But the aim of my narrative is not to write of the casual doings of distinguished men, but their main achievements. For if even the playful moods of virtue are worth recording, then it would be absolutely impious to be silent about her serious aims. To those who desire to read this narrative it will tell its tale, not indeed with complete certainty as to all mattersfor it was impossible to collect all the evidence with accuracynor shall I separate out from the rest the most illustrious philosophers and orators, but I shall set down for each one his profession and mode of life.
It probably was, but we have no alternative account, so we have to examine what we have critically. We have four classical accounts, and these are quoting from Wikipedia for convenience: Diodorus Siculus BC.
Quintus Curtius Rufus AD. Arrian early 2nd c. All gave a more or less similar account. None of them spoke to or was himself a contemporary of Alexander. Inevitably, some distortion may have crept in, some post-ante glorification may have happened.
It certainly may, but the matter is not sure. Alexander spared few who opposed him. In the case of the Persian king, Darius III, although Alexander charged straight towards him, and brought on a panic attack and a hasty flight from the battle-field.
When Darius was murdered by one of his governors, Alexander seemed greatly regretfully and took a bloody revenge. So this was an exemption. What is more peculiar than his act of mercy was his transfer of land from the control of his Indian ally, Ambhi, to Porus, the great rival of Ambhi.
He had never done this before; why now? Would his men have fought an army greater than theirs? Would they have fought war elephants?
Did the army see their enemy and their war elephants and actually refuse to cross the river? Alexander fought four battles during his Persian campaign, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, and finally at Hydaspes. All the other engagements were sieges, not set-piece battles.
In all four of these battles, Alexander and the Macedonians were outnumbered. The tactics of the Macedonian phalanx was a deepening of the tactical intentions of the Theban phalanx, which was the first formation to kill an hoplite in-line formation.
It was designed to kill the large masses of lightly-marked and lightly-armoured Persians in the battles that they would face taking on the Persians in Asia Minor.
It worked as planned, and destroyed the Persians in three classic set-piece battles. If the Battle of the Hydaspes was fought, and all the evidence is that it was fought, then the phalanx obviously faced war-elephants.
Whether it did so from the outset or from some time when the elephants were tired and unable to charge in a disciplined, united manner is not clear from accounts of the battle.
Indirect proof that the phalanx faced war-elephants and did not like the experience comes from the fact that almost each and every army belonging to the Diadochi, in the Wars of Succession to Alexander, strove to acquire war-elephants.
This line of tactical formation can be traced through the Diadochi, through Demetrios of Macedon and Ptolemy of Egypt, to Pyrrhus of Epirus, brother-in-law of Demetrios and ally of Ptolemy, who lent him war-elephants, to Hannibal Barca, who read Pyrrhus on the art of war, and rated him even higher than Alexander!
Elephants were used as late as Hannibal, in Italy. Why did the Macedonians never return? I am disappointed at this question; a little reading would reveal the answers, which are plentifully available.Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History What do you think of the state of Romania?
Does it stand as from the beginning, or has it been diminished? Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati. The coastal region of what is today Libya was ruled by the Ottoman Empire from to , as the Eyalet of Tripolitania (Ottoman Turkish: ایالت طرابلس غرب Eyālet-i Trâblus Gârb) or Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary from to and as the Vilayet of Tripolitania (Ottoman Turkish: ولايت طرابلس غرب Vilâyet-i Trâblus Gârb) from to The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, which had been founded as Byzantium).It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued .
|Customers who viewed this item also viewed||The Kingdom of Spain occupied Tripoli inbut the Spaniards were more concerned with controlling the port than with the inconveniences of administering a colony. Christian rule lasted then untilwhen Tripoli was besieged and conquered by famed Ottoman admirals Sinan Pasha and Turgut Reis.|
Apr 01, · Alessandro Barbero's "Day Of The Barbarians" chronicles the events surrounding the battle of Adrianople in AD including the lead-in to the battle, the aftermath of the battle and the strategic situation after the battle. Significance. While this battle is often viewed as a decisive battle that accelerated the decline of the Roman Empire, it would be more accurate to say that the Roman defeat indicated the Empire’s growing inability to assert its authority over its porous borders.
battle of adrianople - 10 16 16 - Free download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free.