The Gates of India: Being an Historical NarrativeHoldich, Thomas Hungerford, Sir
History
The Gates of India: Being an Historical Narrative
Holdich, Thomas Hungerford, Sir
Afghanistan -- Description and travel; Balochistan (Pakistan) -- Description and travel
Alexander's next movements from Embolina most clearly indicate that he
had to deal with a mountain position. There is no getting away from
it, nor from the fact that the road to it was passable for horsemen,
and therefore not insuperably difficult. At the same time he had to
move as slowly as any modern force would move, for he was traversing
the rough spurs of a hill which ran to 7800 feet in altitude. Further,
the mountain was high enough to render signalling by fire useful. The
"rock" was obviously either a mountain itself or it was perched on the
summit of a mountain. Ptolemy as usual had conducted the
reconnaissance. He established himself unobserved in a temporary
position on the crest, within reach of the enemy, who attempted to
dispossess him and failed; and it was he who (according to the story)
signalled to Alexander. Ptolemy had followed a route, with guides,
which proved rough and difficult, and Alexander's attempt to join him
next day was prevented by the fierce activity of the mountaineers, who
were plainly fighting from the mountain spurs. Then, it is said,
Alexander communicated with Ptolemy by night and arranged a combined
plan of attack. When it "was almost night" of the following day
Alexander succeeded in joining Ptolemy, but only after severe fighting
during the ascent. Then the combined forces attacked the "rock" and
failed. All this so far is plain unvarnished mountain warfare, and the
incidents follow each other as naturally as in any modern campaign. It
becomes clear that the "rock" was a position on the crest of a high
mountain, the ascent of which was rendered doubly difficult by fierce
opposition. But it was practicable. Nothing is said about cavalry
ascending. Why, then, did Alexander take cavalry? This question leads
to another. Why do our frontier generals always burden themselves with
cavalry on these frontier expeditions? They cannot act on the
mountain-sides, and they are useless for purposes of pursuit. The
answer is that they are most valuable for preserving the line of
communication. Without the cavalry Alexander had no overwhelming force
at his disposal, and it would not be very hazardous if we assumed that
the force which actually reached the crest of the mountain was a
comparatively small one--much of the original brigade being dispersed
on the route.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account