"If you were Darius how would you have fought Alexander?" Topic

I've always wondered if I could've done any better against Alexander if I was in Darius' shoes. Of course I have the benefit of hindsite on my side, but if you look at the invasion from Darius' perspective he acted reasonably under the circumstances. Let me explain:
- The Achaeminids had not been defeated by defeated by foreigners on their own soil (they had setbacks and other tough battles but never wholly defeated and conquered).
- Darius recognized the superiority of the Greek infantry and hired the best mercenaries available, he also attempted to model some of his own Persian infantry, the Kardakes, in the Greek model.
- In the battles of Granicus and Issus he successfully chose strong defensive points.
- He outnumbered Alexander in each of the three big battles by wide margins.

With the benefit of hindsite, I would have done the following differently:
- Fought a Parthian style hit and run campaign of harassment to help to disturb Alexander's supply lines and to hopefully draw some of his cavalry away.
- Recognized the effectiveness of Alexander's shock cavalry and kept my own heavy cavalry in reserves to counter it.
- Prepared my major cities to withstand sieges so that they could delay Alexander further.

Maybe none of that would've worked but I was curious what other armchair generals could come up with.

Rolling a 6 for your morale instead of a 1 would have helped.

I would have taken the advice of my Greek generals instead of the advice of my Persian generals.

By making sure that Memnon of Rhodes didn't die of illness :)
His campaign, largely naval, could well have turned Greece against Alexander and cut off supplies.

Well, for starters, I would have FOUGHT him, instead of running away. Why not challenge him to single combat? The worst that could happen is that he conquers your kingdom by taking the head off of the head of state. Heck, better to die gloriously in single combat than dying tired after running away after the army is defeated!

Like the Russians did with Napoleon and the Germans.

I was very pleased, at a Society of Ancients AGM a few years back, and playing Lost Battles with Prof. Sabin running the game for us … when I completed my hat trick over victories over Alexander (adding Issus to Granikus and Gaugamela) …

The stratagem is simple: kill Alexander. It works in most games as well as Lost Battles and is entirely plausible, I think. Alexander _is the army (and if the game mechanisms are plausible, he will make himself vulnerable by placing himself at the head of his Companions) – you then apply his own methodology and strike at the critical point: where he is.

I'd argue that the real Alexander got lucky on more than one occasion and that the real question was not 'if' but 'when'. Darius could have bought another generation or so of Persian suzerainty by making things more personal …

But it's only a game :)
Phil

Rope-a-dope. He'd be worn out by round eight, no legs. Then, wallop.

It is hard to understand how Colin Farrell won aganist Darius. He didn't look that tough at all.

Benvartok, twas luck o'the Irish

"Like the Russians did with Napoleon and the Germans"

Sounds like the advice given to Nasser by his Russian advisers in the Six Day War: "withdraw before the enemy, and let him over-extend his supply lines; then, when the snows come…"

With scythed chariots, camels, elephants and all the other cool stuff in the army lists.

I would have used Might of Arms, rather than DBM or FOG. or maybe WAB.

Assasins would have been one of the best ways.

I was gonna say "sniper," but Yesthatphil took my thought, in a more realistic vein.

FWIW I think Swampster's got the best point; more aggressive use of Persian naval power might have caused real problems for Alexander.

Even with hindsight though it's hard to see what else Darius could have done all that much better, especially at the strategic level. Option 3 in the OP was certainly tried. Sardis could/should have been held longer but Halicarnassus was defended stubbornly – and all the time Alexander was besieging Tyre and Gaza, the Persians were working on raising the army that fought at Gaugamela. After that it probably wouldn't have mattered how long Babylon, Susa or Persepolis could have held out anyway.

I also have no doubt that Option 1 was, mutatis mutandis, employed to the fullest extent that was practically possible – but Alexander wasn't as obliging an opponent as Crassus et al. Since the Parthians have come up though, it is probably worth remembering the dates of composition of most of our extant accounts of Alexander, and that they have surely been coloured by contemporary (Roman) prejudices, especially when it comes to the character of Darius, and to the Persians' ability to fight in general.

None of the battles can really be reconstructed with much confidence, but at Gaugamela the problem seems to have been shortage of much solid infantry rather than the handling of the cavalry. At the Granicus it is perfectly possible (even likely) that the Persians were outnumbered.

Keep in mind that Darius 111 was an unpopular usurper on a shaky throne.

Scorched Earth tactics were never possible and and giving anyone else too much force and the prestige of beating the Macdonians was also dangerous to Darius.

I think a 'charm offensive' might have been the best shot. Alex. was a romantic with a susceptibility to being swayed by legend. An approach to him, using high-born & beautiful girls & boys, that emphasised Darius' connectrion to Cyrus might have bought time & allowed a Perian assassin to make a mark: time-tested Persian strategy.

I doubt that the Persians could have gone the Russian option of retreating too much. the place was an Empire and not a very happy one at that, actually Persians made up only a small minority of the Empires people.

The more the Persians retreated the more area the Greeks liberated and also the Greeks didn't actually use supply routes in the WW2 sense.

I'd have hired some hit men and killed him as he got off the boat.

If the gordian knot had been made of steel cable he'd still be there whacking at it.

> I'd have hired some hit men and killed him as he got off the boat.

Off course, assassination would have been an entirely viable and authentic stratagem – if a bit 'Macedonian' (how Alexander came to the throne himself): one suspects a Darius blessed with hindsight might have been tempted (and that, equally blessed, many Macedonians or Greeks might have been willing to do it) …

But it probably didn't occur to Darius (until too late) that Alexander was that much of a threat.

Phil

The typical Persian hubris would always be the ruling factor in deciding how to deal with the invader. I doubt that the Persians or its high command really ever knew how mortally dangerous and extraordinary an opponent this new young usurper was until he had already gained a solid foothold.

Persians arrogance dictates always having to teach opponents "lessons" about Persian superiority and that has always been their undoing in early stages of campaigns and in the end their own downfall.

The typical Persian solution to such an invader was to take the time to gather the horde and "envelope him Bessus" or buy him off. For the Persians to take him seriously and invote serious countermeasures early in the campaign would of course in their own eyes be a sign of fear and weakness on their own part to others in the realm. Being that image concience of themselves would always limit their early actions.

I don't see the Persians doing anything different, being governed by their view of themselves, that would have changed the outcome. They were faced with an absolutely fearless and brilliant opponent with a cutting edge lethal war machine dialed in on their throats that would probably have adapted to and overcame anything the Persians would have done differently.
They were cooked when the Lion King entered their territory.

I think count floyd makes a good point and it also alludes to my first point in that the Persians had never been defeated on their own soil in a major way prior to the invasion and so had no idea what kind of surprise they were in for.

The Greek wars were a distant memory, and I'm going to speculate that since the Persians did sack Athens they didn't necessarily see their invasion of Greece as a failure. Rather they thought of the Greeks as uncivilized people, not to be feared but respected for their martial abilities.

pretend to surrender , dissolve the army and fight a long 10 year plus guerilla war

I'd try to go with something similar to what the Parthians did later at Carrhae. Leave all that clumsy levy infantry at home and maximize your cavalry and archers. Bring lots and lots of arrows. Engage the Macedonian cavalry first at range with archery and do not let them close for melee. Then, when the cavalry has been destroyed or driven off, have your archers turn all those hypaspists and phalanx into pincushions. Then, as a grand finale, send your scythed chariots out to chase the routing enemy. I know, somewhat different from doctrine, but it makes for an impressive show.

The Persians were winning when they fought an asymetric campaign. Most commentators leave out the obvious… why did the Persian fleet allow Alexander to cross into Asia?? the key was Darius and the fleet was busy in Egypt- and Alexander rushed in on his shoestring campaign to take advantage of Persian distractions… so the issue is that Darius left the back door open and that mostly sealed his fate from the beginning. He saved Egypt but lost his empire-- any simulation that turns that decision around almost always leads to Macedonian failure, since no invasion of Asia can happen until the Persian fleet has been neutralized…. and Alexander's "hostage fleet" were they up to it?

Even still, had his satraps listened to Memnon- then Darius would have had time to seal the passes in Cilicia and Armenia and could have been able to carry the war more successfully to Greece… but the strategic vision of the Persian Empire was severely lax in this war, and in short they deserved their fate, because they underestimated their foe.
JJ

Hi JJ, do you have some good books to reference? Preferably one's available on audible?

Thanks in advance.

Engage the Macedonian cavalry first at range with archery and do not let them close for melee.

Easy to say, rather harder to do, methinks. If hoplites can manage to run through a Persian arrow barrage and make contact, then I imagine cavalry would be able to close the gap as well. They would perhaps take more casualties, being bigger targets and all, but they would also get there more quickly, which might minimize the difference.

I'm in the either don't let him get into Asia at all (or assasinate him as soon as possible if he does get there) camp.

Doug

I still think people are being a little bit hard on poor old Darius. I'm also not sure that I really believe that the only person on the Persian side who had any strategic sense just happened to be Greek…

As usual JJ makes excellent points. However, I'm not sure how practical a proposition it really would have been for the Persian fleet to prevent a crossing into Asia; and in any case Parmenion was already there with a substantial advance force before Philip's death. This was a plan long in the preparation, not a last-minute decision on Alexander's part. How long was the fleet supposed to hang around the Hellespont, when there were urgent demands on it elsewhere?

Egypt looks like a distraction in hindsight; but it had only recently been recovered and was a highly important part of the empire (just as it would be later for the Romans). It may also be worth remembering that Cyrus the Younger had also taken advantage of Artaxerxes (II)'s distraction by Egypt a couple of generations earlier; but the penetration of his army as far as Babylonia had no severe long-term consequences after it was defeated. And having a young Spartan king rampaging around Asia Minor a couple of years later didn't turn out to be a long-term problem for the empire either. Given the information Darius had at the time his decisions seem much less obviously wrong.

Darius may have underestimated Alexander – but it would have been hard not to: the man turned out to be a bona fide genius with the devil's own luck (for a few years at least). And he certainly took him seriously, or he wouldn't have met him so early with such a big army as at Issus. Where, it is worth saying again, Darius seems completely to have out-manoeuvred Alexander before the battle. Darius was neither a fool nor a coward, and could easily have won, if things had played out only a little differently. Or he hadn't rolled so many 1s.

As for the assassination thing, even assuming that the Persians had enough foresight and the ability to kill Alexander in 334 (say), when should they have stopped? They probably thought they'd got a massive let-off when Philip was killed, and look how that turned out…

The only thing that would have saved Darius was if Alexander was killed early on in the campaign. I don't think for a moment Darius believed early in the invasion that his opponent intended or had the means to march around for years on an invasion tour and mop up the entire Persian empire from one end to the other. I don't think anybody else in his place would have either. It was Persian arrogance and hubris to believe the empire was invincible and thats what he(Darius)was born and bred to believe.

I believe Darius thought at the time that the western territories of the Persian empire were the ultimate and final goal for Macedon and that those were the only things in long term peril, not the entire empire itself. The first battle with local forces and local leadership probably typifies that outlook.

Darius himself was probably more than capable to deal with ordinary threats effectively under normal circumstances. The Persians loved massing huge armies and the smaller size of the Macedonian army possibly downplayed the potential long term lethal threat early in the campaign. It seems poor Darius was in the wrong place and the wrong time in history facing a lean, efficient, compact and deadly fighting machine led by arguably the greatest military leader in world history. A leader who used his army like a scalpel and a sledgehammer at the same time.

Nobody in Darius place could have known the enormity of the peril he faced at the onset and probably did the best he could with the mindset he had and the situation as it presented itself. As the danger and level of threat increased he correctly increased his response as he thought appropriate as any other ruler in his place would have done.

As far as Alexander, luck is where preparation and opportunity cross. He took a lot of calulated risks that some might call luck in one sense as they played out, but marching 20,000 miles for years winning battles of all kinds against so many varied enemies who employed any and all tactics against him takes more than him being lucky.

The only thing Darius could and should have done was maybe, just maybe, stick around the battlefield a bit longer and tough it out during the crucial stages and provide the image and moral support he was supposed to be there for. Alexander portrayed the fearless invincible leader delivering victory. Darius? Not so much!

I think we're *all* selling Darius short.

Little has leaked out concerning the Persian Insect Warfare legion: a highly dedicated group of six-legged warriors, devoted to nailing the Macedonian Big Head. This experimental group had the Persian King of Kings' full support.

A suicide squad of butterflies only just missed unseating Alex at the Granicus whilst a cupboard moth so chewed holes in Alex's tunic before the Battle of Issus. he was nearly a no-show.

However, the Fighting Myrmidon Ants at Gaugamela were less effective, being inadvertantly squashed by Bucephalus before anyone even noticed them.

The Persians had almost given up when in 323BC a single malarial mosquito put paid to the invader whose foolhardy boast was, "What me use a mosquito coil?"

This guy is very good on the issue and so are his other podcast lectures.

YouTube link

This is fun!

I tip my hat to ochoin deach and his masterly reconstruction of a sorely-neglected tale.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse though, and partly in response to his lordship count floyd (with whom I am in substantial agreement, I think):

I certainly wouldn't dispute that the Persians and Darius could display arrogance and hubris: they tend to go with imperial power. Nonetheless: i) this did not translate into complacency – Darius' response to Alexander's invasion, taking into account the wider situation in the empire and logistical constraints, was swift (almost unprecedentedly so) and forceful; ii) this wasn't the difference between the two sides – Alexander was prone to a bit of arrogance and hubris himself… iii) it only takes a slight change of perspective to make (your, bad) arrogance and hubris look like (our, good) pride and self-confidence.

All I meant by Alexander's luck was his not getting killed, in spite of his constant exposure to horrendous risk in combat. Quite a lot of Thracians, Persians, Afghans, Indians, Mallians and so on probably did try quite hard to kill him over the years, and he gave them plenty of opportunities. He was also quite lucky, I'd say, in that not only did his father leave him a stable kingdom and a fine army, but he (Philip) managed not to get himself killed until Alexander was old enough to inherit the throne. That doesn't take anything away from Alexander's own abilities or achievements – which I am actually arguing were all the more impressive, given that I think the Persians did put up a decent fight.

Darius was certainly an inexperienced army commander, and lacked reliable and competent subordinates, especially after Memnon's death (and again, in this respect Alexander was far more fortunate). But I think it's worth remembering that he got the throne in the first place because of his reputation for physical courage, which derived from his victory in single combat over a Cadusian leader in the reign of Artaxerxes III.

I think, despite some differences on a few things discussed here, that without knowing the outcome in advance poor Darius was just in the dark about what he was facing and their wasn't much he could have done or would have done differently without that conclusive knowledge. Wrong King in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong empire against a really, really, really wrong type of opponent to achieve success against. The outcome was probably never much in doubt. Verdict, fate dictated Darius as the last Acheamenid King, so let it be written, so let it be done(as Yul Brynner waves his hand)

This guy is very good on the issue and so are his other podcast lectures.

YouTube link

Any idea what his podcasts are called, I can't seem to find them. Thanks in advance.

This should do it.

YouTube link

Persian politics would dictate that a long term hit and run campaign was a no go – Darius was himself something of a usurper and allowing your followers lands to be thoroughly burned and looted is a good way of getting yourself replaced with extreme prejudice, by someone promising to stop it. Besides, as Phil Barker once noted, everyone remembers carrhae,(which turned on a single decisive battle, not a whole campaign) but forgets the numerous times that Roman armies burnt Ctesiphon or the number of Parthian kings deposed for not stopping this from happening. Darius seems to have planned reasonably well strategically,(and arguably out manouvred Alex pre Issus, cutting his supply lines – only to lose the ensuing battle)

Alexander was prone to a bit of arrogance and hubris himself… iii) it only takes a slight change of perspective to make (your, bad) arrogance and hubris look like (our, good) pride and self-confidence.

---> Hubris=bad on all sides. I do not ascribe to the theory that somehow as Zeus' son on earth that Alexander was able to carve out a huge empire-- that's what people of the times believed… so be it..
Darius failed because he tried to fight Alexander on Alexander's terms… lessons that empires seem to forget time and time again.
Had Darius listened to his Greek commanders and posted his mercenaries at a barricaded Jonah pass… the story of Alexander may have been shorter lived. Of course since the Persian numbers are inflated- we can never know if this was an actual logical tactical option-- but if the Persians had anywhere near the 30,000 hoplites claimed (even 10,000) then they could have made Alexander's supply situation dire- if they could have held for even a day or two. And given these same troops later performance near Sparta- where they fought the Macedonians to standstill- it is possible they could have held that pass.
Darius pretty much acted like he was in a coma at Issus- oh well that's where he lost his empire.
JJ

You may well be right about the Jonah pass, JJ. But we don't know what the Persians' supply situation was like, either. It looks to me as though Darius wanted to crush Alexander's army as quickly as possible in the open field, and I find it easy to sympathise. Dealing with the threat once and for all was surely a more attractive prospect than trying to hold Alexander at arm's length or wear him down slowly.

We don't know exactly what happened at Issus; but all the sources we have are prejudiced against Darius, so I'm wary of accepting the negative portraits of him and his actions at face value.

Whatever the truth of that, though, it seems an exaggeration to say that the empire was lost at Issus. Sure it didn't help, but Darius was still able to raise another army, and a lot of hard fighting lay ahead of Alexander. And what if A. had been killed at Tyre, say?

Whatever the truth of that, though, it seems an exaggeration to say that the empire was lost at Issus.

------> Darius lost his best troops at Issus- the troops that could have garrisoned passes, and held cities. He squandered them.

Sure it didn't help, but Darius was still able to raise another army, and a lot of hard fighting lay ahead of Alexander.

------> The army at Gaugamela was woefully ill prepared to deal with Alexander's army. If Darius had had his Issus army deployed in open space, he would have been better off.

And what if A. had been killed at Tyre, say?

------> Fictionalizing the possibilities doesn't help Darius' decision making… Alexander was almost killed at Gaza…. almost got pnumonia swimming in mountain pools…banking on your opponent almost getting killed is not a good strategy to follow.
JJ

Seriously,
Darius the cunctator would have won.
Follwing Alex around whilst sending another army to prevent reinforcements or undoing his gains would have seen him worn away.
Probably.

Darius needed a stronger dose of Fabius…. bottlenecks and cities could have been held (I offer the criminal lack of preparation of the Cilician Gates, as evidence of Persian ineptitude). The final fruitless defense of the Persian Gates showed that the Macedonians could be defeated… but I agree Darius needed a mobile army to keep Alexander pinned- and he squandered it each time. Sadly only after Issus he turned Nabarzanes loose on Asia Minor, one can only guess what his vizier might have accomplished with a prime cut of the listed pre-disaster-Issus army, but he was defeated with this Operation Shoe String army "survivors of Issus"- by Antigonos with his own scrabbled together forces (it still took three battles that we -sadly- know nothing about, to turn back Nabarzanes).

JJ: fair enough, though I still think 'squandered' is possibly a little on the harsh side. I am not trying to say Darius was a brilliant commander (he clearly wasn't); just that committing to a decisive engagement when you (think you) have overwhelming advantages on your side doesn't seem to me (though I've never ruled an empire or commanded an army) to be obviously idiotic. Getting rid of Alexander quickly would have been an appealing prospect, and he hadn't yet shown himself necessarily to be such a terrifying an opponent that meeting him in open battle was clearly doomed to failure (though I suppose that depends on what you believe about the Granicus).

Fictionalizing the possibilities doesn't help Darius' decision making… Alexander was almost killed at Gaza…. almost got pnumonia swimming in mountain pools…banking on your opponent almost getting killed is not a good strategy to follow.,

Oh, I agree entirely. My point was just that the empire still existed, would probably have recovered at that point and so hadn't yet been lost. Whatever happened at Gaugamela it doesn't seem to have been a complete walkover – though again of course you're right that the lack of decent infantry seems to have been the Persians' biggest problem, so in that sense I quite take your point about Issus. It just seemed to me that there were a number of other relevant variables too.

The comparison with Fabius is interesting precisely because the 'delaying' strategy was only whole-heartedly adopted after the Romans had suffered a number of crushing defeats in the field. To start with they tried broadly the same thing as Darius – get together an army to force a decisive engagement in an attempt to crush their opponent once and for all. Even with Fabius already pushing the alternative they went ahead with the campaign that ended at Cannae. The differences between the Roman and Persian situations which led to the former getting away with it and the latter not were not all ones for which Darius should have to take all the blame. Which is not to deny that in both cases there was a fair bit of ineptitude on display.