"The Granicus" Topic

"This semi-famous battle, the first of Alexander's victories in his conquest of the Persian Empire, has interested me because there is controversy about what really happened. And, as any of you who have followed my blog have by now realized, I love the iconoclastic. History is full of "accepted truths". And the more old the history, the more fuzzy those truths become. Like so many accepted truths of the military genius of Frederick the Great or Napoleon or Stonewall Jackson, most accepted truths are the fossilized remains of self-serving propaganda. So, I believe, is the accepted truth of this battle.

Classical historians as well as modern ones disagree about what really happened at this first battle in the new king's conquest of the Persian empire. Some modern historians simply take the predominant narrative of the Greco-Roman historians, Arrian (86-160 AD) and Plutarch (46-120 AD), as fact, based as they were on Alexander's contemporary chronicler, Ptolemy, or his official scribe, Callisthenes, whose own writings have been conveniently lost (eaten by Arrian's dog apparently). Others have drawn on Diodorus Siculus's history ((90-30 BCE), which differs from the others in key details. But others (notably Peter Green in his book Alexander of Macedon) suspect a lot of these ancient accounts were left-over, Hellenistic propaganda, and that the truth lies somewhere in between.

So, as with my other posts on semi-obscure battles (and, I know, I know, to you classical scholars and hobbyists,The Granicus is not obscure at all), the obscurity will be in my idiomatic take on this ancient battle. I approach the subject with logic, i.e. what makes sense, and not a partisan adherence to one point of view or another. In so doing, I have found myself seeing the sense of Peter Green's synthetic conclusions about what probably, actually happened…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Hi Armand, you have reposted this copyrighted material, presumably with the written permission of the trustee as specified on the map?

That seems a bit supercilious BRB considering that the purpose of the posting is to promote the article and that the map itself is easily downloaded. I am not sure what your point is?

I have given permission to Armand to link to my Obscure Battles blog--with gratitude for his courtesy. But thank you, BigRedBat, for your coming to the defense of my copyrighted material.

There does seem to be some confusion about the use of copyrighted material, which is not, per se, free to download and use without permission or license. Just because something is on the Internet does not make it public domain, however easily downloaded. But, in this case, as I said, I have given Armand specific permission to make these links.

Hope everyone enjoys.

That seems a bit supercilious BRB considering that the purpose of the posting is to promote the article and that the map itself is easily downloaded. I am not sure what your point is?

Quite a few of my friends have been upset by Armand posting their material here, without permission, and I had rather assumed (based on past form) that this was also the case, here. But I am very pleased to hear that that permission was obtained, and I shall read the piece which looks interesting!

Seem to me that Armand's postings on TMP generally meet the threshold of "fair use" under copyright law. Both technically and in spirit. Fair use is determined by the four following criteria. How does Armand's postings infringe on "fair use?"

the purpose and character of your use.
the nature of the copyrighted work.
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and.
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

link

Thanks my friend Jeffery… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand