"Go on?" Timothy encouraged.
"The cavalry may be Darius' strongest asset, but they don't have enough room. I think at least half of them should be taken to the left, where at least they can get at the enemy."
"Perhaps!" Timothy smiled. "Anyway, Alexander attacked Darius' left flank and after loosing a few volleys of arrows, Darius' archers panicked, running back through their own infantry, who in turn panicked and ran up into the hills. Comment?"
"Darius should have placed his archers behind the infantry to protect them, and also sent some of his best heavy infantry over to the left, to give Alexander a surprise if he attacks on the basis of attacking where the worst troops are often placed."
"So, the left has panicked, and turned and run. Now, how does Darius win?" Timothy asked.
"Alexander pursues the Persians into the hills, and now there is a hole, which Darius sees."
"And he sends Greek infantry into this hole. Why does he lose?"
"He didn't commit enough troops, and nowhere near enough cavalry. Alexander's phalanxes more or less held, then Alexander brought up extra cavalry and attacked the left flank of Darius' troops and this attack quickly became a losing position. Having failed to punch a clean hole in the Greek line, his centre had to retreat or be caught in a pincer, and at this key moment, instead of finding a counter to Alexander, Darius fled and the battle was lost. Even worse, on the right his cavalry had made progress and now they had to retreat or be surrounded. Once they started to retreat, Parmenio cut them to pieces. What could have been a possible victory rapidly turned into a terrible defeat."
"So what was Darius' biggest mistake?"
"His strategy was to win by attrition, which was fine, but he had to ensure he didn't lose first. He should have kept his best infantry and all his cavalry that couldn't get at the enemy in reserve, to deal with what eventuated. If he had fired more cavalry into that hole in the Greek deployment, they might have got around the back and changed everything."
"So, what was the decisive point?"
"The moment Darius decided to run," Gaius said quietly. "You can't have lost a battle of attrition when you still heavily outnumber the opposition, and most of your losses were your worst troops."
"Do you see anything else noteworthy?"
"Darius should have attacked immediately, perhaps using the 50,000 troops he sent forward as a screen while some of his army was getting organized," Gaius replied. "Even this small part of his army would provide problems for Alexander. If they could have engaged Alexander's men and fought for an hour, Darius could deploy his main army wherever he could see the weakest point. If the strategy's to fight by attrition, he should send in a fifth of his army, and eventually roll them back and bring forward another fifth, and so on. Keep this up long enough and Alexander's men will be so tired he must lose."
"Following Roman tactics," Timothy nodded.
"They work!" Gaius pointed out. "Rome wins more than it loses."
"Anything else?"
"I can't think of much else," Gaius admitted.
"The most important issue of all is the question of a battle plan. A good commander has to do more than just give orders and start something. Once troops are engaged in battle, there's not much more you can do with them, so you have to plan for as many possible outcomes as you can, and ensure that every unit knows what to do next. That, as an aside, is the basic advantage of your launching the attack, because then you control the initial situation.
"Because the situation was very similar to that at the Granicus, if he anticipated Alexander attacking on his left, he could have asked those troops to retreat, and have troops and supporting cavalry ready to drive into the hole that develops. Such openings are quite transient, but if you are ready and drive home the advantage immediately, you can be sure the opponent has no plan for that contingency. The side that is executing a plan should defeat the side that is trying to work out what to do next.
"Had Darius' cavalry got around and attacked the Macedonians from the rear, and if there were infantry to at least engage the flanking Greek infantry, victory usually follows, particularly against the phalanx. The weakness of the phalanx was that it was almost defenceless from the rear, because of the time it took to turn those long spears and reorganize. Now, back to my initial question on strategy. Why was it Alexander's optimum strategy to advance and force battle?"
"To take the initiative from Darius. To do what Darius did not expect?"
"Partly correct," Timothy said, "but there's much more. The most important point to remember is that strategy must consider operational matters. Darius must have sea on his right flank, and Alexander would have hills on his. While the sea inhibits an attack on the right, why can't Darius outflank Alexander by a fast attack down the left?"
Gaius thought for some time, then shrugged and said, "I don't know."
"It's an operational matter regarding cavalry. The cavalryman held a shield in his left hand and used the back of the horse's neck to help guide any lance or spear until the last instant. With the point of the lance on the left of the horse, don't you want the target there?"
"I suppose so," Gaius replied, a shade sheepishly.
"And this addresses the question of why Alexander was so keen on advancing on Darius. He was always going to be outnumbered five to one, but here Darius had cancelled out his numerical advantage. Alexander could deploy his cavalry on land, while Darius' cavalry had to enter the sea to outflank on the right. Alexander could see that strategically Darius had brought his massive army to the place least suitable to deploy it properly. He had to fight eventually, so why not when things were most favourable?"
"I guess so," Gaius admitted, "although. ."
"Although what?"
"Darius could have deployed cavalry on his left. Much of his cavalry were effectively mounted archers, who could shoot arrows in either direction. With superior numbers, he could afford to deploy a few thousand mounted archers to the left, and still do everything else he intended."
"So why didn't he?"
"Perhaps he was too uninspired," was all Gaius could come up with.
To his surprise, Timothy agreed. "Darius' appears to have had the attitude that his job was to turn up with superior forces, and he had done that. However, just because you've come out on the wrong side of the strategic moves there's no reason to lie down and die. When there, you must still employ the best tactics."
Chapter 12
The day seemed so pleasant. The sun was just the right temperature, there was a slight cooling breeze, and he had to discuss elements. Gaius pulled himself together. Romans did their duty. "I have thought about elements and I have a problem," he began. "The question is, is the theory able to explain everything after the fact, but predict nothing before? For example, you say everything depends on numbers, but there are infinite numbers."
"I proposed that everything is based on numbers, on geometry, and symmetry. If you knew all the geometry, and if you correctly handle the symmetry issues, you know all about physics, all about matter, all about everything that matters. The entire universe, your entire being, is just a series of numbers and shapes, moulded by symmetry."
"Some time ago," Gaius responded, "you said there were five shapes. Four elements and no connection. So, your fifth shape? It is not that I necessarily believe your theory, I might add, but I do have to know what it is to refute it."
"Good! The four elements were really argued by Empedocles, the relation with the shapes was due to Plato. The fire is obviously the tetrahedron, its sharp points giving the burning sensation, the cube, with its solidity and rigidity is obviously the earth, water, being wet and slippery is the icosahedron, while air the octahedron. The fifth element is the most sublime of all, ether, so it must have the most complex geometry of the dodecahedron. Comment?"