on each side. Surprisingly, the much smaller Greek army defeated the Persians at the Battle of Salamis. How did this happen, one may ask? Although the Persians appeared to have the military advantage in this battle, particularly in terms of sheer size and numbers, the Greeks successfully defeated them with the help of their leaders, tactics, and many Persian blunders.