Healthcare knowledge roughly 300 years before Alexander

Alexander’s medical knowledge is based on the teaching he received from Aristotle. Sophisticated medicine did, however, exist much earlier. Hippocrates of Cos, for instance, lived only one hundred years before their time. The Hippocratic Oath, which may have appeared only after the physician’s death, has survived until today (see: A healthy mind in a healthy body – in early antiquity). This oath was, in fact, a religious document established to ensure that a doctor operated within and for community values. The oath was sworn by Apollo, Hygeia, and Panacea, promising to respect their teacher, not to administer poison or abuse their patients; quite importantly, they swore to keep the confidentiality between doctor and patient. 

[Fragment of a clay tablet from the Library of Ashurbanipal. Kouyunjik (ancient Nineveh), Neo-Assyrian, British Museum]

Three hundred years before Alexander and Aristotle, King Ashurbanipal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire kept the Nineveh Medical Encyclopaedia in his Library. These clay tablets held thousands of remedies and descriptions of the symptoms, which Alexander may have shared with the doctors traveling with the army. His men's lives were precious, and attending to their health and well-being was a priority (see: Alexander caring for the wounded and the dead). 

Plants were most certainly used in early civilizations since their medical effects were recorded around 2000 BC in Mesopotamia. The help of the gods was invoked for more complicated diseases requiring the performance of certain rituals or magic. Throughout antiquity, medicine mainly implied using plants, which were either applied to the affected body part or taken internally as potions. The ancient Egyptians also had a thorough knowledge of medicine, as documented by Herodotus. He reports that each part of the body requires specific treatments. It seems that physicians were actually specialized to treat one particular ailment of any sick patient. 

Anyway, in Mesopotamia, as the collection of medical texts grew over the centuries, the extensive Library of King Ashurbanipal was created in the 7th century BC. Scribes had gathered enough information to compose a medical dictionary, which may well be the first standardized, systematic handbook on therapeutic medicine. 

This Encyclopaedia was divided into twelve sections. The subjects moved from the head, through the torso, to the legs and feet. Each tablet constituted the equivalent of a chapter in our modern books, but some subjects are spread over more than one tablet, and there are 50 tablets in total. These tablets counted at least 250 lines. A note was added at the end of each tablet that referred to its place in the series. 

Today’s merit of this Library is to better understand how people looked at diseases and the best way to treat them in ancient times. Basically, they knew two types of specialists, one corresponding to our modern doctors and the other that could best be described as an alternative healer. 

This precious information collection has only been revealed in recent years because the tablets had been smashed to pieces in 612 BC when Nineveh fell into the hands of the Persians, Medes, and Babylonians. They divided the region between them afterward. Piecing the broken tablets back together was and is a tedious task as only a handful of people can decipher the cuneiform writing and thus reconstruct the texts. 

Once again, it is amazing, to say the least, that such precious knowledge remained hidden from us for 2,600 years! Where would our medical science be if we had continued elaborating and improving on the knowledge from the reign of King Ashurbanipal? Not only was it known to Alexander through Aristotle (and possibly to other physicians) but also to other key figures like King Philip’s doctor who operated on his eye, and Alexander’s own physician Philip of Acarnania (see: Alexander’s near-fatal dip in the Cydnus River at Tarsus)? So much information from antiquity has been sadly lost to us.

Who is Alexander? Part II

[Continued from Part 1 - Who is Alexander?]

Alexander heads for Asia at twenty-two, leaving Macedonia in the hands of his father’s trusted general Antipater as Regent. He sets out with an army of about 40,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. The gods are with him all the way. The first opposition happens in a tiny corner of Asia Minor, on the banks of the Granicus River. Darius III, King of Persia, King of Kings, believes that his presence is not required and merely delegates the confrontation to a mercenary in his service, a Greek on top of that, called Memnon. Well, Memnon, although a highly skilled general and Alexander’s most formidable opponent, is defeated. Nothing can stop Alexander now from taking one city after another, one port after another, all along the west coast of today’s Turkey. 

A year later, Alexander will face King Darius in person at the Pinarus River near Issus. The Persian army was huge compared to the Macedonian, but it was outmaneuvered during the first minutes of the battle. King Darius panics and flees into the backcountry. By leaving the battlefield, Alexander automatically emerges victorious. 

Both kings meet again, two years onwards, in a decisive confrontation on Persian soil near Arbela, a place better known as Gaugamela. It is a fight worthy of David and Goliath, where Alexander, with his 50,000 men, stands up against Darius’ troops, which may be 250,000 and has been exaggerated to 500,000. Whatever the numbers, his opponent counted many times more soldiers than his own force! From the tactical point of view, the battle proves to be such prowess that it is still taught at the Military Academy of West Point today. Alexander attacked an empire that was ten times bigger than his! 

Alexander’s accomplishments reached far beyond winning battles. He took on the organization of the entire enterprise, working out the logistics, relentlessly inspiring his army, and caring for all involved. Everyone looked up at him for guidance. 

Alexander’s empire extended from Greece to India and from Uzbekistan to Egypt at the height of his power. His army and baggage train in Asia must have counted at least one hundred thousand men. This mass of people inevitably included merchants, peddlers, blacksmiths, tailors, stone cutters, shipbuilders, entertainers, carpenters, cooks, architects, masons, road builders, and whores. Alexander managed to take his dismantled ships and catapult towers with him on the road so he could assemble them whenever needed. The word prefab was invented only eons later. 

The king moved all these people through the scorching deserts of the Karakum and the Gedrosian. He took them over the snow-capped mountains of the Zagros and the Hindu Kush. Also across swift-running rivers such as the Euphrates and Tigris, Oxus and Jaxartes, Indus, and entire Punjab. Just try to picture that crowd of soldiers, horses, followers, and equipment trudging through uncharted territories. It is dazzling! 

Alexander organized a government adapted to each and every land and tribe he conquered. He founded cities at strategic trade-road crossings, many of which still exist today. His task was absolutely colossal, and Alexander always was the driving force. Alexander also was a visionary, one we would love to have around today. He welded the world into one country.

Neither his Macedonians nor the Greeks were ready to comprehend the grandeur of his conquests, their vastness or scale. He made excellent use of the accumulated treasuries kept in the Royal Persian vaults, minting vast amounts of gold, silver, and bronze coins. The coins had Alexander’s image stamped on them, which was a somewhat new concept for until then, only gods were worthy of such a favor. The Alexander coins were known and accepted all over the empire. It was the euro of antiquity! 

Finally, there is Alexander’s legacy, i.e., the impact of Greek fashion, culture, and art on the occupied territories – a phenomenon that went down into history as Hellenism. From Athens to the Indus, the official language was Greek and remained so for nearly one thousand years until Islam took over with the use of Arabic. We owe it to Hellenism that the first statues of Buddha were made, that the first Library of Alexandria in Egypt was created, and that the Romans rose to power. Christianity spread so smoothly thanks to the usage of Greek, and the Renaissance is nothing less than a renewed connection with Hellenism. 

All of Alexander’s cities were built according to the Hippodamian plan with right-angled streets, including familiar buildings like temples, gymnasiums, agoras, theaters, and stadiums. Alexander’s love for games, sports competitions, and theatre contests with playwriters and actors traveling thousands of miles is another tradition that was continued for centuries deep into Central Asia and India. 

Our world would not be what it is today had it not been for Alexander. No other man in history impacted the world as much as Alexander the Great. Nobody conquered and ruled at the level of Alexander’s high standards, and nobody ever will.

Please consult my book for the full story of his conquests and achievements: "Alexander the Greatwas here, and so was I.”

Heraklea Sintica in southwestern Bulgaria

There are a great number of towns going by the name Heraclea or Herakleia throughout Turkey and Greece. Wikipedia provides an enticing list of places. 

In previous blogs, I developed Herakleia Pontus, a kingdom in Bithynia (see: Time to reconnect with Princess Amastris), Herakleia by Latmos to be found on the banks of Lake Bafa in Western Turkey, Herakleia Lyncestis in Illyria (see: King Philip, one year later – Macedonia forged by Philip II), and Heracleion-Thonis (see: Heracleion, ancient Greek port in Egypt).

This time, I’m focusing on Heraclea Sintica in southwestern Bulgaria. The additive Sintica refers to the Sintians, a Thracian tribe that lived in the Valley of the Struma, the Greek Strymon River that runs past Amphipolis. The Sintian occupation goes back to 1300-1200 BC. Although many sources claim that the city had been founded by Cassander around 300 BC, others state that it was Philip, Alexander’s father who conquered Sintica and added Heraclea to remind the Thracians and the Macedonians that his ancestor was Heracles. The city’s layout appears to be similar to that of Philippi or Philippopolis. 

Heraclea Sintica was a major hub on the North-South traffic and connected the Aegean coast to Macedonia, Thracia, and the Balkan hinterland. In its heyday, its population may have reached 40-50,000 inhabitants! 

The city existed at least until the 6^th century AD since it was mentioned in the Byzantine tax records of Emperor Justinian the Great. 

Although the city's name was known, it took some investigation to find its location. A Latin inscription left by Emperor Galerius revealed that in response to their plea to restore their lost civil rights in 308 AD, he addressed the local citizens as those of Heraclea Sintica. 

Serious and steady excavations in Heraclea Sintica are pretty recent and seem to have started in 2007. 

By 2016, an imposing Basilica was unearthed measuring 22m x 16m with walls rising five meters tall, next to other sanctuaries and shops. An older Basilica from the 4th century BC was discovered a year earlier. A striking find happened in 2017 when a Roman gold necklace came to light. It has been dated to the 4^th century AD and may have been made by craftsmen in Rome. 

In 2018, a headless Roman statue from ca. 100 AD was found underneath the stairs of the Forum. The statue represents a magistrate and was apparently carefully buried four meters deep. More recently, a female head was discovered in the eastern corner of the Forum. This head carries traces of ocher paint indicating that the woman was blond. In ancient times blond hair symbolized sin. This beautiful marble seems to date to the same time as the headless man. It is too early to draw any conclusion about the reason for these careful burial rights as the site has not been entirely investigated yet. Intriguingly, both discoveries were made underneath buildings of later periods. Archaeologists suppose that these respectful funerals could have had a ritual meaning in antiquity – and may be meant as protection from calamities or barbarian attacks. 

More questions remain unsolved like the bone needle whose end was wrapped in a thin gold sheet. It must have belonged to a woman of some importance who lived in Heraclea Sintica in the 2^nd century AD. 

Undoubtedly, many more buildings and artifacts are still hidden from view awaiting to be uncovered.

Alexander besieging Tyre

[Continued from Alexander preparing for the siege of Tyre] 

As soon as the newly formed fleet was duly organized and manned, Alexander set sail down to Tyre, leading the right-wing as usual. Imagine how impressive this flotilla of nearly 200 vessels must have appeared in the 4th century BC! The Tyrians inside their fortress did not know that the Cypriots and Phoenicians had changed side and they certainly did not expect this armada of ships. With hindsight, the outcome of the Battle of Issus enabled this change. Alexander’s victory was far beyond his confrontation with Darius and played a more significant role among all parties concerned. 

The gods definitely were on Alexander’s side because, at this time, about 4,000 mercenaries were brought in by general Cleander from the Peloponnese. Another welcome reinforcement of his troops after the losses suffered at Issus.

As Alexander’s fleet sailed at full speed towards Tyre, the enemy, surprised to see their previous allies at Alexander’s side, decided to simply block the entrance to both ports. In turn, the king blockaded the town. The contingent from Cyprus was to cut off access to the northern harbor, the one facing Sidon. The Phoenicians did the same at the southern harbor facing the mole turned towards Egypt. 

The true genius of Alexander sprang into action at this point. It had taken the king a full seven months to finish the nearly one-kilometer-long mole to the island before he could bring in his heavy artillery. By now, he had constructed many war engines, some of which stood on the mole. He also mounted battery rams to his transport ships and slower-sailing triremes - a first in the history of using floating siege craft weapons. All war engines were moved into action around the walls of Tyre. 

His plan came together, and in a coordinated attack with his land forces, he led his decisive battle in the summer of 332 BC. This is the simple way to put it as, in reality, the situation was far more complicated. 

Alexander decided to start his attack on the island's south side because the northern harbor entrance was very narrow and lacked space to maneuver. As soon as Alexander’s fleet came within range, the Tyrians attacked the approaching vessels from atop their strong walls with fire-arrows. They also had thrown many large blocks in the sea at the foot of their stronghold, forcing Alexander’s ships away from the walls. As a matter of course, Alexander ordered to remove those heavy stones that impaired his maneuver, but the enemy responded by sending divers to cut the anchor ropes that held the ships in place. The Macedonians replaced the ropes with iron cables which the Tyrians couldn’t cut. At the same time, troops from the mole managed to pass ropes around the stones and pull them away into deeper water. The ships could now approach the walls and easily close-in. 

Feeling seriously threatened, the defenders of Tyre turned their attention to the harbor on the Sidon side. Until then, they had hidden their fleet from view using rigged sails. They brought their plan into action from behind the screen, one day at noon when they knew the Macedonians were taking a break, and Alexander moved to his quarters on the other side of the island. They lowered the screen and silently slipped out in single file. As soon as they were within reach of the enemy ships, the men shouted and cheered, rowing forward at full speed. The Tyrian surprise attack proved successful until Alexander unexpectedly appeared on the scene and called all hens on deck! He ordered most of his ships as soon as they were ready for action to block off the south harbor entrance to prevent another sortie on that side. He took his quinqueremes and triremes to sail them round to the northern harbor – in fact, to the back of the Tyrian fleet. Their sailors noticed Alexander’s approach too late, and most of the vessels were rammed, whereas one quinquereme and one quadrireme were captured right at the port entrance. 

Tyre could no longer depend on their fleet, and this was the time for the Macedonians to bring forward their artillery. They started on the mole, but on that side, the walls of Tyre were too thick to be breached. Another attempt was made from the northern harbor, without success either. Then Alexander probed the southern wall where he found a weak spot and scored the first success, but the breach was just wide enough to throw the first bridge across. Consequently, the attack was repulsed. 

Alexander deemed the conditions right to bring his ship-borne artillery into action three days later. This time, his attack caused much damage, enough anyway to bring in his vessels equipped with gangways that could be thrown across the breach. Keeping the enemy focused on this attack, Alexander ordered some of his triremes round to both harbors, hoping they could force an entrance. Other ships carrying archers and ammunition for the artillery were instructed to sail around the island and fill the gaps left by the vessels caught up in the fight. The entire city-island was surrounded by a ring of fire. 

By now, the Macedonian navy attacking at the southern port had firm ground under their feet and forced the enemy lines over the entire width of the breach. Immediately, Alexander moved forward, making his way to the royal quarters. 

The king’s ships, meanwhile, proved to be as successful. The Phoenicians at the southern harbor smashed their way through the enemy lines, ramming some vessels and driving others ashore. The Cypriots joined in and sailed right into the northern port from where they gained control over that section of the city. The Macedonians swarmed out over Tyre and attacked its inhabitants with savage ferocity – fed up as they were by this long siege. 

Curtius tells us that 6,000 Tyrians were killed in the complete carnage, and 2,000 more were crucified outside the city walls. Another 30,000 people were sold into slavery. This is not exactly a pretty sight, but all wars have their own atrocities. 

Military speaking, Tyre is one of Alexander’s greatest and boldest sieges, and I genuinely regret not visiting this place for myself. However, it would have been tough to imagine the history written here. After two thousand years, the mole has transformed the landscape into a wide bay and assimilated the very island. 

Tyre was thoroughly destroyed by Alexander in his rage for having defied him for so long.

Speaking of the Mausoleum of Alexander

The massive circular tomb of Emperor Augustus in Rome has recently been opened to the public. This makes headline news to most people (including the Roman citizens) because the building was neglected and stood abandoned for the past 80 years. Finally, renovation works were completed, and the mausoleum has opened for visitors. 

The Mausoleum of the first Roman Emperor stands along the Tiber River just as the much better-known Castel Sant’Angelo, which initially was conceived as a mausoleum for the later Emperor Hadrian (ruled 117-138 AD) and his family. 

Working on the Tomb of Augustus, archaeologists were in for some surprises. They always thought that this mausoleum was cone-shaped, but their restoration revealed a cylindrical building. That is not surprising if we look at Hadrian’s Mausoleum, which also stands along the Tiber and is cylindrical. 

As Octavian returned home after his victory over Egypt, he proclaimed himself emperor and took the name Augustus. This was the proper time to start the construction of his tomb. With his title of Emperor came the megalomania of having the largest mausoleum ever with a diameter of about 87 meters! It seems that even today, this is a world record. The idea was that the emperors coming after him would also be buried in this tomb. So the ashes of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius were indeed interred in this necropolis. It must have made quite a statement with its shiny marble walls. Archaeologists suspect that an enormous statue of Augustus crowned the mausoleum. 

This type of construction was apparently not confined to Rome since other similar tombs existed in Algeria. The Royal Mausoleum of Mauretania in Tipaza may be the best-preserved example. It was built in 3 BC for King Juba II of Mauretania and Cleopatra Selene II, his wife. This queen was the daughter of Cleopatra VII and Marc Antony. She successfully ruled over Mauretania until she died in 6 BC. Her husband built this mausoleum for her, and based on its size, the idea probably was to also use it for future generations of royal families. King Juba died in 23 AD, and his remains joined those of his wife. 

The mausoleum appears not to be unique as the shape was known throughout Numidia. It may, however, also be inspired by Augustus’ tomb which was built some 25 years earlier. The circular stone construction with a diameter of 60 meters was initially topped with a cone or pyramid standing 40 meters tall. The walls were decorated around the outside perimeter with 60 Ionic columns, which have now lost their capitals. Inside there were two separate vaulted chambers. 

A recent article published on Academia by Michael Bengtsson, “Reconstruction of the Palace area in Alexandria,” sheds another light on the Mausoleum of Alexander, which was visited for centuries in Alexandria. The author has carefully reconstructed the Royal Palace of Alexandria, referring to the texts written by Zenobius, Strabo, Suetonius, and Lucan. 

Based on the striking resemblance between the Royal Mausoleum of Mauretania in Algeria and the Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome, Michael Bengtsson concluded that the tomb of Alexander served as a prototype for both. I think we may safely assume that the size of Alexander’s circular tomb must have surpassed all! 

In the case of the Algerian Mausoleum, we can be confident that Cleopatra Selene, born in Alexandria, thoroughly knew the Palace and the burial site of Alexander. As General Octavian, Augustus conquered Alexandria in 30 BC after winning the Battle of Actium against Marc Antony. He also visited the tomb of Alexander. And finally, Hadrian was in Alexandria in 130 BC. As a lover of all things Greek, he most certainly was full of admiration for Alexander and must have seen his tomb. He may well have been inspired to use the circular shape for his own Mausoleum.

Other Roman emperors who paid their respects to Alexander were Julius Caesar in 45 BC, Caligula, Septimius Severus early 3rd century AD, and Caracalla in the 3rd century AD. It is said that Septimius Severus closed Alexander’s tomb to the public when too many tourists flocked to see it! The crowds and tourists are of all times, it seems.

See also: Linking the Pantheon in Rome with ancient Mausoleums

[Top picture from World History Encyclopedia - Second picture from Atlas Obscura - Bottom picture from Michael Bengtsson]

Rewriting the events leading to the Battle of Gaugamela

Our history of Alexander the Great is mainly based on what the Greek reporters tell us, picked up by later authors like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch. We have ignored what Persian sources could say because of the difficulty deciphering the often fragmentary texts written on clay tablets from the Babylonia Library or on papyrus from the Oxyrhynchus site in Egypt.

Watching a documentary from 2009 of Michael Wood searching for the plain of Gaugamela in war-ridden northern Iraq revived the battle scenario of Alexander against Darius as seen from the Persian point of view, i.e., contemporary of Alexander. Michael Wood had an in-depth conversation with Prof. Irving Finkle of the British Museum handling several cuneiform tablets.  

These cuneiform clay tablets belong to the Astronomical Diaries kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. The diaries contain daily observations of the sky and all kinds of information about the current political events, the water level of the Euphrates and Tigris, the food prices and other various topics, and the meteorological records. Over the past two centuries, millions of these tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia. The majority has not yet been deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas. Therefore the work of Prof. Irving Finkle is very commendable. 

With Michael Wood, he concentrated on three lines on these tablets that require careful consideration in the case of Gaugamela. 

That month, the eleventh [corresponds to 18 September 331 BC], panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king [must be Darius at Arbela].

This inscription suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized or were reluctant to fight. 

The twenty-fourth [corresponds to 1 October 331 BC], in the morning, the king of the world [meaning Alexander as King of Asia] erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti [meaning the road to Ecbatana]

These lines shed a very different light on the battle as opposed to what Greek historians wrote about Darius turning his chariot around and leaving his soldiers behind (see: "The troops of the king deserted him"). If the Persian troops left their king, that would be a totally different situation.

Prof. Irving understands that “the king’s men deserted him” means, the Persians refused to fight. This may very well involve Mazaeus at Gaugamela, as he was holding the right flank facing Parmenion’s contingent. Was the confrontation on that end of the long Persian front really as fierce as our Greek narratives want us to believe with Parmenion’s flank crumbling down? Or was it mainly a show to save face vis-à-vis King Darius?

If the soldiers on that flank (the Persian right) were not ready to engage in a fight, Alexander could more easily concentrate on his own right flank. Thus executing his whirling move and ride towards Darius through the formed gap. Darius fled from the battlefield, but it transpired that many of his troops had turned back before their king did. 

We may wonder whether, instead of an act of bravery or military genius on Alexander’s part, the battle was won thanks to the bribes of some of Darius’ generals, including Mazaeus (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

On the eleventh [corresponds to 18 October 331 BC], in Sippar [this is just north of Babylon] an order of Alexander to the Babylonians was sent as follows: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.'

Here, the tablets are quoting Alexander verbatim as he confirms that he would not enter the houses of Babylon. In other words, he officially declares that his troops will not plunder the city. This was clearly a pre-arranged gesture. 

The above calls for some further explanation. 

Let’s consider the nearly obvious bribe of Mazaeus. We have to go back to the banks of the Euphrates where Hephaistion was building two bridges over the Euphrates at its narrowest point near Thapsacus (see: Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers). The Persian general had arrived on the other side and watched Hephaistion’s construction progress for several days. Hephaistion stopped his operation short of the opposite river bank as he did not want to see the end of his bridges destroyed by Mazaeus. Work was at a stalemate till Alexander appeared with the bulk of his army, and Mazaeus turned around to scorch more earth in front of the enemy’s advance as ordered by Darius. 

Mazaeus had 2,000 Greek mercenaries at his services. They must have been happy to talk to the Macedonians on the opposite bank to exchange the latest news during the stalemate. Robin Lane Fox implies that Mazaeus (who, having been satrap of Cilicia, did speak Greek) at that time could have forged some agreement with Hephaistion in view of the upcoming battle. At first sight, this seems outlandish, but this is very plausible on second thought. Hephaistion was often sent on diplomatic missions by Alexander, and the events on the bank of the Euphrates may well have been one such occasion. While he was waiting, Hephaistion had ample time to consult Alexander, still marching towards him. Such a private agreement would inevitably shed totally new light on the upcoming fight at Gaugamela (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

As soon as Darius left the battlefield, Mazaeus followed suit and rode to Babylon. When Alexander approached the city some three weeks later, he was met by Mazaeus, who surrendered himself and the city. This has been recorded by Curtius and certainly fits into the prearranged agreement! 

Babylon was a well-defended stronghold with a 68 km-long wall that would have been a tough nut to crack had Mazaeus not surrendered it to the new King of Asia (see: Babylon and Alexander’s reorganization of the army). 

In his search for the battlefield location, Michael Wood also talked to Lt General Sir Robert Fry, head of British Forces in Iraq, who was in charge of his security. The general is a historian and fervent admirer of Alexander the Great with his own views on the military aspect. He says that, in figures, the Battle of Gaugamela was perhaps the biggest in history until Napoleon! It decided the fate of Asia. 

He further adds that - like all great leaders in history - Alexander left no weapon unused – even the gods. Alexander did not make his last sacrifice to Phoebus because he was afraid, but he wished fear and terror on the Persians! True to his generalship, Robert Fry marvels at the logistics of bringing an army of 50,000 to Iraq, 80,000 to Persia, and even more to India. Imagine the long supply line! 

The general also looks at the upcoming battle from Darius’ side and confirms that he has taken all necessary precautions. He had a superior cavalry with heavier horses, had the strength of numbers, and the battle itself was well prepared. The plan of the Persian king was to breach the phalanx in order to break the cohesion of the Macedonian army at its center and then envelop the outnumbered Macedonians. Darius had not expected Alexander to stretch the army to his right and create an opening to ride straight at him. The battle was not about their numbers, the general continued, but it came down to the decisions of two individuals. 

These are fascinating statements and ideas. General Fry ends with words along the line of “Alexander’s idea of defeating the Persians may be his idea of linking the eastern and western empires by trade routes and by an army integrated in ethnic terms. These are extraordinary imaginative ideas! Alexander was a globalist. He would thoroughly understand the world today.” How true that is!

[Pictures 2 and 3 are from Oliver Stones' movie Alexander]