An interesting take on the Battle of the Granicus (334 BC)

[Ray552]

Q: Why did Alexander cross the river?
A: To get to the other side!

But according to this blog (using the account of Diodorus and an analysis by Peter Green), did the glorious headlong attack by Alexander across the Granicus really happen, or was it just Macedonian public relations BS?

"The Granicus: Alexander's Conquest of Persia, Late May, 334 BCE" - Obscure Battles

Your thoughts?

[ZeaBed]

So, we can conclude from all this that the writer essentially construes the "accepted" version of Granikos as Alexandrian propaganda casting the battle as a proto-Issus, if you will - an avatar of the later, larger victory. And not as an initial setback salvaged by Parmenio's prevailing advice and the river-crossing north of the Persian lines.

It seems plausible to me. Green's biography of Alexander is indeed my favorite overall account in this field. I once read that Arrian depended in a large part on Ptolemy's lost memoir of Alexander's campaign but that another Roman-era historian, Curtius, depended more on the also lost work of Callisthenes (if it survived that long). I'm not sure about that however, as memory fails me on this point. I also can't recall if Curtius also casts doubt on this aspect of the Arrianic version. Interesting take and thoughtful analysis, to say the least. It also suggests, of course, additional motivations for the executions of Parmenio and Callisthenes.

[Ray552]

It makes one think about the motivations of writers, for example, Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War (propaganda to justify his actions in Gaul), Viking skalds and medieval chroniclers (usually working for one lord or another), and of course today's "spin doctors".