"So, as far as we can tell," Timothy said dryly, "you can recite history. One day, when you command, reflect on how easy it is to comment like this, and how hard it is to do things properly at the time."
"I guess," Gaius said. He then began to feel a little guilty about his previous attitude so, after a few moments, he said, "Look, on thinking about it a little more, maybe you were correct and I was wrong."
"Oh?" Timothy's expression was one of pure surprise. "About what?"
"About Alexander's urge to fight, and the comment about the cavalry and the river," Gaius replied. "My initial thought was that nobody in their right mind would counter an approaching phalanx trying to cross the river with cavalry lined up along the bank, so I assumed that was wrong."
"But?"
"Another possible explanation is that on approaching the Granicus, Alexander would have already discussed how he would fight the battle and where everyone would line up, and Parmenio may have offered his opinion then. That, in my opinion, was the best strategy at that point, but if Alexander saw the Persian cavalry deployed like that, he would know his opponent had made a very bad mistake, so he should fight immediately, while the mistake was still in play."
"The Persian cavalry contained a lot of archers," Timothy pointed out.
"Yes, and they had archers in their infantry," Gaius added. "The point is, the great advantage of cavalry is that they are mobile. Lining them up on a river bank and having infantry behind them completely negates that advantage."
"So, Alexander wasn't as bad as you thought?"
"I never thought Alexander was bad," Gaius replied. "But even you won't disagree that he was bloodthirsty. The Greek mercenaries surrendered, and he set about slaughtering almost twenty thousand of them."
"Yes," Timothy agreed. "There were many aspects of Alexander's life that were not exactly admirable."
* * *
"Yesterday," Timothy said, "we discussed Alexander's first major battle of his invasion of Asia." He paused, and seemed somewhat apprehensive.
"We did," Gaius finally said, to break the silence. "I had not forgotten."
"I didn't think you had," Timothy muttered, "but I want to raise the morality of the invasion."
"I see," Gaius said irritably. "Back to another moan on the issue of slavery."
"No," Timothy said. "That's not it at all, at least not in the sense you're thinking."
"Then what sense?" Gaius snorted, then he noticed what appeared to be a more fearful look on Timothy's face. "All right, I can see I'm not going to like this, but I promise, you can say what you like, provided it's not a moan about your perceived personal hardships."
"Then," Timothy said, as he took a deep breath. "Why do you think Alexander wanted to invade other people's lands?"
"Revenge for Persian attacks, and glory," Gaius said, then added caustically, "He seemed to be another one of those who thought he was divine, and before you remind me, I know. It's a bad habit, he wasn't, neither are the others, but I can't do anything about it."
"So to claim glory, he killed, and killed, and killed," Timothy said. "Do you think killing is glorious?"
"In war, it's necessary, although, as I noted yesterday, there was no need to kill all the mercenaries after they had surrendered and sued for peace," Gaius said flatly. "You can't fight a war without killing, and there's no way to stop war, at least no way I can see, except. ."
"Except?"
"Strictly speaking, if Rome conquered everybody, there'd be no more war," Gaius smirked.
"And Rome has never had internal wars? Civil wars?"
"You're right," Gaius replied. "It has, but that doesn't make them desirable."
"And you're right. There'll be many more wars, but that doesn't make them desirable either. You are correct that in war, killing is necessary, but is it desirable? Is it glorious?"
"Given the fact that war has started, it is highly desirable to kill them before they kill you," Gaius shrugged. "Further, as a General, it's your duty to finish off the enemy with the fewest casualties on your own side. The men trust you to do that."
"That's once you are in battle, but is it desirable to try to find peace first?"
"Most definitely, however the soldier doesn't start wars, and finishing them that way is usually outside the boundaries permitted by his orders."
"So, is it glorious?"
"Some seem to think so," Gaius replied, a little evasively.
"Your enemy are probably farmers, forced by their lords to fight. They have little skill, and their only enthusiasm for the fight is that they think their wife and daughter might get raped if they lose. Is killing them glorious?"
"Probably not," Gaius said, "but if they take the field, what's the option?"
"Be a better general, out-manoeuvre them, and force them to surrender rather than merely wade through them, slaughtering all and sundry?" Timothy suggested.
"I don't disagree," Gaius said, after a pause, "but a General's first duty is to his own men. I can't risk their lives."
"Of course not," Timothy said, "however being a better General tends to save your own men's lives as well as your enemy's."
"I agree with the suggestion that the General should be as competent as possible."
"Well, that's good to hear," Timothy said, a little sourly. "Now, consider this. Your actions will lead to a number of deaths, including your own soldiers, those of the others, and you will then occupy their territory. Justify that."
"I'm afraid that's the way things are," Gaius shrugged.
"I know," Timothy said, "but is that justification?"
"An obvious justification is if you are attacked. Your citizens could have their property destroyed, their women raped, and their citizens. ." Gaius paused, as he could see where this was going.
"Enslaved," Timothy added dryly. "Any other circumstances you can justify?"
"If the Princeps orders the army to march," Gaius said slowly, "and if an officer refuses, then he will be executed, somebody else will take his place, so there's not much point in refusing."
"Quite correct," Timothy agreed. "There's no point in refusing orders, getting yourself and your family exiled or killed, and the order still being carried out. Now, what is the justification for Rome invading another country?"
"In many cases," Gaius said simply, "Roman occupation leads to a far better life for all the citizens."
"From the Roman point of view?" Timothy asked.
"From the point of view of being able to trade, and to live under law," Gaius replied.
"Suppose Rome invades because they can get more loot? They steal, at least in the sense that they exploit a resource and thus take the opportunities from the locals, making Romans rich and the locals poor."
"Obviously that happens, however, I don't see that I can do much about that either. All I can say is that provided taxes are paid, Rome encourages people to own their own land and resources, and that's in the provinces as well. Romans are encouraged to work for their own benefit."
"Or for the landowner?"
"Or for the landowner," Gaius agreed. "And yes, as a Claudian, we have large areas of land, in various provinces, and we have slaves and workers, but the free workers may leave if they wish. They stay because. ."
"Suppose a strong force arrived on Rome's doorstep. You would fight to retain your ranches?"
"Of course!"
"And when you lost, you'd be as angry as some of the torments of Hades?"
"Yes, but I can't change things. I don't see where this is going."
"Where this is going is this. I want you to think. Is it justifiable to invade because your Princeps has his nose out of joint? Is it justifiable to invade simply to acquire resources that you feel you need? Is it justifiable to invade because there happens to be land next door and your army hasn't done anything lately? Is it justifiable to invade and kill tens of thousands simply to look good politically back home? Too many of you Romans are arrogant, you walk over other races with your superior armies, you laugh as you kill and steal from the inferior people. ."