Oxford Languages says:
Noun – an extremely difficult or involved problem.
….
Brittania says:
Gordian knot – proverbial term
Gordian knot, knot that gave its name to a proverbial term for a problem solvable only by bold action. In 333 BC, Alexander the Great, on his march through Anatolia, reached Gordium, the capital of Phrygia. There he was shown the chariot of the ancient founder of the city, Gordius, with its yoke lashed to the pole by means of an intricate knot with its end hidden. According to tradition, this knot was to be untied only by the future conqueror of Asia. In the popular account, probably invented as appropriate to an impetuous warrior, Alexander sliced through the knot with his sword, but, in earlier versions, he found the ends either by cutting into the knot or by drawing out the pole. The phrase “cutting the Gordian knot” has thus come to denote a bold solution to a complicated problem.
….
Microsoft Bing – Copilot says:
The Gordian Knot is an Ancient Greek legend associated with Alexander the Great. The story takes place in Gordium, a city in Phrygia. Here’s the tale:
- The Knot’s Origin:
- A peasant farmer named Gordias became king of Phrygia. In gratitude, his son Midas dedicated an ox-cart to the Phrygian god Sabazios (whom the Greeks identified with Zeus).
- The ox-cart was tied to a post with an intricate knot made of cornel bark. Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus described it as “several knots all so tightly entangled that it was impossible to see how they were fastened.”
- The Prophecy:
- An oracle declared that whoever could untie this complex knot would become the ruler of all of Asia.
- In 333 BC, Alexander the Great arrived in Phrygia, which was then a satrapy (province) of the Persian Empire.
- Alexander’s Solution:
- Alexander wanted to untie the knot but struggled to do so.
- Instead of laboriously untangling it, he dramatically drew his sword and cut through the knot with a single stroke.
- Some versions suggest he pulled the linchpin from the yoke, exposing the ends of the cord and allowing him to untie it without cutting.
- Regardless of the method, Alexander’s action fulfilled the prophecy.
- Symbolism:
- The Gordian Knot has become a metaphor for a seemingly intractable problem that is solved by exercising brute force.
- It represents the idea that sometimes unconventional solutions are necessary to overcome challenges.
In summary, the Gordian Knot legend reflects both Alexander’s ingenuity and his determination to conquer Asia. Whether he unraveled it or sliced through it, he demonstrated his resourcefulness and decisiveness.
….
In Ahern v R [1988] HCA 39; (1988) 165 CLR 87 (18 August 1988), the High Court of Australia – comprising Mason C.J., Wilson, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ. said:
12. In Reg. v. Finn and Niblock (1985) 1 Qd R. 212, at pp 215-216 McPherson J., speaking for the Court of Criminal Appeal in Queensland, referred to the passage from Phipson and said:
“But that means no more than that evidence of the acts of others may be admitted to prove the existence and nature of the agreement before proof is adduced for the purpose of establishing that the accused was a party to the agreement…. However, when it comes to proving that a particular accused was a party to the agreement – that he participated in the conspiracy – the acts of other persons may not be relied upon. The accused must be connected with the conspiracy by evidence admissible against him according to ordinary principles of the law of evidence…. Participation by the accused in the alleged conspiracy can therefore be established only by evidence of his own acts or admissions and not by the acts or admissions of others, except to the extent that they are shown to have been authorized or adopted by the accused himself. Until such participation is established, the acts of others are available only to show the existence of an agreement and its nature or terms.”
As we read that passage, McPherson J. was expressing the view that the participation of an individual in a conspiracy cannot be proved by evidence of things said or done by other conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy unless that participation is first proved beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence. Such a view is understandable, particularly when it is borne in mind, as it should be, that the other conspirators, whose acts and declarations in the absence of the individual are sought to be used in evidence, may not be available for cross-examination by the individual. It is a view, however, which deprives the evidence of any probative effect, other than with respect to the nature and extent of the conspiracy, by requiring as a prerequisite of its use, proof of the very thing which it is led to prove, namely, that the accused was guilty of conspiracy. The need to cut this Gordian knot has been generally recognized, although there has been no general recognition of the point at which it should be cut.
…..
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Atlantic 3-Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] 2 Qd R 298; [2008] QSC 009, Mullins J (as her Honour then was) said, when considering an application to fix costs:
[37] At the other end of the spectrum are extremely simple cases. In Keen v Telstra Corporation Limited (No 2) [2006] FCA 930 an applicant for judicial review who had been successful before the Federal Court in the review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal obtained a fixed costs order. Rares J referred to the statement in Beach Petroleum about the power to order fixed costs being appropriately used in complex cases and then stated at [6] – [7]:
“6 In my opinion it is also appropriate to be used in cases which are simple and in which there would be utility in the court cutting the Gordian knot of protracted fights about costs which is the hallmark of this particular piece of litigation. It is a commonplace for the court to fix in administrative appeals under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and amount of costs for a successful party.
7 In my opinion, it is appropriate that an amount of costs be fixed by the court so as to prevent yet further argument and delay in finalising this matter.”
