Login

11-06-2003, 06:47 PM

Did I forget anyone?<FORM method=post action="http://p208.ezboard.com/fgreekarmytalkfrm8.processVote?topicID=8.topic"><table border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 width="55%"><tbody><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="1">the Spartan king Leonidas</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="2">Epaminondas</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="3">Pyrrhus</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="4">Agesilaus</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="5">Miltiades</td></tr></tbody></table><input type=submit value="Vote"></form><a HREF=http://p208.ezboard.com/fgreekarmytalkfrm8.showMessage?topicID=8.topic&pollResults=on>Show results</A>

11-08-2003, 08:13 PM

Can Themistocles break into the rankings?

Muzzaguchi · 11-08-2003, 11:32 PM

Hi, 
Just to be controversial I would like to suggest that Callimachus - flying in the face of Herodotus and (probably Cimon influenced) tradition - should be given credit for Marathon! 
 
Cheers 
 
Muzzaguchi

11-09-2003, 07:11 AM

Jack, I thought about that, but Themistocles IMHO is more political figure than a general.

11-09-2003, 07:13 AM

Muzzaguchi, 
 
As usual, victory has a lot of fathers. Defeat is always an orphan. 
 
BTW, I respect the memory of the brave Polemarch Callimachus who was one of the slain in this battle. 
 
p.s. No offence taken. 'Controversial' is my middle name. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub152.ezboard.com/bgreekarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=warrior11>warrior11</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" BORDER=0> at: 11/9/03 13:45

11-09-2003, 02:34 PM

I guess he is more of a politician, but he really was quite masterful at Salamis. Drawing in the Persian fleet. I visited Salamis this past summer and one can begin to get a sense of how incredible that victory must have been! 
 
- Jack

11-09-2003, 08:57 PM

I am missing two important generals, and in my opinion one of the biggest Strategos of the whole ancient world: Perikles. 
 
He managed to take Athens to be the greatest economical and military power of the time, created the most powerful fleet in the world, and accounted feats of military prowess that were incredible in his days and are still incredible right nowadays (like the rebellion of Miletos, or of Egina, etc...). He actually made the Spartans doubt they were the best in the whole Greece... 
 
Another important figure was Alkibiades, he was a key element in the Peloponnesian Wars, once Perikles was gone... 
 
regards, 
P. Lilius aka Argyros

11-10-2003, 06:14 PM

Publius Lilius Frugius Simius, 
 
You put me in a difficult position. I am forced to disagree with you and speak against this brilliant politician, perfect orator, the accomplished man of genius and the liberal patron of literature and art. The only thing that excuses me is that Pericles never valued too much his military exploits. As the dying man himself remarked: "What you praise in me is partly the result of good fortune, and at all events common to me with many other commanders. What I chiefly pride myself upon you have not noticed - no Athenian ever wore mourning through me." 
 
IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d like to add that Pericles sailed against the Samians in person, defeated their fleet in several engagements,and forced the city to capitulate. 
 
He was a good general, no doubt, but not one of the best. 
 
 
But it is easy and event pleasant to object against Alcibiades. 
The greatest enemy of Athens. Young, rich, handsome, profligate. On his proposal all the adult males of conquered Melos were put to death, the women and children sold into slavery. 
On the other hand a few good words can be said about him. For instance, Alcibiades protected retreat of Socrates. He was the one who transferred the war to Thrace. 
Well, I seem to be moralizingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ He was a good general too. Brave, no doubt, but not that wise as Pericles. For example, he was all for expedition against Sycily, extremely risky venture, IMHO. 
 
Regards, 
 
warrior11 
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/> 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub152.ezboard.com/bgreekarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=warrior11>warrior11</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" BORDER=0> at: 11/10/03 19:26

11-11-2003, 04:33 AM

In fairness to Alkibiades, the Sicilian expedition might have gone somewhat differently if he had been in command rather than Nikias (who had led the opposition to it). He also did well in the Ionian War, until he left his helmsman in charge of the fleet at one point.

11-11-2003, 04:12 PM

Kalvan, 
 
I see your point. As disastrous as Sicilian war ended, ANY change in command might have been some hope for Athenians. But I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t see any serious grounds for a hope that Alcibiades would have achieved something different. At the very beginning of his life he had more than any other Hellene in the world. But look how he ended up. He was a looser after all.

11-12-2003, 02:12 AM

He reminds me somewhat of Pyrrhus. Gifted, but unfocused and a propensity for making bad decisions.

11-13-2003, 03:28 AM

We have to remember that Nikias was put in a tough spot. When Alchibiades joins the Spartna general on Sicily he can them all the information on size and disposition of the Athenian force. Who better to cut the legs out from the Athenians than the former commander! 
 
- Jack

11-15-2003, 12:31 PM

I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t blame Nicias for loosing Sicilian war. He was not a genius, but he was not a bad commander either. I even respect him for being against this risking venture from the very beginning. There was something unreasoned in choosing one of the best-fortified cities in the world with warlike population and love for freedom. To bet all for all. Greediness had driven crazy the Athenian people. They wanted all and at once. 
 
They should have begun somewhere in the Southern Italy. The lands there were as rich as in Sicily, but there were no superpowers like Syracuse and Carthage. They could have conquered southern Italy piece by piece. First, they should have taken (or built) some strategically advantageous point. Then fortify it and use it as a base. Even if Athenians had been defeated it wouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have been that ruinous. But what they wanted was to rob the richest city and take a prosperous island with one blow. Too self-confident IMHO. And to think that the next thing they were about to do was to take Carthage.

11-16-2003, 02:15 PM

Everyone, 
 
Was the failed invasion of Sicily the end of Greek military expansion? Did they make additional attempts in Sicily or other places? Did they give up because they failed or were they threatened elsewhere, preventing further attempts at expansion? 
 
Based on my limited knowledge of the Greeks, it's interesting that the Greeks would have chosen to attack the most powerful rival in the region. Doesn't that demonstrate the Greek way of war, which is to engage in decisive battle and thus end the war as soon as possible? 
 
What would the advantage of first seizing southern Italy be? How would taking weaker regions make it easier to eventually conquer the stronger rivals of the region(Carthage and Syracuse)? Personally, if I were in sole charge of the Greek forces, I would have taken out the strongest rivals first, unless there was some valuable resource that could be exploited in southern Italy, which would improve the chances of future invasions (like oil is today). 
 
I think it was a good strategy, which failed in the end due to poor tactics and mediocre leadership.

11-16-2003, 03:32 PM

My point is that it is extremely difficult to take a well-fortified city. Even for Romans it took a long time and much effort. And you never know what might happen during a long siege. 
 
What did Athenes need? New subjects for their empire to pay taxes, rich lands to be populated by the Athenians, riches of the robbed cities, slaves to use by themselves and to sell. They could get it all in the Southern Italy. Risk was as low as it could possibly be at war. Cities of Italy were disintegrated and Athenians would have been an unquestionable leader. 
And only after getting strong base in Italy and with the help of it, Athenians would have been able to begin the dangerous and difficult campaign in Sicily. Being closer to it would have helped too.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me