It was May of the year 334 B.C.E, and Alexander the Great's invasion of the Persian Empire

had just begun.

For the moment, Alexander's stated goal was to pursue a policy of liberation for Greek

city-states living under Persian rule.

At least, that's what he was telling everybody, and at this point there was no reason to doubt

him.

As the Macedonian expedition into Asia kicked off, it was already at risk of drowning under

its own weight.

Somehow, they managed to send 47,000 people across the Hellespont, but this meant that

they only had enough money to feed and pay them for about a month.

After that, the Macedonian state would become insolvent.

Everything depended on immediately winning some kind of major victory, and using the

spoils of that victory to finance the rest of the campaign.

The whole endeavour was built on a financial house of cards.

Alexander and the Macedonians began their campaign by marching on one of the larger

regional cities.

Capturing this city would solve their financial problem, at least in the short term.

Alexander sent word that the Macedonians were here to liberate the city, only to receive

word back that that they were perfectly happy with Persian governance.

This was not a great start to the campaign.

They were being told that the whole justification for their invasion was incorrect, and that

the locals actually enjoyed the perks of living in the Persian Empire.

Alexander didn't have the time or resources to invest in a proper siege, so he was forced

to leave with his tail between his legs.

One story claims that the locals bribed him to leave their city alone, but there's no

way to verify this.

With one setback under his belt, Alexander marched east.

Along the way, small, undefended villages surrendered to him, but this was purely symbolic.

In order to really shake things up, the Macedonians would need to capture a major city, or win

a decisive victory against the Persian.

By the way, where were they?

While this was going on, a council of Persian governors were deciding how they should respond

to the Macedonian invasion.

One of the people invited to this meeting was a man named Memnon of Rhodes, a Greek

national working for the Persians, who was in charge of a division of Greek mercenaries.

Memnon was familiar with Macedon, and more importantly he was familiar with the Macedonian

economy.

He knew that this tiny country must be bleeding itself dry in order to field an army of this

size.

With this in mind, Memnon advocated a scorched-earth policy.

Burn the crops, evacuate the towns, and pull back.

Use the Persian fleet to cut the Macedonians off from the Greek mainland.

By the end of the year, he argued, the Macedonians would be suing for peace without the need

for any bloodshed.

The Persian governors looked at Memnon like he's lost his damn mind.

This Greek was advising them not to attack the invading Greek army.

The governors rejected his advice.

Instead, they decided to combine their forces, and attack the Macedonians directly.

By the way, history tells us that Memnon was nothing but loyal.

A retreat would have been politically hard to justify, but his analysis was correct.

A scorched-earth policy would have confounded the Macedonian plans.

Instead, the Persians were doing exactly what Alexander wanted them to do.

Before too long, Alexander started to hear reports that there was a Persian army waiting

for him near the Granicus river, only a day's march away.

He immediately set out to meet them, and arrived some time in the mid-afternoon.

The Persians had sensibly taken a defensive position on the other side of the river.

The river was crossable on foot, but the banks were unusually muddy and steep.

Climbing the banks of the river in the middle of a battle would totally mess up the Macedonian

phalanxes, and would grind any potential cavalry charge to a halt.

Estimates for the sizes of the two armies vary wildly in all directions, but the historical

consensus is that the Macedonians had between 35 and 50,000 men, and the Persians had between

35 and 40,000, giving the Macedonians a slight numerical advantage.

My own personal theory is that the real Macedonian number was around 47,000, and that the discrepancy

comes from some of the ancient sources forgetting to count the 10,000 Macedonians that were

already in Asia waiting for Alexander to arrive.

Plus, we have reliable numbers from later battles, so you either have to argue that

the Macedonian army magically grew over time, or that the army started out at the larger

end of the spectrum.

Anyways, reasonable people disagree, but in my opinion the Macedonians had 47,000 men,

and the Persians had between 35 and 40,000.

Memnon of Rhodes was present with his 5 or 6,000 elite Greek mercenaries, but even with

his help, the Persians knew that they were outclassed in the infantry department.

However, they also had with them between 10 and 20,000 of some of the best heavy cavalry

in the world, which was double or triple the number that Macedon had.

The Persians placed their cavalry at the front of their line, ready to charge as soon as

the Macedonians reached the bank of the river.

They would hold their light infantry and Greek mercenaries in reserve.

It was not entirely clear how the Macedonians should proceed.

It was late in the day, and the Granicus river stood between them and the enemy.

What should they do?

Alexander's second in command, Parmenion, advised him to encamp for the night, and wait.

He argued that since the Macedonians had superior numbers, the Persians might want to pull back

and wait for reinforcements.

If so, the Macedonians should just let them.

In Parmenion's opinion, attacking across the river was an unnecessary risk.

Alexander responded, saying something like, "it would be a disgrace if, after crossing

the Hellespont, this tiny river stood in our way for even a moment."

He also went on about the courage and valour of the Macedonian people, blah blah blah,

a bunch of nonsense.

For the record, historians seriously disagree over whether or not this conversation actually

took place.

It pops up in one of our less reliable ancient sources, and it kicks off a pattern that repeats

itself over and over again, where Alexander is faced with a problem, Parmenion suggests

a rational solution, and Alexander does the exact opposite.

Many have argued - and it's a legitimate argument - that we're not really supposed to take these

conversations at face value, but instead see them more as a literary device created by

the authour to highlight Alexander's unique style of leadership.

So, if we're not sure that this conversation happened, why did I include it here?

Well, if Parmenion wasn't giving this kind of advice, he definitely should have been.

Attacking across a river after a long day's march is a very bad idea!

Parmenion knew this!

But his advice went unheeded.

Alexander ordered an immediate attack across the river.

The Macedonians deployed for battle, with their heavy infantry in the centre, and the

Companion cavalry on the wings.

The king would take command of the right flank, and Parmenion would take command of the left.

The Persians could see Alexander, with his distinctive armour and his bodyguards, and

re-positioned some of their own cavalry in response.

Alexander initiated the battle by ordering his centre to advance, sending his heavy infantry

and some cavalry into the river.

The Persians hit the Macedonians with every arrow at their disposal as they slowly made

their way across the river.

Then, on the Macedonian right, Alexander charged with his Companion cavalry.

Parmenion on the left did the same.

But unlike Parmenion, Alexander and his cavalry didn't go straight across the river.

Instead, they crossed at a sharp angle, ignoring the enemy opposite them, and heading straight

for the Persian centre.

When they got up the bank of the river, they charged.

Suddenly the Macedonian Companion cavalry, lead by the king himself, were in the midst

of the Persian lines, fighting in all directions at once.

There was a violent, chaotic struggle.

One source describes the cavalry being crammed so tightly together that they were fighting

more like infantry, standing still and hacking away with their swords and spears in order

to make incremental gains.

Alexander was right there in the middle of this.

His ancient Trojan shield took several direct hits, and his distinctive armour attracted

a lot of Persian attention.

At some point Alexander's spear snapped, and he had to grab another one from his bodyguard.

It was intense.

It wasn't long before a second wave of Persian cavalry arrived to reinforce the centre.

Alexander rallied the Companions, and charged for a second time.

Mid-charge, somebody threw a javelin right at the king, but Alexander managed to catch

it with his Trojan shield.

He yanked the javelin free, and then charged straight at the person who threw it, one of

the enemy cavalry commanders.

Alexander and the Persian cavalry commander met on the battlefield.

Alexander's spear took the Persian in the chest, puncturing his armour and wounding

the rider.

The impact snapped the metal tip off of Alexander's spear, rendering the weapon useless.

Although he was wounded, the cavalry commander stayed on his horse.

Sword in hand, he prepared to strike Alexander down, who was basically just sitting there

holding a big stick.

As a last resort, Alexander gave one final thrust with his broken spear.

Macedonians were deadly accurate with these weapons, and it paid off here, because the

splintered end of the spear hit the Persian rider right in the face, knocking him off

his horse.

Alexander's victory was short lived, because while he was doing this, another Persian came

up behind him, lodging his sword into the back of the king's head, cutting clean through

his helmet and into his scalp.

Dazed, Alexander was somehow able to draw his own sword, and kill his attacker.

While his back was turned, a third Persian rider charged, sword in the air, ready to

kill the king.

At the last moment, one of Alexander's personal bodyguards named Cleitus the Black - which

is just the best name ever - cut the guy's arm off, saving the king's life.

Alexander's personal bodyguards rallied to his side and fought some kind of defensive

action around the king.

Our sources don't explicitly say why this happened, but some people believe that it's

because Alexander fell unconscious.

This makes the most sense to me, but I want to make it clear that none of the ancient

sources actually say this.

While Alexander was perhaps unconscious on the ground, the Macedonian heavy infantry

were still trickling across the river.

Just take a moment to appreciate how much of a disaster this was.

Their king was wounded, perhaps unconscious, perhaps even dying, they didn't know, and

the majority of the Macedonian army had yet to join the battle.

Parmenion was right.

Alexander's charge across the river had indeed been reckless, and, one could argue, downright

stupid.

But, say what you will about Alexander's recklessness, the Companion cavalry did create a enough

space for the Macedonian infantry get themselves across the river.

Once they were back in formation, they slowly began to push the Persian cavalry back.

Now that the infantry was in the fight, the Companion cavalry got a few minutes to recover.

In no time at all, Alexander was back up on his horse again.

The Persian centre was beginning to cave, which meant that it was time to commit their

reserves.

The Greek mercenaries were well disciplined and held their own, but the Persian light

infantry were inexperienced and ill-equipped.

The Macedonian phalanxes continued to gain ground.

At this key moment, Parmenion, who had been conservatively fighting on the left this entire

time, lead an incredibly well-timed cavalry charge.

This sent most of the Persians into a full route.

The elite Greek mercenaries, however, would not budge.

The exhausted Macedonian phalanxes ground to a halt.

Alexander, still addled from taking a sword to the head, attempted to rally the army by

leading a third cavalry charge against the Greek mercenaries.

During this charge, Alexander's horse was killed and the king was thrown to the ground

for a second time.

Hopefully at this point somebody told him to take a knee, and cool it with the near-death

experiences.

The final bit of fighting was tough, but the outcome was inevitable.

The Greek mercenaries couldn't take on the entire Macedonian army.

They eventually surrendered.

Let's talk about losses.

All of the 5 or 6,000 Greek mercenaries were killed or captured, but because of this, the

Macedonians never had a chance to pursue the fleeing Persians, which made their losses

remarkably small.

Only around 2,500 Persian cavalry were killed.

We don't know how many Persian light infantry were lost, but probably not that many, since

they were held back for most of the battle.

The Persian defeat was decisive, and yet over three quarters of their army escaped.

They got lucky.

The Macedonian losses even smaller than that.

According to our sources, it's possible that as few as 150 Macedonians were killed.

That number sounds way too low - and it probably is, again, our sources suck - but bear in

mind that 10 times that number would have been wounded as well.

Whatever the real number is, it's remarkable that so few Macedonians were lost.

It's even more remarkable considering how the king's recklessness almost got him killed

multiple times.

Alexander was victorious, but he still had massive financial problems.

Remember, he had repealed taxation back home, and the entire apparatus of state was basically

running off of the spoils of conquest.

He looted the enemy camp and sent whatever treasure he could find back home, but frankly

there wasn't much there.

In desperation, he enslaved the captured Greek mercenaries and sent them back to Macedon

to work in the mines.

Enslaving his fellow Greeks was not good P.R. considering that the whole justification for

this war was the liberation of the Greek people.

Anyways, the spoils from the Battle of the Granicus did buy Alexander a few more months.

If he could use that time to capture a major city, his financial problems would go away.

This was achievable, since the Western Persian Empire now stood largely undefended.

However, success brought with it new problems.

What had begun as a minor border issue had become an existential threat to the Persian

Empire.

Darius III of Persia, King of Kings, finally took notice, and ordered an army assembled

so that he meet this threat, personally.