Tyre

[Rameses the Great]

Argubly one of the hardest areas for Alexander to conquer was the Phoenecian city of Tyre. Not so much the mainland, but the nearly impenitrable harbor town. Alexander was offered surrender by the Tyrians but refused to let him sacrifice at the temple of Melqart. This was something only a native king could do during ceremonies.

 

Furious, Alexander went on to create a mole to breach the defenses of Tyre. He was constantly harassed by ships and needed naval support more than anything. Eventually Tyre could not have held out any longer because of overwhelming forces. The rest of the soldiers were slaughtered as everyone in the city except those in the temple. Later those people would be sacrificed on crosses.

 

In conclusion, if there was a battle that nearly handed Alexander a defeat it was that of Tyre. Something that not even Nebuchanezzar could do, Alexander could.

 

My question to you guys:

1. Do you guys think that it shows how hard it was to conquer Tyre?

2. Do you guys think that it shows how great a general Alexander truly was?

Edited July 15, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Honorius]

it was obviosuly difficult to conquer Tyre because of its geographic position being on an island. Also the fact that it was held by the Phoenicians the best mariners of the time...with constrol of the sea tyre was impossible to take and i very much doubt the babylonians had much of a navy.

 

i dont think Alexander was that great during this siege. Tyre was going to fall eventually because they were outnumbered and had only a small number of ships at the time.. food was going to run short and with the constant attacks by Alexanders men Tyre had no chance.

 

(i.e alexander is really my area)

[phil25]

To me the fall of Tyre shows many of Alexander's skills as a general - improvisation, drive, determination, an ability to see possibilities where others saw obstacles, a willingness to sacrifice men and time to gain a victory that he saw as strategically important.

 

But above all it shows Alexander's self-belief at this stage of his career - an almost innocent (even god-like?!) sense that he could do ANYTHING - that he was picked out by fate, chosen by the gods, and that he could not fail. Against that backdrop, how another might have acted was of absolutely no concern.

 

Alexander was unique and I suspect we are incapable of understanding him today. To meet him would probably repel us - his (as we would see them today) arrogance and apartness would give us little to sympathise with or warm to. Implacable and aloof are the words that spring to mind, unconcern with the sorts of things that might bother oridinary people, his main characteristic.

 

Phil

[Pantagathus]

Something that not even Nebuchanezzar could do, Alexander could.

 

What exactly do you mean? Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for 13 years but he did it.

 

The Assyrian kings Shalmaneser, Sennacherib & Ashurbanipal all took turns squeezing the city but were quite a bit more savvy about it. The Assyrians weren't so rash as Alexander and understood their were far more effective ways of taking advantage of Tyre's economic wealth than outright conquest.

 

By the time of Alexander, Tyre was a shadow of it's former self, important enough because it was a conduit for Persian trade but not a major player anymore in Mediterranean affairs. If it had been important do you not think Carthage would have come to it's parent's aid?

 

Alexander took the city for symbolic more than strategic reasons. He was ticked off at what he saw as an affront to him in regards to the Melqart fiasco but mainly he was systematically cutting the Persian off from the west. I think the sentiment is summed up in this reply to Darius' truce offering:

 

"In future whenever you communicate with me, send to me as Lord of Asia; do not write to me as an equal, but state your demands to the master of all your possessions. If not, I shall deal with you as a wrongdoer. If you wish to lay claim to the title of king, then stand your ground and fight for it; do not take to flight, as I shall pursue you wherever you may be."

 

To me this vainglorious episode was impressive if only for it's tenaciously swift execusion but it wasn't without precident. So to answer the original posters 2 questions: 1. Sort of & 2. No if your are lokking at it from a tactical point of view.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Rameses the Great]

If you ask me I think the battle at Tyre was the closest Alexander ever got at defeat. This battle was more difficult than any battle in India he had fought. It was similar to how Caeser created a bridge across the Rhine. Alexander could have raided the area by sea, but wanted to go by land. Even though Phoenicia was on the decline they have a strategic position that is easy to defend.

 

By the time of Alexander, Tyre was a shadow of it's former self, important enough because it was a conduit for Persian trade but not a major player anymore in Mediterranean affairs. If it had been important do you not think Carthage would have come to it's parent's aid?

 

This is interesting to me. I don't think Carthage really acknowledged Phoenicia anymore. They were stronger and by doing that Alexander would be on their heads and doom will set on them. Tyre was still a strong hold that can be defended with relative ease. It's not like Egypt that can't protect itself. Even if it declined it was still a city that needed to be protected.

 

If it had come under Persian control how come it was the Phoenicians that protected it?

Edited July 18, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Pantagathus]

This is interesting to me. I don't think Carthage really acknowledged Phoenicia anymore. They were stronger and by doing that Alexander would be on their heads and doom will set on them.

 

Carthage sure did. They sent a huge annual tribute to the Temple of Melqart (which was of course controlled by the Tyrian Royal family..) every year up to this point in the 4th Century. But yes, faced with their constant struggles with the Sicilian despots it was perhaps wise that they chose not to draw Alexander's wrath as well.

 

If it had come under Persian control how come it was the Phoenicians that protected it?

 

Because the Phoenicians lived there

 

On a modern note, it seems the ancient city is once again under seige: Israel Pounds Tyre in Southern Lebanon

[Kosmo]

I don't think that an ancient navy was capable of projecting effective power to such distances. All naval campaigns of antiquity were on much shorter distances and on routes with better supply possibilities.

Even if they did not met opposition on the way it would have been a long difficult journey and they could not do much to help the city against the land assault of Alexander perfect war machine.

 

Q1: it was a island city, always a very difficult target

Q2: Alexander was a great general with the most powerfull army of the time. I think the siege shows the military qualities of them, but, maybe, a low diplomatic skill. Wasting time and men in front of Tyre let Darius time to rebuild his shattered, but not destroyed, army.

[Pantagathus]

Alexander took the city for symbolic more than strategic reasons. He was ticked off at what he saw as an affront to him in regards to the Melqart fiasco but mainly he was systematically cutting the Persian off from the west.

I seem to have contradicted myself in the statement above... After relooking at Arrian, the Melqart fiasco was the pretext if you will to make a move on Tyre. Byblos & Sidon had come over to him but his concern was even though Tyre was playing neutral, he couldn't risk Persian supplies or reinforcements sailing from there when he marched on Egypt. So indeed it was in essence a strategic decision as his aim was finally cutting the Persians off from access to the Med.

 

I don't think that an ancient navy was capable of projecting effective power to such distances. All naval campaigns of antiquity were on much shorter distances and on routes with better supply possibilities.

I'm afraid that their were numerous precedents to the contrary. The Phocaeans -vs- the Carthaginian/Etruscan alliance for one, the Athenian Sicilian Expedition, etc... However, I concede that the the 8 month time window for the siege poses a serious problem that could also explain why Carthage didn't send aid.

 

The sailing season was a pretty short window; 3-4 months during the summer. A trip from Tyre to Gades took most of the season depending on how conditions were, especially at the Straights. Carthage is about at the half way mark.

 

So you have to account for:

1. Word to arrive of the beginning of the siege

2. Debate among the Sufettes about what to do if anything

3. Gathering of manpower & resources

4. The expedition from Carthage to the Levant.

 

Even if the decision was swift, the resources were on hand and the siege had just begun when word went out, it's a real stretch to think Carthage would have had enough time to react in time.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Rameses the Great]

Still, you have to account for how long Tyre would hold out. If they just played their cards right they could have held out for weeks maybe months. Remember Alexander always had fortune on his side. Also Carthage and Macedonia have a history together even if it means attacking their homeland.

 

If I've learned anything from Alexander he can't be stopped, but he can be delayed.

 

However if Carthage and Alexander's army fought each other it would have been a great showdown. However, I think we all know who would have won.

[Kosmo]

Of course, you are right about the time needed.

Another question will be the interest of making such a dangerous expedition as Carthage greatness started with the downfall of Tyre and Phoenicia. Maybe they were not so upset as we might think.

 

I still think that the distance was to great for them to try an expedition. Usually military expeditions traveled only during the day and put their ships on the shore during the night.

An expedition from Carthage had to do that for the long trip from Carthage to Egipt on the Libian desert coast where the greeks from Cyrene might be hostile.

The route from Athens to Syracusa it's much shorter and easier than this trip thru the entire Eastern Mediterana. They traveled just one day in open sea. Also bases for resupply with food and water were scarce on the libian coast.

[Krackalackin]

it was obviosuly difficult to conquer Tyre because of its geographic position being on an island. Also the fact that it was held by the Phoenicians the best mariners of the time...with constrol of the sea tyre was impossible to take and i very much doubt the babylonians had much of a navy.

 

i dont think Alexander was that great during this siege. Tyre was going to fall eventually because they were outnumbered and had only a small number of ships at the time.. food was going to run short and with the constant attacks by Alexanders men Tyre had no chance.

 

(i.e alexander is really my area)

 

I disagree on that. If you are familiar with the seige of Tyre you would have read that the Tyrians lived actually quite comfortable during the seige and could have survived there for a great many years. It was a totally preposterous attempt to them for Alexander to try and conquer Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar tried to do it for thirteen years! I think it would be yes to both questions. Tyre has been studied by people for thousands of years and is hailed as the greatest seige ever by most historians and military co's alike. It took The Great seven months to do what no other King was ever capable of doing no matter how much time. Unfortunately for the Tyrians, they didn't realize who they were dealing with until it was too late.

[Rameses the Great]

Out of all the Indian elephants, the 100,000s of Persians, the thing that troubled him most was a small Phoenician population. Could a motivation have been to fight for their lives? All the Persians did was muster a huge army and fought another day.

 

Also did the Tyrians use shiels and swords to protect themselves? The Persians just used nice purple uniforms with short daggers.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Dusitn]

Well this is my first post lol

 

 

 

But in my opinion most great people are not born they are made and him conquering Tyre is just another step towards greatness

 

i mean the guy is mentioned in the bible

 

Ezekiel chapters 27-28 its talks about the fall of Tyre

[ASCLEPIADES]

Well this is my first post lol

 

 

 

But in my opinion most great people are not born they are made and him conquering Tyre is just another step towards greatness

 

i mean the guy is mentioned in the bible

 

Ezekiel chapters 27-28 its talks about the fall of Tyre

Salve, D. Welcome to UNRV.

For the last century or two, the idea of "greatness" has greatly evolved; conquering your neighbours sounds more like Herr Adolf Hitler these days.

 

Ezekiel 27-28 is a lament for Tyre; as Alexander is not explicitly mentioned, anything else is open to subjective interpretation.

Alexander III the Great is explicitly quoted at the beginning of 1 Maccabees (1:1-8), a canonical book for the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the Bible (even if not for Protestants and Jews).

 

"Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him. And he gathered a power, and a very strong army: and his heart was exalted and lifted up. And he subdued countries of nations, and princes: and they became tributaries to him. And after these things, he fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should die. And he called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth: and he divided his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. And Alexander reigned twelve years, and he died."

 

All that said, Panthagatus made some excellent contributions on the posts # 4, 6 and 8 of this same thread.