04-16-2002, 12:50 PM
I don't think their command styles made much of a difference in (or the other) battles. As you state - this was purely cultural, and Darius seems to have behaved as a Persian King was expected to (i.e., stay behind the front lines and command), while Alexander did as a Macedonian King was expected to (i.e., fight in the front lines).<br>
<br>
Personally, I believe that Darius was a competent commander - though also an unfortunate one.<br>
<br>
But otherwise I agree with you.<br>
<br>
A point to remember (often ignored) about all the truly great commanders is that all of them had great subordinates. Philip and Alexander had Parmenio (to name just one - the commanders of the individual units of the phalanx: men like Ptolemy, Seleukos, etc., were clearly no slouches either); Caesar had Titus Labienus, Hannibal had Maharbal and Mago Barca (among many others), and Scipio Africanus had Laelius. The ability to recoqnize and use other men of ability is (IMO) one of the most important strengths of these commanders. <p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
<br>
Personally, I believe that Darius was a competent commander - though also an unfortunate one.<br>
<br>
But otherwise I agree with you.<br>
<br>
A point to remember (often ignored) about all the truly great commanders is that all of them had great subordinates. Philip and Alexander had Parmenio (to name just one - the commanders of the individual units of the phalanx: men like Ptolemy, Seleukos, etc., were clearly no slouches either); Caesar had Titus Labienus, Hannibal had Maharbal and Mago Barca (among many others), and Scipio Africanus had Laelius. The ability to recoqnize and use other men of ability is (IMO) one of the most important strengths of these commanders. <p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
