I'm not sure if Darius having more stones would have made a difference. The phalanx and "heavy" cavalry combination would be tough to crack with the forces he had available - referring to type/quality, here.
As for using his father's army and not his own: While I agree this is a major edge for Alexander, I'm not sure how much that should deny him "greatness".
That John II Comnenus* could build on his father's foundations doesn't make him less of a basileus than his father. One might argue that Alexius I was still greater for surmounting greater challenges, and this may apply to Philip vs. Alexander, but that needs elaboration.
It might be worth saying that Alexander had such a high quality force and capable subordinates (before they died, sometimes by his orders) that even a lesser ruler could achieve great deeds, but that doesn't appear to be what is being
argued by giving credit to the army to Philip.
And the degree Persia was decaying seems up for some debate - but I don't know enough to pose an argument, other than to quote from Alexander the Great Failure (which is referring to his failure in the long term): "The concept of 'decline' of this empire is no very helpful, being a projection back from its defeat by Alexander; the surmounting of imperial difficulties in the 360s and 350s implies strength, not decline."
*: Because John II and Alexius I, if not called "the Great" were certainly amazing. And a discussion of great rulers without at least glancing at Rhomania (what's BG's spelling of that again?) is just blind. On that note, John deserves it more than Manuel I, who seems to have had some form of "the Great" (megas, if memory serves).
As for using his father's army and not his own: While I agree this is a major edge for Alexander, I'm not sure how much that should deny him "greatness".
That John II Comnenus* could build on his father's foundations doesn't make him less of a basileus than his father. One might argue that Alexius I was still greater for surmounting greater challenges, and this may apply to Philip vs. Alexander, but that needs elaboration.
It might be worth saying that Alexander had such a high quality force and capable subordinates (before they died, sometimes by his orders) that even a lesser ruler could achieve great deeds, but that doesn't appear to be what is being
argued by giving credit to the army to Philip.
And the degree Persia was decaying seems up for some debate - but I don't know enough to pose an argument, other than to quote from Alexander the Great Failure (which is referring to his failure in the long term): "The concept of 'decline' of this empire is no very helpful, being a projection back from its defeat by Alexander; the surmounting of imperial difficulties in the 360s and 350s implies strength, not decline."
*: Because John II and Alexius I, if not called "the Great" were certainly amazing. And a discussion of great rulers without at least glancing at Rhomania (what's BG's spelling of that again?) is just blind. On that note, John deserves it more than Manuel I, who seems to have had some form of "the Great" (megas, if memory serves).
Last edited: