Alexander : a history of the origin and growth of the art of war from ...

434 ALEXANDER'S ABILITY.under conditions demanding it. It is altogether probablethat Alexander woidd have won the battle of Megalopoliswith but a fraction of the loss sustained by Antipater ; it isall but certain that only Alexander would have won Arbela.That Alexander did not always encounter picked troops, byno means reduces his rank. He showed the same great qualitieswhen he did encounter them. He matriculated in warby destroying the Theban Sacred Band, which no troops inGreece had been able to stand against. He never encounteredSpartans, but he beat the Thebans who had vanquishedthese ; and the very Persians whom, at Platsea, Pausaniashad declined to meet till he was forced into battle, were Alexander'sconstant opponents in Asia. Nor must it be forgottenthat the Parthians whom Alexander was at this timeencountering were the same who defeated and destroyed Crassus'seven Roman legions. Shall we say that Grant's Virginiacampaign was more splendid than Vicksburg becausein the one he lost 60,000 men and in the other only 8,000 ?Comparisons such as these are of absolutely no value, for thereputation of a great captain rests on an entirely differentbasis.But such comparisons have been made and it is wellto dissect them. Alexander never gave way In battle ; hefought until he won. That his wonderful impetus and skillcombined enabled him to win quickly and without the severelosses of other battles, is the very highest praise. Nobody candeduce from Alexander's history any conclusion except thathe would, against the best troops ably led, have won any battlewithin the rang^e of human skill and the endurance ofsoldiers to win.Alexander had constantly run great risk by the machinationsof Sparta. But he had been content to trust to goodfortune, the ability of Antipater, and what treasure he couldsend him to prosecute the war. He was never for an instant