Alexander at his operational best

Advance into the Caspian gates

As Alexander was marching with his army to Ecbatana in Media where Darius was with his troops,which numbered 6 to 7000 infantry and 3000 cavalry, it was reported to him that Darius had been promised reinforcements by the Cadusians and the Scythians. Darius remained in Media while sending his women and covered wagons to what are known as the Caspian gates.

Darius's intention was to retreat to the interior by the way of hyrcania and parthia and into Bactria while laying waste to all the places that lay along his path to impede Alexander's advance. He could also hope to gather reinforcements from these places as he passed through with his army.

Upon learning of this report Alexander made all haste for Ecbatana. Leaving the pack animals as well as the baggage behind under the protection of their guards Alexander led the remaining troops in battle order and arrived in Media on the twelfth day. There he learned that no Scythian or Cadusian reinforcements had arrived and that Darius had resolved to flee.

To advance further from media in pursuit of the remnant of the Persian army under Darius Alexander divided his army into two main columns. The one under Alexander's personal command Marched eastwards towards Rhagae and onto the Caspian gates in pursuit of Darius while the second column was put under the command of Parmenio and was ordered to march north and from there to strike northeast,keeping roughly parallel to Alexander's own march,into Cadusia and then to Hyrcania respectively to prevent the Cadusian reinforcements from reaching Darius.

Parmenio's column would also cut off the adjacent satrapies(i.e Mardia and Hyrcania) to the retreating Persians in case they directed their march to these places in hopes of supplying themselves and raising new levies to bolster their army or go on the offensive in Alexander's rear much like the remnant of the Persian army post issos who attempted to threaten Alexander's rear communication by levying troops from places like paphlagonia.

(ONE OF THE FOREMOST MODERN AUTHORITIES ON ALEXANDER A.B BOSWORTH IS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ORDER WAS LATER COUNTERMANDED BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD SETTLE FOR A COMPROMISE THAT PARMENIO MADE IT AS FAR AS CADUSIA SINCE ALEXANDER TURNED AGAINST HYRCANIA AND MARDIA TO SUBDUE THEM BUT NOT CADUSIA THAT LIES DIRECTLY NEXT TO MARDIA AND HAD EVEN PROMISED REINFORCEMENTS FOR DARIUS AND WERE A HOSTILE THREAT.)

keeping the above consideration in mind if parmenio actually managed to advance beyond Cadusia then The column under parmenio would cover the left flank for Alexander during the latter's march from where he intended to march into Parthia. There he was to make a junction with the troops left in Ecbatana by instructing Clietus, who was left in Susa, to take control over them upon reaching Ecbatana and go into the direction of Parthia and link up with Alexander.

When Alexander reached a place which was only a few days' march from the Caspian gates he learned that Darius had already passed through. Alexander gave up on his pursuit and encamped at this spot and sent koinos son of polemacrates to forage for supplies since the land beyond was uncultivated. Some Persian deserters from Darius's camp came to Alexander and informed him that Darius had been overthrown in a coup led by Nabarzanes the commander of the King's royal squadron and Bessus the satrap of Bactria.

On the strength of this report Alexander immediately set out with his picked body of troops while leaving krateros behind with the rest of the army to follow. After some forced marches Alexander finally reached the place where the enemy had bivouacked the night before.

Here Alexander inquired with the locals if they knew a shorter route through which he could catch up to Bessus.They said there was but it ran through a waterless and uninhabited country. Despite this Alexander asked them to act as guides and began preparations to march through this desert track(More or less to the south of the Caspian gates while to its north it is bordered by the Elbruz mountains). Alexander knew he couldn't catch up to the enemy by moving his full force so he devised a bold plan of operation.

For the march through this waterless region Alexander selected the cavalry and 500 mounted infantry and took with him provisions for 2 days while leaving the rest of the army,divided into two parts with the advance guards equipped lightly as possible to increase their speed,with the instruction to tail the enemy by marching along the path taken by Bessus in order to keep the enemy constantly on the march so as to to attrite them,who by this point would have likely been worn out by the constant marches from the preceding days, and give them no opportunity for respite lest they be overtaken by the large Macedonian column following behind.

With the two Macedonian columns closely following on the Enemy’s heels Alexander must have hoped to herd Bessus(The last thing the fugitives would have expected was a flying column to suddenly spring out from the land adjacent to their line of march) into straying right towards Alexander's detachment while Bessus was trying to evade the two Macedonian columns in his rear.

Meanwhile Alexander temporarily cut loose of his communication and marched via the waterless route with nothing but 2 days ration and weapons to lighten his troops as much as possible and to increase the speed of their march knowing that the enemy would be marching with their baggage and the camp followers. Marching outside the route taken by the enemy Alexander first cut through this shorter albeit difficult desert track before curving back towards the main road,through which Bessus was retreating, from a different axis of march.

In the haste to get clear away from the Macedonians following behind Bessus was thrown right into Alexander's advancing column before dawn. Alexander came upon them when they were still in the order of march and were found unarmed, likely due to them having just broken camp,and straggling(may be implying that the enemy were strung out in their march) along the road without proper order. My personal conjecture is that many of the enemy troops were fanned out in their foraging expeditions or to collect woods and so when Alexander struck they quickly dispersed which might explain why Bessus made his escape with only a few hundred horsemen. Bessus with a handful of men fled east towards Bactria.

At this juncture the remaining troops made junction with Alexander. Sometime earlier Alexander had received a report about the Grecian mercenaries, who had accompanied Darius in his retreat,escaping to the mountains of Tapuria in Hyrcania which lay roughly to the northwest of Alexander's position.

Alexander successfully interposed himself between the two disjointed wings of the enemy split in opposite directions.

Alexander first rendezvoused to Hyracania (where Parmenio had sometime earlier set out as per Alexander's order) to the west against the mercenaries. His approach from the east would therefore have likely been supplemented by Parmenio's own expedition directed towards Hyrcania from the west.

Even if Alexander's march to Hyrcania was not synchronized with Parmenio's to a tee the latter lay immediately to the west and thus the mercenaries would have found themselves surrounded from both directions.

Upon his arrival Alexander further divided his column into three to fully traverse the country leaving the mercenaries no room to hide. The Mercenaries soon capitulated.

Alexander then turned towards the Mardians to the left of Hyrcania to subdue the locals and safeguard his rear communication. After accomplishing this Alexander pivoted east against Bessus.

Crossing of the Hindu kush

Marching by the way of Parthia, Alexander reached Aeria(roughly corresponding to the modern heart in western Afghanistan)which borders Parthia to its east. There after letting satibazanes retain his office Alexander continued on his pursuit of Bessus in Bactra (Approximately modern Balkh in Northern Afghanistan),who by now had raised a moderate force consisting of the Persians, bactrians,sogdians,and the scythians.

On his way to Drangiana it was reported to him that satibazanes had revolted and the men he had left behind as a garrison had been all murdered. Satibazanes had decided on raising fresh levies from his province and upon deducing that Alexander had passed through his satrapy he intended to assist Bessus in attacking the Macedonians whenever possible.

Leaving the rest of his forces under krateros Alexander took with him a select body of troops and struck Aeria before satibazanes’s depositions were completed and before he could reinforce bessus. After this brief delay Alexander resumed his march and reached Arachosia(Approximately modern Kandahar in southern Afghanistan). Around this time the infamous philotas affair was uncovered that led to the execution of philotas and his father parmenio on the flimsiest grounds. Parmenio unequivocally had no involvement in the conspiracy. Unfortunately for him his fate was sealed and he was assassinated in Ecbatana. Parmenio was popular among his troops and was a capable and trusted subordinate. His execution was the most unfortunate.

Here, the report reached him that satibazanes had re-entered aeria after being reinforced with 2000 bactrians provided by Bessus and was stirring the people to revolt once more. (An individual by the name of barzanes shows up in arrian's account as the man who was appointed the viceroy of parthia by bessus. His identity has long been a subject of debate with some identifying him as Nabarzanes while A.b bosworth's verdict is that this was a completely different individual who was dispatched by Bessus to threaten Alexander’s rear. I personally subscribe to Bosworth's view. Arrian in earlier text doesn't refer to Nabarzanes as barzanes nor are we told of any sort of redistribution of the satrapies. The satrap of parthia under Darius and later under Alexander was phratapharnes.) This was exacerbated by Bessus sending a certain barzanes to Parthia in a maneuver to the rear, most likely via the northern corridor, with the order to carry on the war as far as Ecbatana in Media.

To secure his western flank Alexander despatched a Macedonian detachment under erigyus and caranus to aeria with the further instruction to Phrataphernes,the satrap of Parthia, to simultaneously join in on the attack against satibazanes from the west while the Macedonian column closed in from the south via Drangiana towards aeria in a concentric operation. However with the approach of barzanes to Parthia pratapharnes was likely tied in his own province and unable to join the attack against satibazanes.

Here the main objective of this Macedonian column was to reopen Alexander's rear communications and prevent satibazanes from overrunning Aeria and possibly linking up with barzanes. Meanwhile Bessus had begun scorching all the surrounding regions in and around Bactria to impede Alexander's advance while to his east the imposing Hindu Kush formed a natural barrier.

In Aeria the forces of satibazanes and erigyus for a long time fought an inconclusive battle until satibazanes was killed in a hand to hand fight after which the rest of the bactrians soon scattered. After securing Aeria the Macedonian detachment was able to drive a wedge between barzanes and bessus.

From Arachosia Alexander veered off further east no doubt induced by the Persians and Bactrians implementing the scorched Earth strategy in places around Bactria. To combat this Alexander decided on misdirecting the enemy by turning his march eastwards only to then make a detour through the mountains in order to threaten bactria itself from an unexpected direction. Once the Bactrians faced the threat of being cut off from their very homes they would be forced into retiring to their own abodes, lest privation begin to set in given that they had already laid waste to all the places around Bactria, turning Bessus's own strategy on its head.

To accomplish this Alexander feigned a march as far as the nearby Indian tribes on the hither side of the Hindu Kush to give the enemy the impression that Alexander was compelled to turn his march towards India due to the enemy employing the scorched Earth strategy.

Upon reaching the foothills of the Hindu Kush, which cuts between what is today Afghanistan and Pakistan, The king made a flank march over the Hindu Kush while using the mountains to screen his movement before debouching into the plains of Bactria. Turning Bessus's left while the enemy were likely split between Bessus with a part of his force in zariaspa, the capital ,and the Persians and Bactrians carrying on with Bessus’s orders around the base of the Hindu Kush.

Alexander's advance to Bactria induced the Bactrians to look out for their own possessions and scatter to their homes.

Furthermore , The Bactrians judged that once Alexander succeeded in overrunning Bactria they would find themselves detached from their own territories as well as their families and consequently would have a hard time procuring provisions due to them having laid waste to all the places in their vicinity. Thus they had a stronger incentive to simply desert for their own interest.

Bessus found himself deprived of his bactrian allies while Alexander was closing on him from the east meanwhile to the west with Aeria once again secured he and Barzanes had no direct communication with one another after the Macedonian detachment under karanos and erigyus interposed itself between the two. Hemmed in from both sides Bessus was left with no other option but to retreat north into Sogdiana with his forces greatly reduced from its initial strength.

Alexander reached the land of the cathaens where they along with their neighbors had taken up a position on a hill in front of the city which was surrounded by three defensive walls of carts. Seeing enemy's disposition Alexander first threw forward his mounted archers to screen the deployment for the rest of the army, ordering them to shoot at long range in order to pin the enemy in their place and prevent them from making a sortie while the Macedonians were still forming up in their battle order,as well to buy time for the rest of the infantry and cavalry that were following up behind to join him.

Once the Macedonians were properly formed up the king, Observing that opposite his right wing the enemy sector was easier to assail due to the ground being leveled as well as the carts being drawn up not so close but spaced out widely, concentrated his attack against the Indian left as its defenses were strung out. Cavalry proving useless Alexander led his phalanx against the Indians and succeeded in forcing them out of the first line of defense and into the second.

After a fierce fighting Alexander was able to drive them into their city.

Alexander immediately invested this place in a siege and posted his infantry all around the town in order to surround it. However due to the extent of the walls he couldn't fully enclose the town. Opposite a portion of the city wall where there was a gap in the blockade was a lake which was shallow. Alexander conjectured that the enemy would try to make their escape via this lake in the night so he accordingly detached his cavalry opposite the sector of the city wall near the lake to lay in wait for the enemy in an ambush so as to cut off their line of retreat.

Just as Alexander predicted the enemy made a dash towards the lake in the night but in their escape ran straight into the cavalry patrol and were cut to pieces. They immediately retreated back to their town.

Few days later some deserters came to Alexander and informed him that the Indians intended to make their escape that very night via the gap in the blockade. Upon learning of this Alexander ordered Ptolemy with a select body of troops to take position near the spot from where the natives hoped to slip away. He had further instructions from Alexander to carry the carts which the enemy had left behind,following the engagement outside the town,and to use it in constructing Palisades to be posted between the section of the town's wall from where the Indians planned to flee and the shallow lake.

As soon as the enemy flung open the town's gates and commenced their retreat Ptolemy was to fall upon them just when the fugitives were struggling through the hurdles constructed in their path. Furthermore the trumpeters were to sound their bugles to notify Alexander who in turn would bring his troops against the enemy so as to catch them in a pincer.

Just as Alexander was informed the indians attempted to flee but found the Palisades obstructing their path and soon enough Ptolemy with his troops were upon them. The Indians after suffering considerable losses retreated back to their town.

Alexander the Great (Alexandre le Grand) reached far beyond the confines of historical biography, emerging as one of the most versatile and ubiquitous figures in medieval Western European literature. The legendary narratives that coalesced around him after his death preserved more than just his military victories; they captured a life reframed by supernatural encounters, explorations of uncharted lands, famed intellect, open-handed generosity, and an unyielding drive to test the boundaries of human knowledge.

Much of this literary tradition flows from the Alexander Romance attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes, compiled in the early centuries of the Common Era. By Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, this narrative material entered Western Europe through key Latin adaptations: Julius Valerius’s Res Gestae Alexandri Macedonis, its ninth-century Epitome, and the widely circulated eleventh-century Historia de Preliis.

From the twelfth century onward, Alexander took on a distinctly contemporary resonance in Western vernaculars. No longer treated merely as an ancient ruler from the distant past, he was absorbed into the medieval framework of chivalry, courtly culture, political legitimacy, princely pedagogy, and Christian moralizing. As the historical Macedonian faded, a literary archetype took his place—one onto which medieval Europe could project its own ideals, anxieties, and political ambitions.

To what extent can a historical character be detached from its context, era, and origins? Alexander the Great, a Macedonian general who lived in the 4th century BCE, has been portrayed in many different ways throughout his life. He is seen, in particular, as a figure who has been reimagined in European literature.

The trilogy plus that biography she wrote, that is. I... have a mixed relationship with them personally. On one hand, im glad that she was one of the first people writing about Alexander to acknowledge his relationship with Hephaestion and present him as a very complex human (even if the biography came accross as more of a hagiography at times.) I honestly think that Ms. Renault was in love with Alexander on some level despite being a Lesbian lol. HOWEVER, I need to point out the obvious: Mary Renault was not an actual Alexander scholar.

She had no formal training in the classics. Thats not to say that her books dont merit anything, but I wouldn't recommend them to someone trying to learn more about Alexander the man. Dr. Jeanne Reames is who I'd typically recommend online for those with questions about Alexander, as well as the following biography books:

The young Alexander by Alex Rowson

Alexander the Great: lives and legacies by Stephen Harrison

Dividing the Spoils by Robin Waterfield

But thats just me, what do yall think about Mary Renault and her books on him?

Napolean or Alexander?

“Written in 1929 by the son of Thomas Mann, Alexander shows why Klaus Mann is regarded in Germany as one of the foremost writers of the twentieth century. In creating a new version of Alexander the Great – at times all-powerful, at times craven and debased – Mann railed at the dark spectre that animated the soul of Germany at a time when even his father was caught up in a spirit whose promises were to bear the most rotten of fruit. In presenting history's greatest demagogue, Mann exposed the thin carapace that separates civilisation from barbarism, and gives a dire warning that remains all too pertinent today.

“Published here with a foreword by Jean Cocteau, Alexander is a stunning work of historical reimagining from a troubled and unjustly neglected writer.”

Lysippos created this portrait of Alexander the Great. Alexander himself considered this depiction to be a model for all sculptors.

A few months ago, I came upon a quite interesting post on this subreddit that asked why Indian sources didn't refer to or mention Amazon at all, and one commenter said the only time he was referenced was a passing mention of "Chandakosha" in Emperor Harsha's biography.

I found this quite intriguing and dug a bit deeper, and analysed the quite scant possible other references, such as the supposed meeting of young Chandragupta and Alexander, a reference to an Alexandria in the Buddhist *Milindapanha* (Questions of Menander), and an Ashokan Rock Edict that mentions a different Alexander, king of Epirus.

The Harshacharita passage itself is quite ambiguous, and it is possible but not certain that it refers to Alexander, the case for it relies on phonetic play by Banabhatta, its author, who might have rebracketed Alexander into Alasa-Chandakosha, as well as the narrative parallel to the Alexander Romance (Both allude to a world-conquering king who failed to subdue a kingdom of women). I have gone into further detail in my substack.

The main source I have used here is Sylvain Levi's *Alexander et Alexandrie dans des Documents Indies,* 1934, as well as others.

This Serbian manuscript, dating from the 15th century, recounts the life and exploits of Alexander the Great. The manuscript was destroyed during the bombing of Belgrade in April 1941. Only a limited number of fragments and photographic reproductions of its illustrations have survived.

This Serbian manuscript, dating from the 15th century, recounts the life and exploits of Alexander the Great. The manuscript was destroyed during the bombing of Belgrade in April 1941. Only a limited number of fragments and photographic reproductions of its illustrations have survived.

Hey everyone! I’ve been working on a website where you can follow Alexander’s journey from Macedonia to India, explore 3D battle reconstructions, and compare ancient ships and army formations.

You can check it out here: https://alexander-ancien-atlas.com/

It’s still a work in progress, and I’d love feedback from people who know the history, especially if you spot inaccuracies or something that doesn’t work.

What would you like to see added or corrected ?

Its showing a “Dying Alexandros”

Sculptor Mervan Altınorak, based in İskenderun (Hatay), made a statue of Alexander the Great and his horse Bucephalus using 50,000 pieces of electronic waste over 8 months.

I kept switching to English whenever I wrote the city's name, since it comes from Alexander the Great.

Here is the continuation of the article I wrote in the first part. Alexander the Great is one of the historical figures who has captured my attention the most, and I can say that I am by no means alone in this interest. Despite his immense popularity, studies in political history or Hellenistic history unfortunately tend to push the evolution of Alexander’s personality across different cultures into the background. Of course, I’m not saying there is no research on this topic, but there is very little. I have attempted to generalize and summarize a topic I also explored in my doctoral dissertation in two parts. Naturally, like all generalizations, it has its shortcomings. Still, I think it serves as a good introduction.

If you’re curious about Alexander, I invite you to visit my Substack page. As social scientists, we’re known for never really keeping quiet. I’d say this page consists of the posts where I just can’t stop talking about the field.

I’m an actor and indie film maker

My challenge is to make a 1-4 location feature about Alexander for a film challenge.

Who has any good ideas on what part of Alexander’s life would be a good fit for this. Obviously there’s so much room for creativity here, and so much to do… But just wanted to hear some fun ideas!

I thought it would be interesting to portray the movie about the day king Philip dies and all the complications and drama that came with that. But there’s so many angles I can do about him with limited locations… so many!!!

Finding good fiction about Alexander is not so easy, so when the author of one the best (if not the best) novels about Alexander's youth publishes a short story, you should run!

Dr. Jeanne Reames has just made available through her website a what-if short story, "The Anger of Achilles" with quite a what-if scenario: "What if Philip of Macedon died at the Battle of Chaironeia in 358 BCE, and an 18-year-old Alexander was taken to Athens as a prisoner of war, then sold to... Demosthenes"?

Short, but to the point, it will make you scratch an itch you didn't even know you had.

Alexander the Great has been part of literary and historical memory for more than twenty-three centuries. His story travelled across an extraordinary geographical and linguistic range, eventually appearing in more than thirty-five languages. Yet the Alexander who survived this long journey was not always the same Alexander who conquered the Persian Empire. In different periods and places, he became a king, a philosopher, a prophet, a defender of the faithful, and even a figure connected with the end of the world. The historical Alexander provided the starting point, but later traditions repeatedly changed what could be done with his story.

Alexander the Great was a flamboyant commander who led from the front. Rather than directing his armies from a safe position far behind the fighting, he repeatedly placed himself within reach of deadly enemy weapons. In many of the battles he commanded, Alexander took the initiative at critical moments, personally leading the decisive attack and often riding at the head of his Companion cavalry.

Although the image of a commander leading from the front is undeniably charismatic, it came with enormous risks. If Alexander had been killed in battle, his army could have suffered a severe loss of morale and leadership. His conspicuous armor and royal insignia may also have made him an obvious target for enemy soldiers. So how did Alexander survive so many battles while repeatedly placing himself in such danger?

Alexander was wounded on multiple occasions during his campaigns, sometimes seriously. Yet he never fell in battle. His survival can be attributed to a combination of factors: luck, the protection provided by his trained bodyguards and elite troops, his armor, his battlefield experience, and the amount of time he actually spent in close combat rather than fighting continuously at the front.

So what was it really like when Alexander led from the front, and how did he survive the battles and wounds that could easily have ended his life? This article examines the evidence from the ancient sources to explain how one of history's most famous commanders repeatedly exposed himself to danger, and somehow lived to fight another day.