Great Battles - Granicus; Alexander's Gateway to Asia

Xen

Magister
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
16,004
Location
Formosa
Alexander the Great:

Alexander fought four major battles in his glittering and brilliant career. Granicus, fought in May 334 BC, was the first and probably the most important since it was the battle in which he came closest to failure and death. Indeed, if Alexander had perished here it is unlikely that history would even have remembered his name.
Alexander succeeded to the throne of Macedon in 336 BC at the age of 20, following the assassination of his father, King Philip II. The barbarians and Greeks living to the north and west took the opportunity of Philip’s death to rebel against Macedonian rule, and it took the first two years of Alexander’s reign to subdue these troublesome neighbours. Only then could he concentrate on what he believed to be his purpose in life — the destruction of the Persian Empire.

Alexander was aware of the part the Persians had played in inciting the troubles at home in Macedonia and was eager for revenge. He was also an astute politician, and saw the chance to make good use of the deep grievances that most Greeks felt towards Persia for past and present injustices suffered at their hands.
In 334 BC Alexander passed responsibility for Macedonia’s home affairs to his father’s minister Antip and divided up his lands between his friends in the expectation that he would never return home. He then mustered an army of 32,000 infantry and 5,100 cavalry, made up of Macedonians, Greeks and Balkan peoples, and led it across the Hellespont and on to Ilium, where he took the time to pay homage to the dead of the Trojan Wars and made sacrificial offerings to the Gods.

Darius:

The Persian king, Darius III, had underestimated the Macedonian threat and was miles away in his eastern capital of Susa, so the Persian army in the west was led not by one man but by a group of satraps or provincial governors. On learning of Alexander’s invasion the satraps convened a council of war, where Memnon of Rhodes, a Greek mercenary in Persian service, recommended that they should avoid battle and instead withdraw east, utilising a scorched earth policy of burning farms and destroying crops to deny Alexander food and shelter and thus force him to retreat for want of supplies. This was probably sound advice, as Alexander had provisions for only another 30 days and most of his men had not received pay. But Memnon was despised and mistrusted by most of the Persian leaders, not only because he was a Greek, but because he was a plain-speaking man and had insulted Persian dignity by stating that the Macedonian infantry were, in any case, far superior to the Persians. Memnon’s advice was consequently ignored and the Persians decided that they would lure Alexander into a pitched battle at an advantageous site of their choosing. The Persians then manoeuvred their forces to draw Alexander toward the Granicus river, where they could minimise the effect of his 2:1 advantage in infantry while making the most of their own 2:1 advantage in cavalry. The Granicus stood on the ‘Asian Gates’, where a major route led to the satrapal cities of Sardis and Daskyleion and thus control of Asia Minor.

The river was between 60 and 90 ft (18–27 m) wide, varying in depth along its length. Its banks were steep and craggy and its current strong, and it would prove a difficult obstacle for both cavalry and infantry. It was reasoned that the Macedonian formations would probably be disordered as they emerged on the near bank, making them vulnerable to Persian counter-attacks. For this reason Parmenion, Alexander’s second-in-command, advised caution and suggested that the Macedonian army should camp for the night but send an advance force downriver to look for a suitable ford, and then cross with the whole army at dawn the next day. However, Alexander rejected Parmenion’s advice and stated that he ‘should be ashamed having crossed the Hellespont to be stopped by a miserable stream like the Granicus’.

On the eastern bank the Persian cavalry were formed up in front, making a line approximately 1½ miles (2.4 km) wide. Here they waited for the Macedonians to make their move. No-one is really sure of the Persian order of battle, but according to the historian Diadorus the Persian right flank was made up of 1,000 Median cavalry, 2,000 Bactrian cavalry and 2,000 others of unknown origin under the command of Rheomithres. The centre was held by more cavalry of unknown origin, jointly commanded by Rhoesaces and Mithridates, while the Paphlagonian cavalry of Arsites and the Hyrcanian cavalry of Spithradates — both units of unknown size — made up the left. All of the Persians’ Greek mercenary infantry were drawn up on higher ground approximately 1–2,000 yds (1–2 km) to the rear. However, the Persian formation appears to have been a tactical error, as by positioning their cavalry so close to the steep banks of the river they would be denied the opportunity of charging, while the infantry, positioned to the rear, would become mere spectators of a battle that was too far away for them to provide any assistance. The Persians believed their numerical and — as they believed — their qualitative superiority in cavalry would overwhelm any Macedonian charge, and therefore allow them to kill Alexander and, in effect, stifle the war at its birth. The demoralising effect of their commander’s loss, especially at so early a stage in the battle, would probably cause the enemy to panic and flee.

The Macedonian army formed up on the western bank with Alexander’s heavy infantry phalanxes in the centre flanked on the left by 150 Thracian light cavalry and 600 Greek heavy cavalry under Calas. On the right flank of the phalanxes stood 3,000 heavy infantry under the command of Nicanor, son of Parmenion, 600 prodromoi light cavalry, 150 Paeonian cavalry, 1,800 companion heavy cavalry (with Alexander himself at the head of the royal squadron), 500 Agrianian javelinmen and finally 500 Cretan archers under Clearchus.

The Battle:
For a while there was an eerie silence, as though neither side wanted to start the fight. Then, with trumpets blaring and a great roar, some 900 horsemen and a 1,000-strong phalanx from the Macedonian right flank thundered forward into the river in a feint attack against the extreme left of the Persian line. In keeping with their plan to kill Alexander, the Persians watched every move he made, a task facilitated by the magnificence of his glittering armour and his white-crested helmet, standing out at the head of the companion cavalry.

Fearing that the feint against their left indicated the direction of the main Macedonian assault, the Persians transferred some of the cavalry from their centre and commenced to inflict heavy losses on the Macedonians. Seeing the disordered state of the Persian cavalry, Alexander then led six squadrons of his famous companion cavalry across the river and up the steep eastern bank. The Persians’ short javelins were no match for the Macedonians’ long cornel-wood cavalry lances or sarissas, and the slaughter was terrible as each side tried to push the other back. The Persian leaders, having singled out Alexander, bore down on him in an attempt to kill him. His lance had by now been broken and he had to defend himself using just the butt spike until an aide supplied him with a new spear. No sooner had Alexander received this than, looking up, he saw the Persian prince and cavalry commander Mithridates bearing down on him at the head of his own elite Iranian squadron. Alexander wheeled to face him just as the Persian hurled his spear, which pierced Alexander’s shield and went on to hit his cuirass but did not penetrate his flesh. Plucking the missile out and throwing it aside, Alexander then thrust his own spear against Mithridates’ breastplate, which withstood the blow. Shaken, Mithridates drew his sword, but Alexander thrust his spear into the Persian’s face, killing him instantly. A second Persian nobleman wounded Alexander slightly when he brought his sword crashing down on the Macedonian king’s helmet, splitting the crest and shearing off one of the plumes, but Alexander responded quickly by thrusting his lance deep into the Persian’s chest. A third Persian leader, Spithradates, was close behind, but when he raised his sword ready to despatch Alexander his arm was struck off by Cleitus son of Dropides, the brother of Alexander’s nurse.

By now the remainder of the Macedonian right had crossed the river, and despite putting up a desperate and stiff resistance the Persians were being pushed back by Alexander’s companion cavalry and heavy infantry, which by now had become intermingled with them. Slowly but surely the Macedonians gained level ground above the river’s steep banks. In the meantime Alexander’s left wing had also crossed the river and gained a foothold on the east bank. The Thessalian cavalry in particular performed splendidly and showed great skill in both combat and horsemanship.

The Spoils of War:
The Persian cavalry having lost so many leaders now rapidly gave way, and with the collapse of their centre both Persian wings also panicked and fled. The Macedonians attempted to pursue and destroy the Persian cavalry but had to be reigned in, as Memnon’s Greek mercenary infantry still held the high ground and stood in Alexander’s way. The Greeks offered terms for surrender, but Alexander would have none of it, reasoning that they were traitors, fighting against their own kin in the service of the Persians. Alexander ordered his phalanxes to attack their centre while the cavalry took their flanks and unguarded rear. The Greeks were massacred, but they put up a desperate resistance, inflicting more casualties on the Macedonians than the Persian cavalry had done, and even killing Alexander’s horse from under him. Those who survived were sent in chains back to Greece and hard labour. Alexander ordered that all who had died in the battle, including the Persian leaders and Greek mercenaries, should be buried with military honours. All relatives of the Macedonian dead were granted exemption from taxes and public service. From the spoils Alexander despatched 300 suits of Persian armour to Athens to remind the Greeks that the victory was part of a war of revenge against Persia, and to stir Greek enthusiasm for further campaigns deeper within enemy territory. Granicus was Alexander’s first major victory over the Persians and opened the door to Asia Minor.
 
The battle highlited heroic combat of the time, the Persians collapes after being decapitated. Having losts nearly a dozen generals, staraps, and other high commaders shortly after Alexader crossed the river.
 
Xen, I do not happen to believe that account of the battle. That account is roughly, I think, the one Arrian gives. In the Arrian account, Parmenion urges Alexander to cross the river the night before. Alexander says no and chides Parmenion for suggesting such a thing.

The funny thing is, in the account of Diodorus, there is no mention of Parmenion's advice and Alexander has already crossed the river by morning. :o

The idea that Alexander attacked successfully from across the river is pretty ridiculous. Doesn't really seem realistic to me. Arrian's source is probably probably Callisthenes, who sought to glorify Alexander and denigrate Parmenion in order to lessen the evil of the latter's murder. The chances are, Diodorus's source is more reliable in this instance :)
 
then write an alternative history :p I dont feel like editing this entire thing after reading an entire differnt account of the battle ;) heck, i didnt even feel like uploading pictures for this one (and i have 'em too)- what can i say other then for the most part, even though I admire him, Alexander bores me... I'll be writing up a littl esomthing on the macedonian milatary soon (perhaps) but after that, it'll more then likelly be both my last big thing on macedon, and perhaps even ancient greece on a whole article wise...
 
The Persian tactic of trying to hold a river line with stationary cavalry while their own (largely mercenary Hoplite) infantry stood helplessly in the rear is a bit illogical.
But there is an alternative explanation.
This is that both armies were racing towards the river, and the Persians got there first with their faster cavalry, while their heavy infantry were left behind, unable to keep up.
This to me makes much more sense.
 
Originally posted by calgacus
No, no Xen. Just edit the article indicating the controversy. Or just insert "this is the Arrianic acount"
Pls do not tell other posters on what or how to post. Thanks.

Like Xen said, if you disagree with his account, the best course is to write an article representing what you opinionate as the truth. ;)
 
Originally posted by Kryten
The Persian tactic of trying to hold a river line with stationary cavalry while their own (largely mercenary Hoplite) infantry stood helplessly in the rear is a bit illogical.
But there is an alternative explanation.
This is that both armies were racing towards the river, and the Persians got there first with their faster cavalry, while their heavy infantry were left behind, unable to keep up.
This to me makes much more sense.

What's unbelievable is that the Macedonians managed to cross a river while the other bank was defended. Impossible! ;)
 
I dont see why one thinks it- with the long spears it would be quite easy, I dont know if you've ever used and mock battled with one (I have :)-I'm in to that sorta thing) but the distance advatage in rank is priceless- dispite what the books say, when using such a weapon terrain height becomes much less of an obsticle, and the length and reac of the spear more then make up for it- I dont know the exact features of the river, but I'd say its surprisinglly easy to at least have phalangite foot croos it with a good amount of succes- it would only get rough if there were missles raining down...
 
Originally posted by XIII
Pls do not tell other posters on what or how to post. Thanks.

Like Xen said, if you disagree with his account, the best course is to write an article representing what you opinionate as the truth. ;)

I wasn't "telling" him anything :p

It's enough that I've posted an objection. And you should be glad I did too, since no-one seemed to be aware of it.

Anyway, you yourself were quick to comment in a similar way when someone wrote about the Mongols.

Anyway 2, this article is OK. But there have been some other "articles" where the quality has been so poor as to make me doubt the value of this whole thing. I mean, did you read that one about the Crusades?! :rolleyes:

[EDIT: refers to http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64574]

Anyway 3, ignore me...I'm just ranting.
 
Originally posted by Xen
I dont see why one thinks it- with the long spears it would be quite easy, I dont know if you've ever used and mock battled with one (I have :)-I'm in to that sorta thing) but the distance advatage in rank is priceless- dispite what the books say, when using such a weapon terrain height becomes much less of an obsticle, and the length and reac of the spear more then make up for it- I dont know the exact features of the river, but I'd say its surprisinglly easy to at least have phalangite foot croos it with a good amount of succes- it would only get rough if there were missles raining down...

It not just terrain height (where they are still at a huge disadvantage), it's the slowed movement of the crossing and vulnerability. You cannot charge across a river against a positioned enemy.

Also, note the Indian campaign where Alexander does has to get across by trickery.

But all that aside, the passage is too suspicious when compared to Diodorus.

The whole thing is totally unbelievable. :eek:
 
I dont see how- a 30 foot spear compleatlly equlizes riverbank heights- as for charging, that s a relative term at best- I dont care who the author is, or what they say- a phalanite charge is just not going to happen- at best you can get a good paced feild march, but thats it- if anything that rate of moventment is best used to coss a river safe and slow behind a wall of spearheads
 
I don't really understand all you have written there, but spearheads don't form a wall against missiles, Xen; and an army in a river can't march in proper order; and a phalanx is useless on uneven terrain.

But, never mind all that ;)
 
the wall of spearheads is against enemy troops

an army CAN march in perfect order across a river if the go about it slow and properlly

and being usless only applies on more rugged 'uneven" terrain, as both Hannibal, and Pyrrhus have indicated while fighting in Italy
 
Originally posted by Xen
the wall of spearheads is against enemy troops


Yes, I know. But, how does that protect them from missiles.

Originally posted by Xen


an army CAN march in perfect order across a river if the go about it slow and properlly


Yes, sure, but they weren't in an army training ground, you suppose them to be crossing against an enemy above them!

Originally posted by Xen


and being usless only applies on more rugged 'uneven" terrain, as both Hannibal, and Pyrrhus have indicated while fighting in Italy

It applies to all terrain where the soldiers are unable to keep the rigid and cumbersome phalanx shape.
 
Originally posted by calgacus
What's unbelievable is that the Macedonians managed to cross a river while the other bank was defended. Impossible! ;)

Well, all I can say is.... The Battle of Issus (333 BC). :)

Alexander and the Macedonians are facing north, with the Mediterranean on their left, steep hills on their right, and the river Issus (held by the Persians) to their front.

Young Alex managed to get across that one. ;)
 
1-the front ranks arnt protected from missles- the back ranks are- the simple massed spear effect proves a surprsinglly capable defence against archers look here-

phalanx.jpg


2-thats the pont of using such a long spear (at least partially0- to equalize such things as height- if you have a 30 foot spear, and a man is standing ridge 20 feet above you, you can still hurt him- and I doubt the height was quite so dramatic

there is also the fact that the phalanx, to maintain order any would move slowlly- and as such counld maintain order during a river crossing- after all, you try charging in unison with serveral hundred other guys all wearing 80 pounds of equipment...marching was just more practical...and the slower the better

3- right, but that implies things that render moving in formation an impossibility- like a tree, a very large rock, a BIG river, a large angrey animal (like a hippo)...you get the picture- considering that there is an account of a river crossing- even from a dubious source, implies that troops are indeed able to cross it, and if that is true, then it is possible that the entire account of the battle is true (as based on the writers perception of the battle)
 
Originally posted by Kryten


Well, all I can say is.... The Battle of Issus (333 BC). :)

Alexander and the Macedonians are facing north, with the Mediterranean on their left, steep hills on their right, and the river Issus (held by the Persians) to their front.

Young Alex managed to get across that one. ;)

The battle of Issus was fought on a stream called the Pinarus which had probably mostly dried out, with Alexander on the steeper side. It doesn't seem to play much strategic role for Persian defense in the battle itself. ;)
 
calgacus! your alive! where have you been? lol

interseting info...I'll have to chack up on it :p
 
Originally posted by Xen
calgacus! your alive! where have you been? lol

interseting info...I'll have to chack up on it :p

Yeah, Xen, you'll have to expect occassional long disappearances from me from now on for a while. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom